There are changes afoot to the town planning space in Victoria with the recent introduction to Parliament of the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025. Whilst the Bill's title promises efficiency, its substance reveals a more complex regime than many stakeholders may realise.

At over 200 pages and containing more than 250 clauses, the Bill proposes significant changes to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and has the potential to change the way the planning system operates in Victoria. The final impact of the Bill will only become clear if and when it passes through Parliament, and in what form.

Key areas of focus

A large focus of the discussion about the Bill has been on the following:

(a) the process around planning scheme amendments (including the role of Planning Panels Victoria);

(b) the process around planning permit applications;

(c) the proposal to remove the prohibition on granting planning permits which breach restrictive covenants;

(d) changes to the legislation in relation to infrastructure contributions; and

(e) requirements in relation to gifts and donations.

All of these proposed changes will have consequences for people who participate in, or wish to participate in, the planning process.

Whilst these provisions have dominated industry discussion, and rightly so, the focus on process reform might overshadow other consequential changes for developers and landowners, such as the expansion of enforcement powers.

Enforcement provisions

An area of proposed change that has not received as much attention, but could have significant consequences for owners, occupiers and developers of land is that relating to planning enforcement.

Clause 178 of the Bill proposes a new section 126A, which creates new offences in relation to false or misleading information. Specifically:

(1) A person must not knowingly or recklessly make a false or misleading statement or provide false or misleading information to a person or body carrying out a function or power under this Act, the regulations or a planning scheme.

(2) A person must not produce a document to a person or body carrying out a function or 10 power under this Act, the regulations or a planning scheme that the person knows to be misleading without indicating the respect in which it is misleading.

Whilst these provisions appear straightforward, the inclusion of 'recklessly' alongside 'knowingly' introduces a degree of subjectivity that warrants consideration. What constitutes recklessness in the context of complex planning applications, where interpretations of policy and technical requirements often differ between applicants, councils, and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)?

This provision could potentially capture inadvertent errors or good faith disagreements about the characterisation of information, particularly in the context of technical reports or expert opinions where reasonable minds may differ. Given the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the planning system, clarity around what constitutes 'reckless' statements in practice would be beneficial to ensure applicants can engage confidently with the process.

Consequences for offences

Clause 182 of the Bill proposes several new consequences for a person, including a company, found guilty of an offence under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. These involve various orders which the relevant Court may make against the person.

Adverse publicity orders

The first of these is an adverse publicity order under section 132C. This would require the offender:

(a) to publicise the offence, its consequences, the penalty imposed and any other related matter; and /or

(b) to notify a specified person or specified class of persons of the offence, its consequences, the penalty imposed and any other related matter;

The ability to impose such orders is not uncommon in the environmental sector.

The reputational impact of such orders could be significant. Whilst the Bill provides the court with discretion, additional guidance on when such orders would be appropriate would assist in ensuring proportionate outcomes.

Commercial benefits orders

The second form of order is a commercial benefits order under section 132D. This is an order which would require the offender to pay as a fine an amount not exceeding 3 times the amount estimated by the court to be the gross commercial benefit

(a) that was obtained or is obtainable by the offender or an associate of the offender from the commission of the offence; and

(b) in the case of offending that was interrupted or thwarted by the responsible authority, that would have been obtained or obtainable by the offender or an associate of the offender had the offence been committed without interruption.

This order is in addition to any fine that the court imposes and presumably seeks to address the situation which occurred in relation to the demolition of the Corkman Hotel, where it may have been considered that the developers obtained a financial benefit through the demolition which far exceeded any penalties imposed for the offending.

The policy intent is understandable; the planning system should not be undermined where the profits from non-compliance exceed the penalties. However, the practical application of this provision raises some questions and it will be interesting to see the circumstances in which a court is prepared to exercise this power and what evidence the court would require to determine the gross commercial benefit which was, or would have been, obtained.

Supervisory intervention orders

The third form of order is a supervisory intervention order under section 132E.

A supervisory intervention order can require the offender, at the offender's own expense and for a specified period not exceeding one year, to do any or all of the following things:

Specified things that the court considers will improve the offender's compliance with this Act or the regulations, including (for example) the following:

(i) appointing or removing staff to or from particular activities or positions;

(ii) training and supervising staff;

(iii) obtaining expert advice as to maintaining appropriate compliance;

(iv) installing monitoring, compliance, managerial or operational equipment; and

(v) implementing monitoring, compliance, managerial or operational practices, systems or procedures.

Implement specified monitoring, compliance, managerial or operational practices, systems or procedures subject to the direction of either or both of the following as specified in the order:

(i) the responsible authority; and

(ii) a person nominated by the responsible authority.

Provide compliance reports to the responsible authority or the court.

The court may make the order if it is satisfied that;

(a) the offender is a systematic or persistent offender; and

(b) the order is capable of improving the offender's ability or willingness to comply with this Act or the regulations.

The supervisory intervention order provisions represent a significant expansion of the court's powers in planning enforcement. Whilst presented as a tool to address 'systematic or persistent' offenders, the breadth of the potential powers warrants attention.

The ability to direct aspects of the internal management of a private business, including the appointment and removal of staff, raises some practical questions. As noted, the intersection with the Corporations Act 2001 is unclear. Can a court order the removal of a director from involvement in planning matters whilst that person remains a director under corporations law? What are the implications for directors' duties if they are prevented from participating in decisions that may have material consequences for the company?

There is also a question of how these provisions will operate in practice. The provision requires that the offender be a 'systematic or persistent offender', terms which are not defined in the Bill. Whilst section 132E(3) provides that the court must have regard to previous offences, infringement notices that have not been withdrawn or cancelled, and any other relevant matters concerning the offender's conduct under the Act, this does not establish clear thresholds. Greater clarity would assist in understanding when such orders might be made.

The one-year maximum duration of a supervisory intervention order provides some limitation, though a year of court-supervised management could have significant commercial implications for many businesses, particularly in a sector where timing and market conditions are important to viability.

Industry exclusion order

The fourth form of order is an industry exclusion order under section 132G.

An industry exclusion order can prohibit an offender for a specified period from:

(a) providing, or being otherwise involved in, services relating to the commercial development of land as specified in the order; and

(b) being a director, secretary or officer of a body corporate providing, or otherwise being involved in, services relating to the commercial development of land as specified in the order.

The court may make the order if it considers it appropriate and is satisfied that;

(a) the offender is a systematic or persistent offender;

(b) it is necessary to restrict opportunities for the offender to commit or be involved in the commission of further offences;

(c) the offender should not continue to provide or be involved in the services that are the subject of the proposed order; and

(d) a supervisory intervention order is not appropriate, having regard to the offences of which the offender has previously been found guilty and any other offences or matters that the court considers to be relevant to the conduct of the offender in connection with the provision of services relating to the use and development of land.

This is perhaps the most severe of the enforcement orders available under the Bill. An industry exclusion order effectively removes a person's ability to earn a livelihood in the development sector, either directly or through a corporate structure. The requirement that the court be satisfied that "a supervisory intervention order is not appropriate" suggests this is intended as a measure of last resort for the most serious cases of repeat offending. However, the same definitional issues regarding "systematic or persistent offender" apply, and the breadth of "services relating to the commercial development of land" is not defined in the Bill. Depending on how broadly this is interpreted, such an order could potentially extend beyond development and construction activities to encompass planning consultancy, project management, or other professional services in the property sector. The intersection with the Corporations Act 2001 is also unclear. For example, can a court effectively disqualify a person from holding office in a body corporate when that person has not been disqualified under corporations law?

Penalties

Clause 179 of the Bill proposes substantial increases to the general penalties under section 127 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987:

• For natural persons, while the maximum penalty will remain at 1,200 penalty units ($244,212 at the current value) an alternative maximum penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment is introduced.
• For bodies corporate, the maximum penalty will increase from the current level of 1,200 penalty units to 6,000 penalty units ($1,221,060 at the current value).
• For continuing offences, the penalty will increase from the current maximum of 60 penalty units per day to 120 penalty units per day for natural persons and 600 penalty units per day for bodies corporate.

The proposed new offences under section 126A for knowingly or recklessly making false or misleading statements or providing false or misleading information to a person or body carrying out a function or power under the Act carry penalties of 240 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment or both ($48,842 at current penalty unit values).

While contravention of a supervisory intervention order will attract penalties of up to 1,200 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years for natural persons, and 6,000 penalty units for bodies corporate.

These penalties demonstrate a clear policy intention to significantly strengthen the deterrent effect of planning enforcement.

A question of balance

The enforcement provisions in the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025 indicate an objective to create stronger consequences for those who breach planning laws. Effective enforcement is essential to the integrity of any regulatory system.

However, in responding to high-profile cases of serious non-compliance, it is important that enforcement mechanisms remain proportionate to the range of conduct they may capture. Planning law involves interpretation, judgement, and often genuine disagreement between informed professionals. An enforcement regime designed to address deliberate breaches should be carefully calibrated to avoid capturing good faith errors or reasonable differences of opinion.

As the Bill progresses through Parliament, stakeholders should pay close attention to these enforcement provisions. Amendments to provide clearer definitions and more explicit guidance on proportionality would strengthen the Bill and provide greater certainty to those operating within Victoria's planning system.

The planning system needs effective enforcement, but it also needs participants willing to engage with it in good faith. Achieving this balance will be important to the Bill's success.

These reforms could reshape Victoria’s planning landscape. Stay informed, get involved in the debate and seek expert advice now to understand potential implications for your projects and processes.