Thursday, 30 July 2026

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:01): I rise to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2026. In doing so I note that this bill is largely a regulatory reform bill that is making amendments to four key specific areas, and I will speak to those. They are the accreditation for the assisted reproductive treatment sector under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, incorporation of documents in relation to the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003, responsibility for cooling towers under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and the disposal of radiation sources under the Radiation Act 2005.

The provisions in this bill will be administered and enforced by the health regulator. I want to thank the minister’s office for providing the briefing and also answering questions that I had in relation to a number of areas given the feedback I received from various stakeholders that will be impacted by this bill. I do want to raise some of the concerns around stakeholder feedback in the committee stage but also in my speech in a moment.

If I can go to the first part of the bill, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 amendment, this bill will amend that act, as I said, to require registered ART providers to comply with an approved accreditation scheme. It gives the Department of Health secretary wider powers relating to registration and inspection of premises and gives the minister power to cancel registration in specific circumstances. These changes implement recommendations of the rapid review. They establish a new accreditation scheme for ART providers administered by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC), which replaces the current requirement to be accredited by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee, the RTAC. Effectively what the bill is aiming to do is strengthen the regulatory scheme, ensuring that the regulatory framework operates independently from the accreditation scheme. What the bill also does is provide the secretary with wideranging discretionary powers to grant, review, vary or refuse ART provider registration applications based on specific assessment criteria. The minister is given the power to cancel registration on specified grounds; for instance, if a clinic breaks rules or regulations such as not complying with licence conditions, fails accreditation, poses a health and safety risk, commits an offence or is no longer a suitable operator, for example, on the basis of past offences or compliance history.

What the bill also does is address the need for stronger oversight and regulation of IVF clinics following a series of very serious incidents involving transfers of the wrong embryo, including a woman giving birth to a stranger’s baby, which has been widely reported on and was very concerning and very alarming for all those involved. I just want to go to that point, because IVF is a very important part of our health system. There are thousands of families that undergo IVF, and it can be incredibly challenging. It is a very complex area of medicine, and it does deal with various areas, whether they are medical, psychological or genetic complexities involved for people that are undergoing IVF. I do think that this state especially has been very, very significant in the pioneering work that has gone on in this field, and the benefits to so many families are immeasurable, but unfortunately this couple of very serious incidents have happened, and that review was required to be undertaken. I understand that, for the patients that have been involved in those bungles, there is a class action that was actioned, and that has been settled, but it goes to the point of the very dangerous complications of such serious issues.

As a result, in response to the very concerning developments that had occurred, all Australian health ministers commissioned a national rapid review in June 2025 and agreed to its recommendations in September 2025. The rapid review found multiple failures of the current system. It found that under the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee, or RTAC, the industry’s current compliance monitoring is insufficient, and the enforcement powers were found to have been limited. The main recommendation was a move away from industry self-regulation to government oversight, with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) to be responsible for accreditation of fertility clinics. It is a body that already oversees accreditation of hospitals and other health services, so it made sense that it came under that body. The review essentially endorsed the findings of a federal review of governance and standards in ART and the IVF sector across Australia by the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand, FSANZ, led by former federal health minister the Honourable Greg Hunt, who commissioned it in 2024. It is a very good review that was undertaken, and the findings and recommendations provide for a framework for an Australian 10-year fertility road map. Reading through this report, it raises some excellent points but also some very excellent recommendations, and I think all governments have actually used it as a basis to come to some recommendations, which this bill will ensure will be undertaken.

The bill also provides stronger enforcement, including penalties for breaching the stricter accreditation requirements. As I said, I should also note that FSANZ, the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand, recommended this national fertility road map. It would replace 30 different pieces of legislation governing ART and IVF practices across Australia, and I think that is an important point to make in relation to that particular report, which is why I think it was very widely regarded and taken into consideration when the state and federal ministers met last year to look at the current issues that we are debating today. Those stricter accreditation requirements, however, are designed to align Victoria’s legislative framework with the national accreditation framework being developed by the ACSQHC. As I also said, all health ministers agreed to the recommendations of the rapid review. IVF providers are supportive of a regulatory framework that improves safety, quality and accountability in relation to fertility services, yet they have concerns about the implementation of these changes in this legislation. I just want to relate or provide some of that in my contribution.

When I asked for feedback, some of the feedback I received from the providers included, ‘The introduction of this bill has taken us and others in the ART sector by surprise, as we were not consulted on any aspects of the bill before its introduction into Parliament.’ I find this a bit concerning in relation to – they are very supportive of the safety changes – that lack of consultation. They also made the point that the current indicative timeframes are for draft standards to be made available for testing from January 2027 and for all ART providers to be transitioned to the new scheme by December 2028. There were other concerns around the bill by other stakeholders, and I will speak to that in the committee stage. They were wanting ongoing consultation with fertility specialists, obstetricians, gynaecologists, embryologists, nurses and consumers to ensure that the regulatory requirements remain practical, proportionate and clinically informed. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, for instance, support the objective of improving patient safety, as I said, but also made the comment to me that patients accessing fertility treatment frequently present with complex clinical circumstances. That is why they do want that ongoing consultation with government, because they are concerned that the regulatory settings are perceived as overly punitive and that may contribute to risk-averse practice behaviours, potentially discouraging providers from caring for patients with more complex needs despite treatment being clinically appropriate.

I did mention some of those complexities, but as they say, the complex clinical circumstances include advanced maternal age, recurrent pregnancy loss, genetic conditions, significant medical comorbidities, donor conception arrangements and psychosocial vulnerabilities, as well as those other medical, psychological and genetic complicating factors that many women and parents are subjected to. As I have said, there has been a lack of clarity around implementation and insufficient consultation with industry and clinical experts before the introduction of the legislation. Increased regulation may result in higher compliance costs, especially for small providers, and be passed on in higher costs to patients. The replacement of RTAC before national accreditation scheme is finalised has a duplicating effect. Although I think there has been some clarity around that in relation to the secretary’s powers, nevertheless there is that duplicating impact. There is the significant expansion of powers to inspect premises due to potential risks to restore biological material and patient privacy. I do thank the department for providing some assurance in relation to those concerns that I did put to them, and I will tease that out a bit more in committee. That is the ART component of the bill.

If I can move to the next part of the regulatory framework, which goes to the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act, which this bill also amends, it allows documents to be incorporated into regulations to help streamline processes. The bill expands regulation-making powers in relation to the incorporation of documents and allows documents such as clinical protocols to be incorporated into regulations when they are updated, and I do have questions around that. While it appears to be a minor change, the change to regulations is very broad, allowing the incorporation into the regulations of ‘any matter in any document’. In response to questions in the bill briefing the minister’s office said this reform enables dynamic referencing in the legislation to the most up-to-date version of clinical practice protocols. Even though it sounds quite minor, it may have wider implications, and I do want to tease that out in the committee stage.

The amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 relating to cooling towers amend this part of the act to ensure the person responsible for control and management of cooling tower systems is identified as the appropriate person to take on primary obligations and responsibility for breaches. There are approximately 3000 cooling towers in Victoria, so there are a lot. They, as everyone would know, are used for evaporative cooling in large buildings, including in both residential and commercial sites. But these towers pose a significant public risk at times. We have all heard of legionella outbreaks. Legionnaire’s disease can be attributed to cooling towers, and it can lead to potentially a very fatal pneumonia if legionnaire’s is detected.

Under the current act the owner of the land on which the building stands must prepare and implement a risk management plan and ensure an annual audit takes place. The amendments in this bill reflect the fact that a person other than the owner of the land can be managing and controlling the operations of the cooling system, and they are therefore the most appropriate person to ensure the health and safety obligations are met. For example, property or facilities management companies or managers, lessees, occupiers or owners corporations that are separate from the landowner are often very much more in touch with their tenants and are maintaining various parts of the buildings, and therefore they are much closer, so they will have that reflected in understanding the management of cooling towers so as to hopefully prevent the outbreak of legionnaire’s.

If I can go to the last part that I would like to speak on part 5, where the Radiation Act 2005 amendments introduce a financial surety scheme to cover the cost of the disposal of radiation sources. These changes are intended to align Victoria’s legislation with the nationally agreed radiation protection standards, which the Commonwealth, states and territories signed up to in 2021. The government contends that disposal of disused radioactive sources is not always managed by licence-holders in a timely manner and the government is left to bear the cost and associated risk of disposal. What this bill does is introduce a financial security scheme for licence-holders and offences for breaching obligations for safe disposal. The feedback from stakeholders in relation to this was very thorough, I have to say, and I do thank them for providing the very comprehensive feedback to me. They outlined, literally clause by clause, their comments and any concerns, and I do have a couple of questions in relation to this. It should be noted that this bill is addressing those radiation sources in things like medicine, science and research and other areas. They are quite widely used. It is probably not understood how wide the need for safe radiation source disposal is, given the use by various aspects of the overall industry of radiation sources. The feedback was that there were some parts that they thought were much needed and they thought were reasonable in relation to just that disposal, having that safety and having the overall guidelines to direct companies and organisations that are dealing with the radiation sources that I spoke of.

There is just one thing I would like to also raise. During the bill briefing the officials were somewhat evasive or were not able to answer questions about the consultation that took place with the EPA and the advice received. They confirmed that consultation had occurred but it was not completed as yet. Proceeding to introduce the bill before that consultation had been completed raises some concerns. I would have thought that would have been an obvious thing to do, given it is dealing with the transportation of this radiation waste, to see what concerns the EPA had. Nevertheless, we are here discussing it now. Hopefully they have been able to get some of that reassurance from the various industries on the questions that were asked. I do want to say again: thank you for providing the responses that you have provided around some of the questions that we had. I did want to just make that point about the EPA, because the answer back was:

The proposed reforms have been informed by the financial assurance provisions contained in the Environment Protection Act.

That was the advice that was sought from the Environment Protection Authority in developing the amendments to the Radiation Act, and the department’s advice was:

That act enables the Environment Protection Authority to require and claim financial assurance to cover cleanup and remediation costs in relation to other types of waste or contamination. This Bill applies the same principle to radiation safety: that those who create or control risk should bear the cost of managing it, noting that many different types of entities across industrial sectors and the health system hold radiation sources.

That was very much my point earlier. But I do note that there are organisations like veterinary practices or, as I said, science and research medicine – there are many, many areas and many organisations – that are currently dealing with radioactive material. I think it is good that we have got these guidelines and frameworks in place to be able to deal with these radiation sources.

With those few comments in relation to this bill, I note that it is not a bill that is contentious at all. It is an important bill to have some frameworks and guidelines in these areas considering some of the issues that have arisen in the public domain – very serious issues. I refer to the ones earlier regarding the ART and IVF bungles. All health ministers and the federal government are also working on streamlining and getting national guidelines to ensure that there are appropriate frameworks in place, that there is appropriate accreditation in place and that there is appropriate regulation in place so that we do have safe practices in this very complex area of medicine. Again I say the Liberals and Nationals will not be opposing this bill, but I look forward to the committee stage to getting some further clarity around a number of questions.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:22): I rise to make a contribution on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2026. The bill seeks to amend the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, the Radiation Act 2005 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Principally, these amendments are directed to streamlining and strengthening registration and licensing requirements with a view to keeping all Victorians safe and healthy across a number of important domains. I will go to the particular areas of interest in regard to this bill. They are important, and today presents a good opportunity to introduce these important reforms.

Effectively, these amendments are principally designed to strengthen and streamline these registration requirements, but also there will be other technical amendments made to the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003. While those amendments are minor, they will deliver important clarification to the act that ensures regulations keep pace with updates to clinical protocols. The reforms that are outlined in the bill will then be administered and enforced by the health regulator, a branch of the department which was established in early 2024 to consolidate regulatory functions and enable the department to adopt a more consistent and risk-based regulatory framework.

The health regulations, as we would all appreciate in here, overall play a very key role in minimising and preventing the risk of harm to the health or safety of Victorians. We can see that on display with this bill, which protects Victorians from, for example, the spread of legionella bacteria. As we know, we are talking about cooling towers, and I will get to that in a moment. It also ensures that radioactive material is disposed of safely. Also for Victorians starting a family, who might be looking at accessing IVF, it looks at those people who might want to access that technology to give them confidence that their assisted reproductive treatment will be of the highest quality. The amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 are targeted to ensure that Victoria stands ready to implement the recommendations of the national Rapid Review of Assisted Reproductive Technology and In Vitro Fertilisation Regulation and Accreditation in Australia. It is important that Victoria as a jurisdiction keeps pace with any changes that might be introduced nationally.

An independent national accreditation framework for assisted reproductive technology providers is being developed by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. We want to make sure we have appropriate safety and quality standards that are rigorous and guarantee as much as possible safety and confidence when people are accessing ART. The framework will ensure that the assisted reproductive technology sector operates in a way that is safe and transparent, and this bill ensures that Victoria stands ready to adopt this framework once it is finished. The bill will also introduce a stronger registration framework so that when ART providers register in Victoria people can have confidence that all appropriate due diligence has been conducted into the organisation’s compliance history, finances and governance. It ensures rigour around any organisations who want to enter this space and provide services.

The amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 also constitute a critical step in protecting Victorians from the spread of legionella bacteria. Legionella can cause legionnaires disease, a form of pneumonia that can be fatal. Unfortunately, cooling towers can be a key vector for the spread of legionella bacteria, which is why a strong regulatory framework is required to monitor them under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. For example, the amendments that are being proposed will ensure that a person responsible for managing a cooling tower can be investigated for any breaches of regulation and that appropriate action can be taken quickly to remedy breaches. Because obviously when there is some kind of outbreak, it is really important to contain it to prevent legionella spreading. This will help contain, manage and prevent that spread going forward, which is a measure all Victorians can support and will appreciate.

The bill also seeks to amend the Radiation Act 2005. Again, this is to bring the legislation into line with the National Directory for Radiation Protection. It will enable a financial surety scheme which is analogous to legislation in place in South Australia and New South Wales and which will cover the cost of the disposal of radiation sources and create an offence related to the disposal of radiation sources if it is not in accordance with the framework. This is an important protective and proactive step that will ensure that where licence holders for any reason are unable to dispose of a disused radiation source safely and properly, the health regulator can ensure that the disposal occurs and has appropriate funding available to do so.

With these amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act the Carroll Labor government is making IVF clinics safer and more accountable. There have been, unfortunately, a series of concerning and highly distressing incidents involving private IVF providers. These incidents quite rightly resulted in increased public discussion, particularly around safety and quality in the sector, and governments across the country responded with a national rapid review in 2025. This was led by the Victorian Department of Health. The recommendations of that review were agreed to by health ministers in September 2025, and we are now taking action to implement them. These actions are squarely aimed at giving confidence to Victorians who are accessing assisted reproductive technology. It is obviously a very difficult time and the last thing you want to worry about is the quality or the accountability of the place that you are seeking assistance from. The rapid review also identifies the state and territory regulatory authorities. It will take a proactive, risk-based approach to compliance monitoring in regard to this and will also then deliver tools that will enable decisive, proportionate action to be taken that will effectively deter misconduct.

In addition to this the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care is developing a new accreditation framework for IVF providers, and this will also ensure tougher scrutiny is required to attain accreditation. The new accreditation framework will be independent, whereas the current framework is industry based. We need to have that independence and rigour around the framework to ensure that anybody who is wanting to enter the field of ART provision can stand up to the rigours of the framework. The amendments in this bill will ensure that the Victorian legislative and regulatory framework is ready to align with the national accreditation framework and standards as soon as they are finalised. Under the current registration provisions, for example, the secretary has no discretion to refuse an application from a provider that has been accredited previously, and further there is no power to suspend registration of an accreditation provider and there is no power to cancel that registration. These aspects of the framework clearly require updating. As you can see and as I remarked upon earlier, we have had some really sad, tragic examples of where private providers have failed people accessing that technology. You can see that the departments and the secretary have no power to actually take any cogent action in regard to this, so this bill will provide a clearer approach and give clear powers to the department to take strong action.

The bill will also give the secretary a full suite of discretionary powers to grant, renew, vary or refuse ART, and the bill will also provide for registration applications based on specified assessment criteria. This will ensure the decision about whether a provider has a legal authority to operate in Victoria rests clearly with the regulator. That is entirely appropriate. The bill also introduces a power for the minister to cancel registration on specified grounds, and the bill defers commencement of the offence for failure to comply with conditions on registration to allow the current conditions on registration to be reviewed and updated in alignment with the upcoming new accreditation standards before the offence applies. In the interim the conditions on the registration continue to apply and a range of enforcement actions are available for noncompliance. The amendments also introduce a standard three-year registration period, with an option for this timeframe to be shorter if the department identifies any concerns or risks with a provider. There is lots more I can say on this, but I know my colleagues will also want to make some contributions on the remainder of these provisions.

I do just want to pivot quickly to some comments that I note Ms Crozier made around consultation in regard to this bill. I think it is important to get these comments on the record in the 4 minutes and 20 seconds I have left. The Department of Health consulted with assisted reproductive providers via two duplicate webinars to outline the proposed reforms and seek any feedback and via a survey to ask more targeted questions about potential concerns or anticipated impacts. All registered providers were sent invitations to the webinars and a copy of the webinar presentation, and all registered providers were also sent links to the survey so they could participate in that consultation process. Consultation underscored the importance of clear and coordinated communication about the accreditation reforms and the Victorian legislative reforms, including timeframes, transition arrangements and timely communication about implementation of the Victorian registration changes, including registration fees and arrangements for the exercise of inspection powers. As you can see, those things were clearly articulated to the sector. The department is continuing to liaise with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care to ensure coordination of design and implementation of the two schemes and related communication to providers. During the drafting of the bill the department also met with the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand and the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and other jurisdictions to discuss the reforms and will continue liaising with them to support implementation. Department representatives also presented to the donor conception advisory group on 28 May 2026 about the proposed reforms, and the department will continue to engage with stakeholders to further build an understanding of the proposed assisted reproductive technology reforms and seek input on implementation.

There was also further consultation conducted on the amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act. So as you can see, there are a range of things that are being covered in this bill. Of course we have consulted with industries and sectors, and I note Ms Crozier will be seeking further information on some of these things in committee.

I will just say this in closing: our health regulatory framework keeps Victorians healthy and safe each and every day, as we have seen in our discussions on the bill. As I have outlined, you can see some of the reasons for these changes. We have seen in media reporting, as I remarked upon earlier, some very distressing situations where people have accessed reproductive technology and there have been problems, things have gone wrong, and it has been quite distressing for those people. So as a consequence of a review and national changes we need to make sure our scheme is also fit for purpose. There are also some changes in regard to the disposal of radioactive waste and the like that comes from the health sector. Again, we want to make sure that radioactive material is disposed of safely. We can prevent the spread of legionella bacteria. That is why we want to make sure that the regulator can ensure that people who are in charge of cooling towers are doing things in accordance with any regulations and frameworks.

As I have already remarked upon, we want to make sure our assisted reproductive technology sector operates safely and reliably. The framework cannot exist and it certainly cannot be managed or enforced without the hardworking staff within the health sector. I want to take the opportunity very quickly just to thank all of our hardworking staff, bureaucrats and public health officials who work in this sector and for regulators because they do a really important job in making sure that our health systems are up to scratch and compliant with regulatory frameworks.

In closing I might say we can be absolutely sure of one thing: if the Liberal–One Nation government should ever be elected, there will be $40 billion in cuts, and those will definitely occur in our health sector. We already know that that is part of Jess Wilson’s plan to cut one in seven public servant jobs, and that will include health workers. The staff who work with the health regulator are health workers, and they keep Victorians safe each and every day. None of us can afford to have a Liberal–One Nation government. I commend the bill.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:37): I am pleased to rise today to make a few brief comments on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2026. Indeed my colleague the hardworking Shadow Minister for Health Ms Crozier has gone into quite significant detail in relation to what is a regulatory bill that is improving the regulation of a variety of very important acts and issues in the public health space. We were going along very well in a considered view until the last 30 seconds of the previous member’s contribution, which was quite disappointing hyperbole with absolutely no substantial truth to it at all. In fact it was a nice fabrication – disappointing on a very important bill.

This bill looks to really bed down some of the major recommendations from a rapid review. In particular it amends the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 to require that registered ART providers comply with approved accreditation schemes. It gives the Department of Health and the Minister for Health far greater powers to ensure that the companies and facilities running this very important service are inspected at a high degree but also provides the minister with the ability to cancel registration under specific circumstances. Certainly the Nationals and Liberals support that important work.

In terms of the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003 I just want to put on record here that this is in relation to changing and adopting or incorporating by reference any matter contained in any document as amended from time to time as well as those documents in force at the date that regulations come into operation or any date before then. It is important that these services run to their maximum efficiency and, indeed, incorporating those back-end documents is really important.

I do want to take this moment to provide a shout-out to the Royal Flying Doctor Service and indeed the community transport element of that particular charity. These people operate under that act, and they deserve our significant gratitude for a vital service that occurs in regional Victoria. I think it was probably a couple of months ago now, in Foster in South Gippsland, based at the Foster hospital, that this Gippsland operation met for one of their monthly meetings to sit around the table. There were probably around a dozen to 20 volunteers, coordinated by a central point, who shared their experiences as to how they enrich the lives at a very pivotal point in the lives of members in our community. Quite often they are very mature members, our elderly members of the community, that either do not have a car or do not feel that they are able to access facilities, whether they be travelling to Wonthaggi for specialist doctor appointments or up to Leongatha or over to the Latrobe Valley, to the Latrobe Regional Hospital.

This community-based patient transfer is so vital; it is vital to meeting those appointments. It is also significant – and this was one of the things embedded in my understanding on the day – that sometimes this can be some of the only real contact that those people have with others, because of that patient transfer. Not only is it a service, it is a link, a connection, a communication that is really vital and so needed. So I put on record my sincere thanks to all of those volunteers. Quite often they are retired. In fact one was a retired teacher who taught me at Foster high school. I just really want to place on record the importance of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. That charity is vital, the important work that they do, specifically in this patch in South Gippsland, but I know they operate out of Bairnsdale and they operate in other sectors right around regional Victoria. We are indebted to their service. They often say that they are so enriched by that two-way interaction. Not only do they provide that service but they also gain the wisdom, experience and friendship of people who need that service. I thank them and put them on record in a very humble way. And I think, wherever we finish, when we finish our working life, there are many opportunities to volunteer, and the Royal Flying Doctor Service community transfer is just one of those.

Just to round out with some other comments, the bill amends the Radiation Act 2005 to introduce a financial surety scheme to cover the cost of disposal of radiation sources. I think that, again, is a very important facilitation and improvement. Again, this has come from recommendations. To conclude my short contribution there, we want to make sure that the amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 help to ensure that there is an appropriate person that takes responsibility for managing the safety of cooling towers to minimise health risks. We do not have too many cooling towers in regional Victoria, but there certainly were a number of years ago. It was devastating when there was a legionnaire’s outbreak. They are vital to keeping our commerce and industry working certainly in more built-up and civic areas of our state. With that, I know that, likewise with Ms Crozier, the Nationals will not be opposing this bill before us today.

Nick McGowan: On a point of order, Acting President, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): As I believe it, we are still under the rules from much earlier in the piece to do with the pandemic. As long as I am satisfied that there are enough people in the precinct, we are good to go. I am satisfied there are enough people in the precinct.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (10:45): I am very pleased to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2026. I want to start by giving a little bit of context. What is the health context that our Victorian health system sits within nationally and even globally? In Australia we have a government-run universal health system. Essentially that means that Australians contribute to the cost of running the government owned and operated health system, and for that contribution they get free health care for the course of their life. That is probably a slight simplification, because we also run a private system beside it, which Australians can choose to join in with if they wish.

One of the other phenomena in our universal system and resulting from a universal system is that often the care that you receive as an Australian better reflects your health needs than the amount of money you have or your ability to pay. For instance, a family member of mine, my father-in-law, was elderly – he has since passed – and had some health issues. He lived in Geelong and got some terrific care in Geelong. It turned out it was a complicated issue. He was sent to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. When the team that had a look at his problem met after looking at the tests they decided that the professor, the educator, the leader of that team, the best person in Australia, would conduct the operation on him because it was complicated. That is an example of someone using the public health system and getting the absolute best care available regardless of their ability to pay. Ironically, one of the members of my husband’s family is an American. We were leaving the hospital after the procedure, and she said, ‘So how do we pay?’ I was nearly floored that I had to give a two-line explanation of, ‘All Australians contribute through a tax system, and therefore we get free health. They will not need to pay for that’ – and she was floored. I think the contrast between a private system and a public system is stark.

I will just give you an example of that, because in the USA they have a private system with a very, very minimal or small public system. One of the measures used to compare, for instance, a universal health system versus a privately run health system is the average age of death of the population. In Australia the average age of death for Australians for a woman is currently 85 years old and for a man 81. Sorry, that is not good news, but that is the health data that is available at the moment. In the USA the average age of death for a woman is 81, the same as for men here; for males, the average age of death is 76. That is a five-year difference in both, and the difference is that our health system provides better health care and better prevention and is better funded because it is funded by every single Australian that pays tax. I wanted to give that as context before I go on with this bill.

Our universal health system is not only providing health services across the state in primary and tertiary health care but also research and world’s best practice areas. We lead the nation; we lead the world in some health areas. We have got a lot to be proud of in our health space, but there are always areas for improvement, and one of those areas in Victoria is being addressed today.

This bill is about keeping Victorians safe. Our Labor government – our Carroll government – backs the hospitals and health care that Victorian families rely on. Those services are backed by our health regulatory framework that keeps Victorians healthy and safe every day. The regulatory framework ensures that the standard of care is not only high but also consistent across all services. This bill is our response to a changing public health environment. We cannot sit still. We have changing social attitudes and changing health science that is available to us, so we need to sometimes regulate new things and sometimes change old things. This bill is an example of that. It responds to three areas of risk: fertility clinics, cooling towers in large buildings and the safe disposal of radioactive material.

Identifying and responding to these risks has not happened by magic. This bill, and so many other important changes that pass through this chamber, are the result of hard work by expert and dedicated public servants. Their work is often invisible but always critical. They review whether regulations are still fit for purpose. They run the consultation, which my colleague Ms Terpstra has just mentioned. They check the evidence, and they draft the solutions. Victoria is fortunate to have highly qualified and experienced people employed specifically to do that work. It is work that underpins the efficiency and effectiveness of our health system. Most importantly, it is what keeps Victorians safe. This work is often invisible, but it is essential. It is how we catch problems like the ones we saw in the fertility sector and how we keep pace with things like national radiation standards. If these jobs are cut, that work will not happen; it will stop. We will end up having a system that does not work for Victorians. Jess Wilson and the Liberals have a plan to make $40 billion in cuts to the Victorian budget; they have been quite open about that. $32 billion of the current budget is allocated to health.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Jacinta ERMACORA: You have got to add up your statements and put the numbers next to your statements. That includes critical parts of our social infrastructure like hospitals, surgery, public dental services and community health. It also includes the resourcing required to deliver a strong regulatory framework – not just the work that goes into drafting bills like this one but also the work that will go into checking and enforcing the laws we create. That work ensures that radioactive material is disposed of safely, that we can prevent the spread of legionella bacteria and that our assisted reproductive treatment sector operates safely and reliably. This framework cannot exist – and it certainly cannot be managed and enforced – without the hard work of staff within the health regulator. You cannot make $40 billion worth of cuts without making cuts to health. We already know that part of Jess Wilson’s plan is cutting one in seven public servant jobs. That includes health workers. The staff who work within the health regulator are health workers. These experienced, qualified and dedicated people are the people Liberals dismiss as back office staff. They keep –

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Acting President, the member is straying from the substance of this bill, and I would ask you to draw her back to it. I mean, she is having an absolute rant about mistruths, and I would ask you to bring her back to the substance of the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): You are kind of straying, but you are kind of on topic. If you could just keep it to the bill, that would be awesome.

Jacinta ERMACORA: I plan to. These public servants keep Victorians safe from significant harm each and every day. Under Jess Wilson and her $40 billion worth of cuts health staff are at risk, and when our health staff are at risk, so are all Victorians.

I want to talk about reproductive health now, and I will start with the fertility provisions. Right now the ability of an IVF clinic to operate in Victoria is tied to a separate accreditation process run by an industry body. If a clinic has an accreditation, the government has very little say. That is how it is at the moment. It cannot refuse to register a clinic just because it has concerns, and even when the government can suspend a clinic’s registration, it currently has no power to cancel it altogether. There have been a number of deeply concerning incidents at private IVF providers in recent years. That has led to a national review of how fertility clinics are regulated.

Based on that review, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care is developing a new accreditation framework. In September 2025 health ministers from every state agreed to the review’s recommendations and to adopt the new framework. This bill is Victoria taking action on that agreement. It separates registration from accreditation. That means the Victorian government will no longer simply have to accept a clinic because an industry body has ticked it off. Instead the Secretary of the Department of Health will have the power to approve, renew or change conditions or refuse a clinic’s registration. The Minister for Health will also have the power to intervene to cancel a clinic’s registration. This ensures that Victorians know that any adverse incidents will be swiftly and appropriately responded to. It gives families confidence that they will only receive the highest quality of care. The bill also changes how often clinics are checked. Registration will last three years rather than being open ended. It can be made shorter if the department has any concerns about a particular provider, and this allows for more frequent and better compliance monitoring. Inspectors will get stronger powers to go into a clinic and inspect it and seize equipment or documents. They will also be able to apply to a court for a warrant to inspect other premises where fertility treatment might be happening without proper registration.

I do not have time to go on to the other two areas in the bill, but just this one example demonstrates how a private sector can emerge in a new health industry, which in this case is fertility services, emerging based on new science over the last 20 to 30 years, and the need for regulation and accountability, especially when it comes to governments providing services publicly. And that is exactly what the Victorian government does: it provides public fertility services, even in regional communities. I will leave my contribution there.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:00): I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2026. The need for stronger regulation of assisted reproductive treatment has been clear for a very long time. Fertility treatment is incredible. It has transformed people’s lives, but it also must be recognised how distinctly vulnerable people are when they are seeking reproductive assistance. There is a huge amount at stake, emotionally, physically and financially, with no guarantees. The desire for a successful pregnancy is powerful and deeply emotional for so many. There is also inherent information asymmetry that arises from complex health care like fertility treatment, where providers have so much more knowledge of the evidence and therefore a lot of power.

Currently in Australia it is a heavily privatised sector. While there are absolutely incredible people who work in the industry, there is also a real profit motive there for the providers. Together this creates huge potential for exploitation. Some of this is overt and deliberate, but more often it is the result of a system that has become distorted through profit motives, resulting in ethical drift, lax oversight of quality and safety, the upselling of non–evidence based add-ons, often for substantially additional cost, and other practices that I think really do not put patients and families at the centre of decisions. While this has been long known, it has taken several high-profile and heartbreaking situations over the past few years to trigger any kind of meaningful change. Two years ago Monash IVF, Australia’s second-largest ART provider, was forced to pay out $56 million to settle a class action of over 700 patients who had been affected by faulty genetic screening and the destruction of potentially viable embryos. And then last year it emerged that Monash IVF was again involved in two separate embryo mix-ups, one in Brisbane and one in Melbourne. These incidents were attributed to human error despite existing verification protocols. What they blew open was the need for much stronger oversight, stronger accountability and stronger protection for patients. This bill is an important, if overdue, start.

This bill, as has been explained, amends the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 to implement reforms recommended by the rapid review of assisted reproductive technology and in-vitro fertilisation regulation and accreditation in Australia. That review reached a conclusion that industry self-regulation has not been sufficient. It found that the existing accreditation framework lacks the necessary oversight for the sector, standards are not rigorous enough, compliance monitoring is inadequate and enforcement powers have been too limited and too rarely used. One of the review’s key recommendations was the establishment of a new national accreditation scheme, administered by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, and this bill ensures that Victoria’s legislative framework is ready to align with those new national standards as they are developed.

Victoria also has an important role to play in shaping those standards. In 2019 the then Minister for Health referred an inquiry into assisted reproductive treatment services and unsafe and unethical practices to the Victorian Health Complaints Commissioner. The inquiry heard from patients that the Victorian system had serious shortcomings in the way that fertility services were being delivered and regulated. The VHCC inquiry found many patients received incomplete or inaccurate information about their prospects. Some were given unrealistic expectations about how quickly they would become pregnant; others were not informed of diagnoses that significantly affected their chances of success or only discovered important information after seeking to transfer to another provider. These failures undermine patients ability to make informed decisions about their own care. The VHCC also heard that patients were encouraged to continue repeated cycles of IVF without sufficient investigation into the underlying causes of infertility and that use of expensive IVF add-ons was widespread despite limited evidence of effectiveness.

Some of the key changes in this bill address many of the concerns raised through these inquiries. Importantly, there will be a new mandatory accreditation scheme. This bill also creates a new offence for provider noncompliance. The new format for accreditation schemes will be a national quality and safety framework developed by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, and it will set the standards for things like clinical governance, laboratory practices, patient safety, data reporting and risk management. This replaces the old accreditation scheme with a new national model. It is really important that there is consistency across jurisdictions and that there is one national standard when it comes to assisted reproductive technology.

New sections 74 to 74D create an overhaul of the old registration model for ART providers. I think it gives the secretary a number of new powers. The secretary may consider a wide range of suitability factors for any provider wanting to open an ART facility. These include things like past offences, financial stability and compliance history. I think that is something that has been missing to date, being able to look at a track record of a provider before allowing them to continue to practise or giving them registration to continue practising. The standard registration period is three years, and for renewal those same suitability checks are required as a condition of registration. What that does is builds in a regular check on compliance, whether that provider is adhering to the accreditation standards and requirements, and it creates the ability to not provide registration to a provider that has been breaching the quality standards that are expected and required.

It also grants the secretary powers, including the ability to vary registration of their own initiative and expanded inspection and enforcement powers. For example, it allows the secretary to enter an ART premises at any time, not just during business hours, and upon entry the secretary may examine anything, take photos or videos, seize documents and items and require people to answer questions. Again, that is a really important power to enable oversight of compliance as well as enforcement. Warrants may be issued for premises suspected of unregistered ART activity. I think one of the most crucial changes in this bill, and something we have long called for, is that this bill gives the minister the ability to cancel registration for serious noncompliance, safety risks or if they have lost accreditation, if they are not complying with those accreditation standards. Up until now, there has not been that power to close down a facility. There needs to be the threat of closure. In many cases, while obviously you need to take into account the disruption that might cause many people who are using that service, repeated noncompliance or serious breaches of standards should be met with the very real prospect of being closed down and losing your licence to continue to be an ART provider.

We really welcome this bill as an important step towards a more rigorous national regulatory framework. But the legislation alone, we know, is not enough. The national standards now being developed must reflect the lessons that have been learned here in Victoria, and they must centre patient safety, informed consent and transparency and be supported by meaningful oversight and genuine enforcement. This legislation might give the minister and the secretary new powers, but those powers do not mean anything if enforcement measures are not taken or if enforcement is not genuine. We can no longer rely on self-regulation. That has been demonstrated time and time again. It has been shown through the number of inquiries that have taken place. Ultimately I think there are many people who are now living with the consequences of the failures of self-regulation. Health care should always put people’s safety and rights before profit, and with the highly commercialised nature of assisted reproductive treatment in Australia, we cannot rely on providers to ensure this is the case. Ideally we would not have a privatised system, but we do. That is the reality, and what this means is it is the government’s responsibility to ensure the most rigorous of regulation. We will be supporting this bill today. We welcome the changes and look forward to ongoing improvements in this space.

 Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:09): I commend to the house the speeches of my colleagues Ms Crozier and Dr Mansfield. I would implore anyone who is interested in this space to look at both of those speeches, because I think they are both well informed and balanced. It is perhaps for me only to point out a couple of points really, because what has needed to be said has been said already. Critically – raised by both Dr Mansfield and by my colleague Ms Crozier – this is somewhat belated. To hear the speeches of those opposite on the government benches in particular somehow refer to this as timely action is somewhat comical, it must be said. It would be comical were it not for the fact that these are very serious matters and these are matters that will at this point, sadly, assist neither the family in Queensland, over which we have no jurisdiction, nor certainly the family here in Victoria and families impacted. We know that as far back as 2019 recommendations were made in respect of the changes that are now occurring in this place. We know that we also had the Hunt report in November 2024, which pointed in all the same directions, yet here we have a government who like to tout their proactivity, which is somewhat comical because we know it has taken them so long to get to this point – in fact way too long. As has been said in this place already, it is appropriate that we put in these safeguards. It is appropriate that the powers that are given to these operators are not beyond the scope of scrutiny and not beyond compliance measures and safety standards, as has too frequently been the case.

Unfortunately, we see a pattern emerging in this government. To pick up on the remarks of those opposite earlier on, it is not isolated to these matters alone. I see this in my own electorate of Ringwood, where sadly, we have an instance of a failing health system and a failing provision of services by means of an MRI system and a Faraday cage which continue to fail despite the fact, not dissimilar to the matter before us today in this legislation, that a report was commissioned by those opposite and received in January of this year which indicated that on 69 of 72 measures the Faraday cage, which helps ensure that there is accurate imagery coming out of the MRI machine, had failed. That report was a consequence of concerns raised in January 2025. Time and again we see a pattern emerging across the benches of a government that is aware of problems and simply either fails to act or acts so belatedly, as is the case with the legislation we have before us today, that in actual fact for so many families already impacted here in Victoria it is too little, too late. If you are going to say anything of this government, that may well be its closing epitaph: too little, too late. At the final hour, with 16 weeks before polling commences – by ‘polling’ I do not mean the sort of polling Labor does opposite, day to day, based on ‘stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing’ but polling in terms of people actually casting their ballots – those opposite have decided to switch horses and go to a brand new Premier in the desperate hope –

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: I do not believe you are speaking from your seat. Nonetheless, speak as much as you will, but you have just rolled your own Premier, having sat there for months and months, years in fact, backing one poor decision after the other. It is a great moment of disappointment.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Mr McIntosh, you know what I am going to say. If you are going to interject, do so from your place.

Nick McGOWAN: They are a bit testy. It is very unfortunate.

Georgie Crozier: Especially Mr McIntosh. His Premier got rolled. He was in the wrong faction.

Nick McGOWAN: That is right. He got rolled, and whether he remains in this place after – they have not even conducted their preselections yet, Ms Crozier.

Georgie Crozier: Ms Shing – she is out.

Nick McGOWAN: Will she continue to be the Minister for Health is the other question. Who will be Treasurer? Will it be Ms Symes or will it be Ms Williams? I am not quite sure who it will be.

Tom McIntosh: On a point of order, Acting President, I could say many things, but I will tell you one thing: what they are rambling on about has nothing to do with the bill and nothing to do with the cares of Victorians. They can come back to the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! I uphold the point of order, and I also remind Mr McIntosh that it is unruly to point. Can we at least keep our comments to something related to the health issue.

Nick McGOWAN: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, this legislation is not before time. I welcome this legislation, as does my party, as does Ms Crozier. It is well and truly overdue. It is so sad that it will not help so many families that have been adversely impacted. Yet again those opposite should hang their heads in shame because it has taken them so long to get here. They have come here begrudgingly and they have come here years after they were given the evidence both by Mr Hunt himself in 2024 in the November report and also in 2019 – that was some seven years ago. It has taken this government that long to act. It is welcome, but it is sad that it has taken this much. It is sadder still that the health minister has joined us at the end of my contribution to hear that.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: It might be her last contribution as health minister.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, in relation to the inference that my absence from the chamber is somewhat of an indication about my position on Mr McGowan’s contribution, I just want to put on the record that I was here for the start of it and I look forward to reading Hansard so that I can get myself across Mr McGowan’s ever valuable contributions to this place.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): That is not a point of order.

Nick McGOWAN: In response and if it assists the minister, to save her reading Hansard, I am only too happy to say that I was welcoming her presence in the chamber.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: I can only hope it is not the last contribution you make as Minister for Health. I can only hope you reconsider the position at Eastern Health with respect to the MRI and the Faraday cage and how quickly you take action, unlike what has been the case with this legislation that we are speaking on. I know that you have brought this forward, so you are to be congratulated for that.

Harriet Shing: Did you just congratulate me?

Nick McGOWAN: I want to be able to congratulate you, Minister, on instructing Eastern Health to immediately fix the MRI and associated Faraday cage issues at Eastern Health. I will take the thumbs up as a yes – I welcome the thumbs up and I welcome your presence. Never feel like you are unwelcome by me in this place. I think I will wrap up my remarks at that point.

Business interrupted pursuant to resolution of Council of 18 June.

Sitting suspended 11:18 am until 2:00 pm.