Regulatory Legislation (Amendment) Reform Bill 2021

Speech

March 10, 2022

Tania MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (11:36):

I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. This omnibus bill makes changes to around 16 different acts as well as consequential changes. Some of them are quite procedural, and there are substantial changes in this bill to the Electoral Act 2002.

I would like to focus my contribution today to this debate on two parts. One is the provision for public health inspectors to be appointed in alpine resort areas to enforce the Tobacco Act 1987. Because alpine resorts are not councils, this is designed to fill that gap. I have raised numerous times my concerns that environmental health officers having remit for enforcement of this act is inappropriate where it relates to the search and seizure of illicit tobacco. In reality, councils do not undertake this work because their staff are not appropriately trained and there are concerns about their safety. Instead they focus on the more appropriate elements of enforcement, such as non-smoking areas, signage and so on. I brought a motion to this Parliament last year to review these matters, including exploring a licensing scheme. The government subsequently commissioned a review by Better Regulation Victoria, and this review is now well advanced. It includes consideration of how to combat the illicit trade of tobacco, which we know has strong links to organised crime and undermines the health efforts towards reducing smoking.

I will now turn to part 11 of this bill, which changes the interpretation of the publication of public notices.

When we examine legislation one of the first things we do is determine what consultation we should undertake across the electorate to ensure we have the views of residents and stakeholders and understand what the day-to-day effect of these changes might be in practice. New clauses in the bill introduced to the Legislative Assembly propose changes to the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 so that if a notice is required to be published in a print newspaper this could be fulfilled instead by publication on an approved centralised website. We sought clarification on this in the very first bill briefing and recognised immediately that this would not only affect a substantial number of notices but also affect regional communities and media.

There are more than 40 local and regional newspapers in northern Victoria, so we are talking about a lot of public notices in a lot of newspapers. We have been in touch with a number of print media organisations since the legislation was introduced. I have spoken with councils and have had some feedback from members of the public, and I would like to thank them all for their input. I would also like to thank the minister’s office, with whom we have had numerous back-and-forth discussions on this issue.

We were very direct with the government about our concerns, and they were accepting of the importance of local news to regional communities and the need to protect the pathways of information for people who do not access digital platforms or who live in areas where there is poor internet—and we know that there are many of those places. We can talk about how and where the print media relationship has declined compared to years gone by as digital media has developed, but that does not diminish the importance of regional media in regional communities. Thousands upon thousands of papers are distributed in regional areas every day in print and digital form, and thousands upon thousands of people rely on local newspapers for that information.

I am of the understanding that this change affects the publication of around 410 different types of notices. My concern naturally was that while you can still publish a notice in the paper by your own free will, it is likely that agencies or individuals will do the bare minimum in order to comply, particularly if it is a topic that might generate some debate or complaints. Most people do not have the time or perhaps the understanding either to plough through a single website full of public notices for the whole state and work out which ones may affect them and then understand what the contents of the notice mean.

Regional Victoria is still littered with areas where internet connections are poor or non-existent, and there are large numbers of elderly people who have no idea how to even access the internet. So what does this mean for them? The recent Connecting Victoria engagement report highlights the long road ahead to achieve basic internet access in many regional areas. More than 50 per cent of the 11,000 survey responses were from rural and regional Victoria. Forty-four per cent of them said mobile and broadband were a challenge. This report highlights concern that some Victorians are unfamiliar with using digital technologies, that affordability is a concern and that access to high-speed and reliable internet remains a dream for many.

If local newspapers do not have the revenue generated from the advertising of notices, this affects their capacity to employ journalists. The impact on participation of communities is a risk if information is obscured, even if that is not the intent. What is clear is that a balance needs to be found that retains publication in local newspapers. We have had multiple discussions with the government about this, and I am very pleased that they have brought an amendment to this chamber to retain publication of notices in local newspapers where that requirement already exists.

We continue to talk in this place about the importance of transparency, genuine engagement, the value of consultation and participation. I guess as media and technology continue to evolve the time may come when we fully transition away from print media. I hope that will not come at the cost of regional media outlets or the jobs and experience they provide for journalists and the valuable service they provide to our community. I am sure there will be numerous questions raised in the committee stage of this bill as well as debate on other amendments, so I will leave my contribution there. I thank the house.