The Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025 (Bill) was introduced to the Victorian Parliament for second reading on 29 October 2025. 

The Bill proposes sweeping changes to the enforcement and compliance framework in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act). These changes aim to strengthen regulatory powers, increase penalties and offer new enforcement tools to ensure accountability and deter unlawful use and development. From expanded court orders and a new civil penalty scheme, to enhanced powers for authorised officers and a mandatory State enforcement policy, the changes proposed under the Bill represent a significant shift in how planning laws will be monitored and enforced.

Broadly, the Bill proposes significant changes to Part 6 of the Act. Part 6 deals with compliance and enforcement. 

The following is a short summary of each of the proposed changes. 

New Offences, Time Limits and Penalties 

New Court Orders 

It is proposed to provide Courts with the power to issue a number of new orders upon a finding of guilt. Importantly, with each of these orders, they can only be made if the responsible authority applies for it. The Bill does not specify when or how an application for an order is to be made. The orders include:

Civil Penalties 

Enhanced Powers for Authorised Officers 

Monitoring, Compliance and Enforcement Policy 

Commentary 

It is clear that the proposed changes are far-reaching, and represent a profound shift in the way the responsible authority can enforce, and ensure compliance with, the Act, planning schemes and section 173 agreements. They certainly provide a greater range of ‘tools’ to discourage offending, ensure that offenders are punished appropriately and do not retain the benefit of unlawful use and development despite any financial penalties or convictions issued under the present system.

Equally, the changes move the enforcement and compliance framework into unchartered territory and there is a lot to unravel. 

There is a risk that one looks for statutory interpretation problems that may never materialize or can be readily addressed or overcome by the practical application of the amended Act or perhaps by simply applying a ‘relish of common sense’. But it would be naïve, and not helpful, to think that statutory interpretation issues or jurisdictional/validity issues will not arise or be pursued.

For example, take where, for the purpose of entry and inspection of land, the Bill provides that an authorised person may “be assisted by a relevant expert”. This is seemingly straight forward but what constitutes an 'expert' and what makes the expert 'relevant'? Are they questions of fact to be determined by the circumstances of the case or is it enough that the authorised officer is satisfied that the person assisting is a 'relevant expert'? What happens if it turns out the person assisting the authorised officer is not an expert or not a relevant expert?

Why is it that when it comes to 'providing' information or a document to a person carrying out a function under the Act or regulations, it is an offence to 'knowingly or recklessly' provide false or misleading information but when a document is 'produced' to a person carrying out a function under the Act or regulations, it is only an offence if the person 'knows' it to contain misleading information?

The immediate entry power is imbued with substantial uncertainty. The power is only invoked where the authorised officer has a reasonable belief of 'permanent and irreversible damage or material harm to the environment'. What does the 'environment' mean for the purposes of the immediate entry power? Is the imminent demolition of a heritage building damage or material harm to the environment? What about the mass importation of soil onto, or the reshaping of, green wedge land?

As with all legislative reform, it will not be possible to truly understand the effect of the changes until they are exercised or form the subject of Tribunal or Court commentary.

Some of the proposed changes might not give rise to statutory interpretation or jurisdictional/validity issues, but one might wonder about their purpose or whether the draftsperson may have missed something.

For example, the proposed section 132I deems section 126(1) to be a civil penalty provision. It is curious, however, that it does not do the same for sub-sections (2) or (3). In effect, this would mean that an authority could seek a civil penalty against a person who unlawfully uses or develops land, but not against the owner or occupier of that land. 

In a similar vein, the Bill proposes to make the contravention of industry exclusion orders and supervisory intervention orders indictable offences. If an authority sought to commence proceedings for such offences, it would be open to a defendant to elect for the matter to be heard in the County Court for trial. In that case, carriage of the matter would go to the Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) and effectively out of the responsible authority’s control. This represents a significant shift and might cause the responsible authority to wonder whether it should pursue such orders. 

It is clear that the manner in which prosecutions are brought and offenders are punished may require authorities to change their existing approach to compliance and enforcement. We will look to the operation of similar post-sentencing orders and powers in New South Wales, and in other schemes (for example, in the occupational health and safety enforcement framework) to assist in assessing how the new provisions will operate. 

Key takeaways 

The Bill proposes sweeping reforms to the compliance and enforcement framework of the Act, significantly strengthening penalties and expanding regulatory powers.

Key changes include new offences for providing false or misleading information, extended time limits for prosecutions, and substantially higher penalties for individuals and corporations. 

Courts will gain authority to impose innovative orders such as adverse publicity, commercial benefit recovery, supervisory interventions, and industry exclusions, alongside civil penalties. 

Authorised officers will have enhanced powers, including immediate entry in cases of permanent and irreversible environmental damage or material harm and the assistance of relevant experts during inspections. A mandatory State policy on monitoring and enforcement, supported by consultation and training, will underpin these changes. 

Collectively, these reforms mark a profound shift towards a more robust and multifaceted framework, although their broader practical implications will only become clear through application and judicial interpretation.

For the time being, authorities should keep a close eye on the Bill as it progresses through Parliament. There is a prospect that amendments will be made to the Bill by one or both Houses once submissions to the Bill are considered.