Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:01): My contribution this morning on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026 will be brief. My colleagues Mr Welch, Mrs McArthur and Mr Davis have gone through various elements; Mr Welch was most comprehensive on Tuesday. I would like to confine my contribution to the amendment that is in my portfolio. I note that this bill amends some 13 different acts across nine portfolios, but the word ‘reform’, I would think, is used out of context, because this is not a reformation type of bill, this is overwhelmingly a minor omnibus bill, except for the amendment that the government has circulated right at the last moment in relation to fuel.
My interest relates to part 4 of the bill, the amendment to the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987. Clause 20 of the bill removes the obligation of the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action to erect and display a notice on property advising that the property is subject to land management and cooperative agreement. Specifically, I note that this clause updates section 80 of the act, which governs public notification requirements for land management and cooperative agreements. At the moment the act requires a public notice to be published in the Government Gazette and a statewide newspaper and a conspicuous sign to be displayed on the land where that agreement has occurred so it is there for all those passing. It is a public display of what is happening now. That has been the case for some decades. This is now changing in this bill, and there are a couple of other minor parts to that.
Our concern is in relation to removing that notice displayed in a public place. The minister said in his second-reading speech that the amendment was introduced because:
This requirement causes landowners stress, safety and wellbeing issues, particularly where there is opposition in the broader community …
But during the committee, during the bill review and bill briefing stage, we were given only one example where allegedly a landowner had been subject to negative community sentiment after it was deduced, by virtue of the location, that he had received money from the developer, but it is still through that space, after entering into an agreement which allowed his property to be used as native vegetation offset for the construction of a wind farm. Let me put on record: I am not against the plethora of energy transition, renewables and the like, but what we do not want to see is even further erosion of transparency by this government. We have seen in our regional communities our landholders and our farmers feeling that they are being run roughshod over and that their rights are being taken away in terms of transparency, in terms of action and in terms of appealing to the VCAT tribunal in relation to proposed transmission lines or renewables. They feel again and again that their rights are being eroded and transparency is being eroded as well. So with that, we believe that this is not in the best interests of the general public.
I note that a couple of years ago, in 2021, when there was another regulatory reform bill, the Liberals and Nationals stood very strongly against the fact that the government wanted to ‘modernise this section’, and what it did was remove from all of our regional community towns right across the state ads displaying certain material that the government was required to display, and they amended that act back then. I raise this because I want to ensure that we are on a reasonable footing in this part, so I made a considerable effort to consult with regional newspapers. I said, ‘In relation to this specific part of the act and this specific change, are you concerned that some of your income and some of the ads received in your papers would be diminished?’ And they overwhelmingly said there would be negligible to no impact, meaning that the status where it has got to be displayed in a statewide newspaper does not filter down to our regional papers. So with that, I have been very happy to work with our parties to ensure that we move amendments in the committee stage in relation to continuing the display of that sign in the public domain. I say ‘my communities’, but it is so regional community newspapers are not going to be unfairly disadvantaged by the change to a digital platform and also still being published in the Government Gazette. With those few remarks, I will conclude my contribution and continue this in the committee of the whole.