Thursday, 12 May 2022

Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HUTCHINS:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern) (10:50): Speaker, I am sure you are wondering to yourself, ‘Why is the member for Malvern wearing a green tie today?’. Of course the answer to that question is to celebrate the magnificent league-winning performance of the Celtic Football Club in the Scottish premier league overnight, led by great Melburnian Ange Postecoglou. He is also a good Carlton supporter, I should add.

The SPEAKER: Back on the bill.

Mr M O’BRIEN: So thank you for asking me that question, Speaker! I am very grateful for that opportunity to put that on the record. My congratulations to Ange and the boys for their magnificent win in the Scottish premier league. Stop distracting me, Speaker. I am here to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This is what we call in the business an omnibus bill, so there are many different aspects to this bill. I do state at the outset the opposition will not be opposing the bill.

Before I get into the detail of what is in the bill, I am first concerned by what is not in the bill. We have had a number of justice portfolio bills brought before this Parliament in recent weeks, but none of them have dealt with the most pressing issue in the justice portfolio, which is the enormous backlogs we have in our courts and tribunals. Victoria has the worst criminal case backlogs in the nation in the County Court, in the Magistrates Court and in the Children’s Court—worse than any other state in the nation. For all the legislation the government bowls up, where is the plan to actually fix that? There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and too many Victorians are being denied justice because they cannot get their day in court. Whether they are victims of crime, whether they are somebody who has been charged with a crime and wants the opportunity to clear their name or whether they are in fact guilty and deserve to have their case heard and tried and a sentence imposed so they can get on with their lives, everyone deserves their day in court, and there is nothing in this bill to deal with that. This is a massive problem.

We see years and years of delays in VCAT. We saw in the recent budget that the VCAT digital transformation initiative has been delayed by a further 15 months—so another IT project supposed to fix problems being delayed for 15 months—and people just cannot get in. So while there is nothing overly objectionable in this bill itself, what I do object to is the fact that once again the government has missed the opportunity to fix the pressing problems of the justice system in this state. As I have said on a number of occasions, and you will hear me say it again, we do not actually have a justice system in Victoria, we have a legal system, and they are two very different things. Victorians deserve a justice system.

Turning to the main provisions of this bill, and I do not do this in any priority order—I will simply go through them in the order in which they appear in the bill—the first is to amend the Crimes at Sea Act 1999, which sounds very Pirates of the Caribbean, but it is far less exciting. In fact it is to update references to commonwealth legislation, in particular references from the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, and it updates those to refer to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. So I think you would have to be somebody with an extreme interest in the area and fairly pedantic to find many objections to updating the references to commonwealth legislation.

Where we get a little bit more interesting now are the amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. What the bill does in clause 7 is insert a new clause in the act to clarify that the only permitted discrimination by religious schools relates to a person’s religious beliefs or activities and not any other protected attribute. There have been discussions in this Parliament over many years about balancing rights, and that is one of the things the Equal Opportunity Act tries to do, because people have a right to not be discriminated against because of certain attributes that they hold. But equally other people have a right to their own beliefs.

It is often when it comes to religious issues and religious beliefs and faith that we see the conflict of rights brought together. For many years this house has discussed the extent to which faith-based institutions such as religious schools and religious hospitals should be allowed to operate in a way which they see as being true to their faith and how that interacts with other people and the rights of people whose personal lives may be at odds with certain religious beliefs but who have a right to be employed without discrimination. It is not an easy thing to get the balance right, and there are absolutists on all sides. There are absolutists who say, ‘Well, there shouldn’t be any religious freedom. People of faith and religious schools and religious hospitals should have no right to discriminate against anyone; they should be forced to provide services that conflict with their inherent moral beliefs and their inherent religious teachings’. Most people of goodwill would say, ‘Well, that’s wrong’. Religion is far from perfect, but it has been a force for good by and large in our society when you think about all the things that religious institutions do in the schools—the education they provide, the social welfare they provide, the health-giving they provide, the volunteerism they provide. If we are to be a society that respects and reflects fundamental freedoms, then freedom of religious belief must be one of those.

So we can argue—and we do argue from time to time—about the extent to which particular pieces of legislation get the balance right when it comes to protecting the rights of people of faith and their institutions versus the rights of other people who have attributes such as those they are born with. They may be gay or their gender and gender identity—these are things that they are born with. We always try to get the balance right, and we are never going to be 100 per cent perfect because we as legislators are human. We are fallible, as fallible as anybody else in the community—some would say more fallible than many others in the community—but we try to get the balance right, and I do think that people of goodwill can work together on these issues and seek to try and ensure that we can function cohesively as a society.

The particular amendment to the Equal Opportunity Act in clause 7 of the bill is effectively a bit of a clerical tidy-up. There are other sections of the Equal Opportunity Act in other clauses which do reflect that the exemption carved out—for example, for religious schools—only applies to religious beliefs and religious activity. For example—and this is obviously a hypothetical—a religious school may choose to not hire, for example, a religion teacher who does not believe in that faith and does not want to teach that faith. That is something where a religious school has got an ability to say, ‘Well, our religious belief and our religious activity are such that we believe you to be in contrast with that and that you would contradict that, and therefore we wouldn’t hire you for this particular role’. However, if a teacher said ‘I am a Labor voter’ or ‘I am a Liberal voter’, that does not give a religious school the right to discriminate against somebody. The only protected attributes where a religious school, for example, could discriminate would be on the basis of religious belief or religious activity. So this clause is effectively a clerical tidy-up. It just makes that point in relation to one aspect of the Equal Opportunity Act where the legislation already provides for that in other circumstances.

Clause 8 expands the exemptions from secrecy provisions that apply to the commission in circumstances where it is necessary to do so to prevent a credible and imminent threat of harm to a person, to comply with the mandatory reporting obligation or for purposes of an FOI review application by VCAT. Again, privacy provisions and secrecy provisions are always areas where balance is important. People do have a right to privacy and a right indeed to secrecy in some circumstances, but particularly in circumstances where you need to prevent a credible and imminent threat of harm to a person it does seem very reasonable that there is an exemption from those secrecy provisions.

Clauses 9 to 24 of the bill amend the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 to use gender-inclusive language. For example, ‘his or her’ where it appears in that act is often replaced with ‘their’ or ‘that person’. Where you can adopt gender-inclusive language to avoid the risk of excluding people, I think it is a useful activity. I suppose I do contrast the symbolism, if you like, of putting gender-inclusive language in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities with the fact that thousands and thousands of Victorians cannot get their day in court. One is symbolic and a nice-to-have, and there is no objection to it on this side, but we do ask: why is the government directing its energy and attention and legislative program to these matters as opposed to practical issues of access to justice that are happening out there, outside this chamber?

We know there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Victorians who simply cannot get into a tribunal, who simply cannot get into a courtroom, whether it is for civil cases or criminal cases. We know there are victims of crime who are waiting and waiting and waiting to see justice happen—and they wait and they wait, and they do not see it. These are real human costs, and the fact that the government is giving greater priority to legislative matters that deal with symbolism rather than actual practical justice to me is a concern, and it is a lost opportunity. It does seem to indicate that we have got a government that wants to be seen to be doing the right things but does not actually have a program to make the right things happen.

Clauses 25 to 32 of the bill make a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Judicial College of Victoria Act 2001. The most significant amendments there are to the composition of the Judicial College of Victoria. It increases the number of directors of the college from eight to at least nine but not more than 10, so in other words from eight to nine or 10. This is to facilitate an increase in the number of directors appointed by the Attorney-General. At the moment the Attorney-General can appoint two directors to the JCV. The Attorney-General will I think, from my reading of the bill, be able to appoint three or four, and these appointees must in the opinion of the Attorney-General have broad experience in community issues affecting courts.

Obviously the Judicial College of Victoria has got an important role, and it has traditionally been made up of the heads of jurisdictions and senior members of the judiciary. I do not think there is any real objection to laypeople having a role in the JCV, but judicial independence in this state is under some threat. Bizarrely, the Herald Sun reported just the other day under the headline ‘Justice for hire plan—temp magistrates discussed’. It is an article by Shannon Deery, and it starts off:

Senior legal officials considered hiring temporary magistrates to help ease the backlog of court cases plaguing Victoria’s justice system.

But the proposed contract arrangement was dropped after concerns were raised by prominent legal figures.

The Herald Sun can reveal the idea to appoint magistrates on short-term contracts was floated with lawyers in the weeks before a job ad appeared online in August.

Does this government not understand what judicial independence means? How the hell can a judge act independent of government if they are on a short-term contract? If a magistrate or a judge is getting to the end of their term and they are worried about getting reappointed and they have a case before them that involves the government, how can the other party have any confidence that the magistrate or the judge will be acting in accordance with law rather than wanting to please the government to get a reappointment? The idea of short-term contracts or any contracts for judicial officers is appalling.

Judges must be independent of government. It is one of the fundamental principles of our system of government. We have three separate and equal parts: we have the executive, we have the judiciary and we have the legislature. Now, governments get to appoint judges. This government have done a lot of that, and they have appointed a lot of people who they are very, very comfortable with as judges. We all know that. But this is taking it a step further. This is going way too far. The idea of appointing a magistrate on a three-year contract, which can be renewed or not renewed, depending on whether the Attorney-General likes the job you have done, is fundamentally an attack on judicial independence. This government has been accused of politicising the courts and this government has been accused of politicising the judiciary, but this is taking it down a path that you cannot walk back from.

Now, the government says, ‘Oh, it was a mistake’. I am sorry, you do not run ads because of a mistake. Somebody agreed to it. Who agreed to this? Who agreed to an ad appearing calling for magistrates on a three-year contract? The Attorney-General needs to answer that. I have been a minister. Nothing like that happens without ministerial approval, nothing that is a fundamental change from what has happened since the state of Victoria has been an entity, nothing that is such a cataclysmic attack on judicial independence happens without political sign-off. So please do not insult our intelligence as Victorians by saying, ‘Oh, it was a mistake’. Somebody thought it was a good idea to advertise for magistrates on a three-year fixed-term contract. Somebody signed off on the wording of the advertisement. Somebody bought the space to put it online or put it in a newspaper. Then, when the government was called out, they said, ‘Oh, sorry, it was a mistake’. No, no. You were caught out. You were caught out trying to fundamentally undermine judicial independence in this state, and it is a disgrace.

If you think it is ending here, you are wrong. We are going to push this. We are going to pursue this. We want to find out who made that decision because accountability is important, and this is one of the worst attacks on judicial independence I have ever seen. So do not think that this is just going to be swept under the carpet, that it is a one-day wonder—article in the Herald Sun, leave it there.

The extent to which the government does not realise how it is perceived by the legal profession—I think the government would actually be shocked if it understood. I am not talking about Liberal lawyers. Believe me, I speak to a lot of people who would never vote for me who are members of the legal profession, and even people who are sympathetic to the politics of the government are appalled at the way in which this government has treated the legal profession and attacked judicial independence, and for many this is the last straw.

So watch this space, because we are not going to let this go. There needs to be accountability for this government having advertised for fixed-term magistrates. That is the thin end of the wedge. We are going to send a very clear message: if you try that, you are going to be up for the fight of your lives because judicial independence is fundamental to this state and how it runs. We already have corruption issues in Victoria; we do not want to make it worse by this government having judges and magistrates on the end of a string, deciding whether to reappoint them or not depending on whether they like how they serve in that fixed term.

Bringing it back to the Judicial College of Victoria, what the government does in this bill is actually expand the number of appointees of the Attorney-General from two to three or four. So again, it is having the potential for political appointments because these are people chosen by the Attorney-General and they will be, I assume, people sympathetic or at least not antagonistic towards the government. And again, you are effectively doubling the number of political appointees to the board of the Judicial College of Victoria, and that is a concern.

Mr Fregon: It is called the AAT.

Mr M O’BRIEN: Well, the member for Mount Waverley does not understand that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is an administrative body. This is the Judicial College of Victoria. It is not a court. It is not a tribunal. It is a different entity. And given this government’s track record in undermining judicial independence, the fact that this bill doubles the number of political appointees on the JCV board is a concern, and we would like the government to use the opportunity in the debate to actually explain this. Why is it being done, and what are the safeguards? What safeguards is the government putting in place to make sure that they will not be political appointees and they will not undermine the proper role of senior judicial officers on the Judicial College of Victoria?

There are some administrative amendments relating to the Judicial College—increasing the maximum time between meetings from three months to four months, to enable the chairperson to appoint another director to preside at a meeting of the board if the chairperson is unable to attend, to enable the chairperson rather than the Attorney-General to approve absences from meetings of the board and also to remove the requirement for a director to seek the board’s permission to appoint an alternate director from the same court or tribunal. All those seem quite sensible, and we have no objection to them. But given the already significant concerns about the undermining of judicial independence in Victoria which I have referred to, I do think the government need to explain why they are doubling the number of political appointees from two to potentially four on the board of the Judicial College of Victoria and what safeguards have been put in place to ensure that they will not be political appointments as opposed to people who can bring a community view to those matters.

Clauses 33 to 38 of the bill amend the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. In particular the bill streamlines the approval process for the making of rules under the Magistrates’ Court Act. At the moment you need the Chief Magistrate and two or more deputy chief magistrates to approve rule changes, but in 2020 the number of deputy chief magistrates was reduced from four to two, so effectively you would need all three—the Chief Magistrate and both deputy chief magistrates—to approve rule changes. This reduces that threshold to at least one deputy chief magistrate, and that does not seem to be objectionable to us. Because of those changes going through there are some consequential effects on the rule-making powers under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, so the bill also updates those acts to reflect the new rule-making provisions.

Clauses 39 to 40 of the bill amend the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 in relation to federal jurisdiction. There was a court case that determined that VCAT has no jurisdiction to hear federal subject matters, for example, where one party to a proceeding lives outside Victoria. Because they are beyond the bounds of Victoria it is regarded as being federal jurisdiction, and a court case decided that VCAT cannot deal with matters such as that. Because of that those matters have been referred to the Magistrates Court, which does have jurisdiction. These amendments in the bill help to facilitate the referral of applications from VCAT to the Magistrates Court where federal jurisdiction is enlivened.

Clauses 41 to 47 of the bill amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to provide for the issue of integrated birth certificates to adopted persons. Integrated certificates are ones which note the birth parents as well as the adoptive parents of the individual. There has obviously been a lot of work that has been done by this Parliament through committees and in a very bipartisan way—can I say that has been welcomed—to look at past practices in relation to adoptions and some of the ways in which a lot of people have been let down by failures in past practices in relation to adoptions and trying to make sure that adopted people have got more rights. I think that the provision of integrated birth certificates where both their birth parents and their adoptive parents can be reflected on those certificates is a positive step. I also note that no fee is payable for the first issue of an integrated birth certificate. I should note there is no obligation on any individual to use or to apply for an integrated birth certificate. If an adopted person is happy with their issued birth certificate and the details on it, they can leave it at that. But this does provide another option for adopted people, and it is one that we support.

Clauses 48 to 60 of the bill amend the Adoption Act 1984 in relation to accessing certain information about adoptions. It permits the registrar of births, deaths and marriages to access certain information for the purpose of issuing the integrated birth certificate. It also updates references to departments in the act because, under new administrative arrangements put in place by the government, adoption services have moved from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Justice and Community Safety. As a result of that a lot of adoption matters will now be in the Attorney-General’s portfolio rather than the Minister for Health’s portfolio, and we will obviously welcome the opportunity to deal with those matters.

Clause 54 of the bill is an interesting one. It removes the ability of the department to adopt out a child that is in its care without the consent of the natural parents, even where the person has deserted, persistently neglected or ill-treated the child or the person has seriously ill-treated the child to the extent that it is unlikely that the child would accept or be accepted by the family of that person. So we are talking about a situation where a child has been taken into the care of the department because the birth parent or birth parents have deserted the child, have persistently neglected the child or ill-treated the child or have seriously ill-treated the child to the extent that it would be unlikely the child would accept or be accepted by the family of that person. What this does is effectively give the birth parent or birth parents a right of veto on the department’s ability to adopt that child out. You might ask the question: why is it that a parent who neglects their child or persistently ill-treats their child to the extent that the department has had to step in and take care of the child has the ability to stop that child being adopted out? Again, there is no easy answer. There would be some people who would say that somebody who so persistently neglects and abuses their own child should forfeit the right to be able to prevent that child being adopted out and maybe having a better life with a family that would care for him or her.

Of course we also have seen issues where perhaps governments in the past have been a little bit too quick to adopt out children and may have in the process reduced the scope for reconciliation or reunification. If, for example, parents had drug abuse issues which led to their actions to abuse or neglect their child and then subsequently were able to resolve those and were in a position to be able to look after their child, if the child had been adopted out it would be very difficult to reverse that and would be very disruptive for all concerned. So I do understand what I understand to be the intent behind this measure, but I do think that in all these matters the rights and the interests of the child must come first.

We will not be opposing this clause in the bill. But we are concerned by it, because we would not want to see a situation where parents who have been neglectful or abusive and ill-treated their child and have had that child taken away from them because of that are in a position to stop that child from having a better future and to deny that child that opportunity to be adopted by a family that would love him or her and would care for him or her. So I think this cannot be ‘set and forget’. This has to be a measure which we have to look at very carefully and monitor very carefully to make sure that the interests of the child are paramount and are not being made subservient to the interests of abusive parents.

Another change, in clause 58, provides a new discretionary power to the secretary of the department of justice to use and disclose adoption information in accordance with the new section—and a number of specified factors are set out in new section 100A, subsection 3, which the secretary must have regard to in making any decision.

I do not have the time now to go through all these matters, but there are some significant issues around the rights of adopted people to have information about their birth parents and also the rights to privacy of those parents who themselves may be adopted. I have had a matter brought to my attention which is terribly sad, and I do think that this is an issue which we need to continue to have a discussion about to make sure, again, we get the balance right.

The bill also amends the Gender Equality Act 2020 to update a number of references and to enable the commissioner and specified persons to use or disclose information obtained under the act in certain circumstances. In summary, the opposition does not oppose the bill.

Ms HENNESSY (Altona) (11:20): I am very delighted to make a contribution on this bill today. Of course last Sunday was Mother’s Day, and across many, many households we would have seen gorgeous sticky and chubby infant hands passing across to their mums gorgeous Mother’s Day cards. I hope that there were the infamous coil ashtrays and the ‘Best Mum Ever’ mugs being distributed around as people celebrated these things.

Mr M O’Brien interjected.

Ms HENNESSY: The member for Malvern makes a point about ashtrays—they can be used for a variety of purposes, including for pot plants and for nuts and all sorts of things. But the spirit of Mother’s Day was one that so many of us got to enjoy last Sunday, and as we discuss and debate the bill that is currently before the Parliament we should not forget that for many of the people who have inspired and advocated for the reforms in this bill, last Sunday would have been a very, very difficult day. I speak of course of those mums that were the subject of forced adoptions, and I speak of course of their children, because I can think of no greater bond than that between a mother and a child, which was broken in so many circumstances that we have learned so much about in recent times—but only because of the advocacy of groups like VANISH, only because of the bravery and the fortitude of so many who came to share their heartbreak and what they thought was their shame but was in fact our shame.

We saw over 40 000 adoptions in recent decades in this country, and we do not know how many of those were forced adoptions because so much of the evidentiary material has been destroyed. So even being able to demonstrate what kind of systemic abuse of women and children occurred is denied, but we still have the power of so many stories of those women, and I today in making my contribution on this bill make it in honour of those women and I make it in honour of their children—their fortitude, their bravery, their heartbreak and their continuing hope for us to be able to continue to right those wrongs, and this bill makes a really important contribution to that end.

Many of those women who were the subject of forced adoptions were in fact subjected to the most heinous of behaviours. I know this having discussed this issue directly with many of the women impacted, and I certainly know many of my colleagues have been terrific advocates for the sorts of reforms we see in this bill. Many of them were subjected to things like being taken away to special maternity services without their consent. Many were drugged. Many did not even get the opportunity to hold their own babies before they were taken away, and with my friend and colleague the member for Richmond here at the table I cannot help but also reflect on our national heinous shame in respect of the impact of this issue on the stolen generations as well. This is an intergenerational trauma that continues to be lived, and it continues to be lived not just by our First Nations people; it continues to be lived by those women that were taken away, that were subjected to shame, that were not supported, that were in many cases drugged, that were told that they were not fit to be mothers, that had their babies taken away from them and then were greeted in later life with a culture of denial and silence and disapproval.

Often when people reflect back upon these historic moments when we as governments of all persuasions and at different times in history have subjected people to this trauma, when we have denied children their rightful history and the rightful relationships that they ought to have been able to have with their mothers, we have not taken responsibility for those. There have been, however, some I think glaring exceptions to that as a general rule. I want to acknowledge and commend former Premier Baillieu, who in this Parliament made an apology to those women and their children that were the subject of forced adoptions. I want to commend and acknowledge former Prime Minister Gillard, who also made a heartfelt apology, on behalf of the nation, to those women that were affected. And I want to commend and acknowledge all the members of the Legal and Social Issues Committee. I had the great honour of being able to refer to them some terms of reference in order to consider many of these issues around unfinished business, because apologies are one thing—they are important, and I do not underestimate the power of what it means to have the premier of a state or the prime minister of a country make one—but an apology is not an atonement. Atonement is an action. Atonement is actually listening to how we can try and mitigate some of the gross intergenerational trauma that we have subjected these families to. And to the Legal and Social Issues Committee, chaired by the member for Sydenham—

A member: St Albans.

Ms HENNESSY: St Albans—I have been rightfully corrected—and all the members of that committee, I also want to acknowledge what a cost there is, I suppose, to immersing yourself in those issues, to really listening to those stories and coming up with a great blueprint of a way forward. I want to commend and acknowledge the Attorney-General in the other place and the Premier for their incredibly compassionate support and embrace of many of those recommendations. Some of them are tricky. Some of them cost money, and there has been a really important announcement of just over $4 million to provide compensation and assist many of those mothers whilst a redress scheme is developed and considered. The great tragedy of people in this set of circumstances is that for many of these mums and children, some people have died and some people are coming to the end of their lives, and it is just so critical that we do everything we can to try and right those wrongs.

The bill picks up a number of those recommendations around things like integrated birth certificates where that story could be reflected. It is not compulsory. Of course some people do not want their story to have to be told on every occasion they need to rely upon a legal document. It does take really important steps to try and ensure that we are giving government bodies powers to share information to help get to the bottom of many of these stories. As I said, some of the documents have been destroyed. Many institutions have not been as forthcoming as they should have been in respect of righting wrongs and truth telling, so giving the various bureaucratic arms of government the right sorts of powers to get stories and make those available to those women I think is absolutely critical.

For many of these families these changes are too late, and I know that organisations like VANISH and many others require ongoing support in order to support those women and children. I do know that the Attorney is actively engaged in making sure that they have the support that they require. But I do want to acknowledge just how critical they are in both the counselling and the information sharing. They are really the vessels of the truth for so many women and children. As for ensuring that we are able to support them with the funding and a seat around the table when these sorts of decisions are made, the Attorney and our government are committed to doing that in an ongoing sense.

I do want to also acknowledge many of my friends and colleagues, both here and in the other place, that have been just terrific advocates because they have heard the stories or they have had personal familial experiences with this issue. It is always a risk when you start to name names, but I do need to mention my friend the member for Geelong, the member for Yan Yean, the member for Macedon, the member for Cranbourne and the member for Carrum. They are but some of the people that I know who have been great agents and advocates for change and support certainly within our government. In fact it was a fortuitous discussion between the member for Yan Yean, the member for Macedon and me in Strangers Corridor where we thought about what else we could do to try and get this story told and bring greater focus to this issue. There is much more work to do, but this coming just on the back of Mother’s Day I think symbolises a critical step in the right direction, and may they always have our hearts and minds as we continue the important journey of reform.

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:30): I am happy to rise to say a few words on this Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which has quite a wide variety of amendments within it—it is an omnibus bill, as we are quite used to dealing with in the chamber here. I echo some of the comments of the member for Altona in the issues that this will address with respect to past forced adoption practices. This is a very sensitive area and one that brings forth significant emotional turmoil for many people in Victoria, particularly the mothers who were subject to those horrible forced adoption practices. I have a number of them in my electorate, most particularly a tiger of an advocate in Brenda Coughlan, who comes to me regularly with issues. She has only one failing in that she barracks very strongly for the Bombers, which she always reminds me of. Brenda is a regular correspondent, and I met with her actually this week to discuss some of the issues with the redress scheme coming forward, not directly related to this legislation. She has been through a lot, as have many others. The announcement of the redress scheme earlier in the year has certainly brought forward others. I met with a lady in Leongatha only a few weeks ago who has not had any contact with government or government agencies on this issue but was subject to those same abhorrent practices in the past. I suspect that there will be many more coming forward.

I know this will be a difficult process to work out who was involved, which agencies were to blame or involved in the practices and indeed therefore how to identify those that are in need or who are indeed deserving of redress. We often say in these cases the government should hasten on this, but I think hasten slowly as well and make sure that we get the process right. Certainly an issue was raised with me about which agencies will in fact be captured by the redress scheme. I have written to the minister, and I will not raise it any more now, but I would hope that would be addressed as the redress scheme is finalised.

There are a number of clauses responding to the Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria, including, as previous speakers have mentioned, the issues of integrated birth certificates, which can be provided upon request. On that and the change to the adoption information service into the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, I am concerned, as I am sure many other members of the chamber are, about births, deaths and marriages. To this day on the BDM website it still does not have its customer service centre open. Throughout the pandemic, even when every other department was open and available and responding to calls or emails, my office found constantly BDM was unresponsive. Even in the last couple of weeks I have had three or four constituents on a range of issues relating to birth certificates and change of name where BDM has been singularly unresponsive and really has failed in its duty to the public. These are matters I have raised with the Attorney-General. Certainly through the pandemic she was very much aware of them, and we understood that there would be some delays, but there have been quite a number that grate on me. It concerns me that BDM is being given more jobs to do.

I had a situation previously where a 16-year-old girl had, three years ago, tried to change her name, given there was a background there of adoption as well, and she and her grandmother were constantly being told, ‘Yes, someone will come back to you’, and that just never happened. This is a consistent message that I get. I think the Attorney-General does need to be reviewing the operation of births, deaths and marriages and its performance, from my perspective as a local member dealing with constituents who constantly come to me. I had a constituent last year who had one of their children born at home, and that caused enormous issues. It took them in the end something like six months to get a birth certificate because it was not done in the usual process. Now, that is not that unusual, to have a home birth, but this family were dairy farmers with a number of children already, and it just took an inordinate amount of time to get something as simple as a birth certificate. That is a concern that I raise.

I will just touch on the amendment with respect to the current grounds for adopting out a child. The member for Malvern touched on this too, and I just echo the concerns he raised. I understand this is also responding to a recommendation of the committee. It is basically that where—I had to read this a few times—there is a situation of neglect or ill-treatment of a child, if the parents do not consent to the child being adopted out, the department does not go ahead with that. As the member for Malvern indicated, that seems completely counterintuitive to me. As I read it a few times I thought, ‘Surely I’m reading this wrongly’. I appreciate, as did the member for Malvern, that these are not simple and straightforward issues, but it does seem to be a concern that even where parents might be neglecting or ill-treating a child they still have a say in their future adoption, particularly if it is to a family or to a household of any description that will love them and care for them. Like the member for Malvern, I will be watching that carefully, and I hope the government does as well and reviews the implementation of that particular issue, because it does seem a little odd to me.

There are a number of other clauses in this bill amending the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in relation to secrecy provisions and some changes to include more gender-inclusive language in various acts of Parliament. On the changes to the Judicial College of Victoria Act 2001 the most significant of the amendments is to increase the number of directors from eight to at least nine but not more than 10 to facilitate an increase in the number of directors appointed by the Attorney-General. As the member for Malvern indicated, there are some concerns within the legal fraternity about that as to whether it will give the government of the day further power to influence the Judicial College of Victoria.

I think in all of this I would reflect on and hope, as the member for Malvern did too, that the government’s focus is not entirely on these sorts of minor administrative changes but on in fact clearing the backlog in our court system. It is a truism of course that justice delayed is justice denied. Yes, we all understand the difficulties of the pandemic, but we also all remember standing in this place in about April 2020 and making significant changes to the operation of the court system to allow it to continue to operate through the pandemic and through the various lockdowns that we experienced, and I would hope that the government is absolutely focused on clearing the backlog of court cases right throughout the system as well.

I return briefly to the issue of adoption and the Assembly’s Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into responses to historical forced adoption in Victoria. I acknowledge the work done by the committee on that, as the member for Altona did. I know she mentioned former Prime Minister Gillard. I did not actually catch whether she mentioned the Victorian apology.

Members: She did.

Mr D O’BRIEN: She did? Okay. I think it should be acknowledged, the work of Ted Baillieu and Peter Ryan as the Premier and Deputy Premier at the time. I had a wonderful experience with Ted and Peter unveiling a statue in Sale that was pushed, again by Brenda Coughlan, recognising the bond between mother and child. I know that apology, both at state and federal level, continues to warm hearts around our state, and let us hope that these amendments in this legislation and also the forthcoming redress scheme will do more than warm hearts as well.

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:40): I would like to start by acknowledging all the people that made this legislation happen: the minister; the people on the Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria; former Premier Ted Baillieu, who of course as we have heard came out with the first apology, which was followed by obviously the redress scheme under this government; and let us not forget the Gillard statement as well. It is a very sensitive issue, but I think we can all agree that this is the best of Parliament right here, right now. This is what we are all here for. Sometimes we do have robust debates, but this is something that is so important to so many members of our community, and so many people are touched by this.

Before I go on to talk about the integrated adoption certificates—or birth certificates, if you will—I would just like to talk about one of the other reforms in this bill that I think is really, really important, and that is that we are making changes for gender-inclusive language in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. There was a law student who was in a Herald Sun article a little while ago that was quite the warrior in this field. For too long we have sat here and read legislation that says ‘He will unto remove’ or ‘He shall enter’, and of course it is not inclusive. We are not in the 1800s. Yet I do read that it was only in the 1980s when the New South Wales Parliament allowed women into the Parliament. I am proud to be part of a caucus and a cabinet that is 50 per cent women, and our legislation needs to reflect that. The first part of actually doing that is making changes to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act to reflect and include everyone who is writing that legislation. At the moment we are seeing, as a response to that need and that want, other pieces of legislation being reviewed as well as time goes on to remove gender-based language and include inclusive language or more equal language to reflect our community, which is, after all, 51 per cent women. I think that is really important.

I do want to spend some time speaking on the reforms to the Adoption Act 1984 and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996. Forced removal of babies is an absolute stain on our history. It is a shameful part of our history, and for many people this has resulted in insurmountable distress, whether they be the children or the parents involved, and lifelong trauma. It is great to have an apology, but actions are better than words, and including a redress scheme is one of the ways we do that. But actually putting in legislation the option for people to have integrated birth certificates with the different names of their parents on them is not controversial and should not be controversial in this house.

My personal story—I might have spoken about it before in this house—my father was adopted. We believe that he was taken from his mother in Scotland, although because of the records and history, we will never know. We have heard a lot about the impact on mothers and their children, and from my perspective, I can talk about the impact on the children of this. Certainly my father is quite open about how he feels about this and the trauma that he went through not knowing who his mother was. Then learning that quite possibly she had no choice in him being taken away from her—stolen from her—is something that I think, for want of a better word, haunts him. Every day he thinks about it. He was one of the people that decided that he would, through a private firm called Norco, try and contact his birth mum and get at least some biological details, some health details, from her for his own health as he got older. And it was very obvious that that woman had not dealt with the past and had not dealt with what had gone on. Indeed there is a documentary on SBS now.

Funnily enough—and I know you will look at me, Deputy Speaker, and say, ‘That’s a long bow’—but we are hearing now that Dad’s mother was with an American serviceman in Europe, and he was actually African American. That in those days was something that was not accepted at all. Dad has olive skin. You can believe that he genetically reflects that, and the genetic tests say that, but you can imagine the position his mother was put in. What we have been able to piece together show us that she became pregnant, and as soon as that bump started showing she was shifted off somewhere, probably to a nunnery in those days, where she gave birth. She basically had to stay in the nunnery until she gave birth, and then he was just taken away. Life just went on as normal, and that was an accepted fact. This bill is part of a modern society and a modern community actually getting better, but to get better we need to address some of the things we have done that were really wrong in the past.

I note with pride—but I do not think we should be patting ourselves on the back too much—that we have also introduced a redress scheme for members of our Indigenous community recently. We have started the treaty process, the first state in the nation to do so. It is with great pride that we can talk about that and try and create our future, knowing that we have, to some extent, apologised and tried to deal with some of the trauma of the past. For white colonial society we have got a lot of trauma in the past—whether it be for Indigenous people as the traditional owners of the land, whether it be the people that came over on ships as convicts, or even whether it be in the 1950s to 1980s when up to 250 000 children were taken from their mothers by people that obviously thought they were doing the right thing. Whether it was a faith-based belief or something else, they thought they were actually doing the right thing by these people. They had a belief that women who were unmarried could not support a child and could not raise a child.

We now know that those thoughts are well in the history books. I am not sure really where they fit these days, but we do need to ensure that parliaments like this one look back and make those reparations to people: acknowledge the wrongs, acknowledge that our culture has moved on, acknowledge that our culture is now accepting, acknowledge that our culture is one that is progressive enough to admit our mistakes as a state or as a nation and actually pay reparations to people. As the former minister, the member for Altona, said, for some people this is too late. There is, I note, in the scheme a system in place to help people who are getting older and who might be getting more frail get to the top of that scheme and be dealt with first so that they, in their final days, can actually have an apology and know that it was not just words but that action was taken by this government. I stand here very proudly today, though, knowing that as a Parliament this is bipartisan. As I said at the start, this is the best of who we are as a Parliament coming together to admit wrongs, which is really hard. Whether it be personally when you are in a meeting or something and your ego comes into it or as a group of people, it is very hard. It is even harder when it is historical, so I think a brilliant job has been done here by the committee; by the department; and by the minister involved, the Honourable Jaclyn Symes in the other place, to get this where it needs to be.

I would like to just pay respect to the mothers, the children and the families of people who have gone through forced adoptions, who have been through that trauma and who actually found the strength as well to come forward to the committee and make a commitment to let people know that these things happened and document it, making their feelings known so that we could legislate this here today. It is history making. It will mean a lot to many, many people in everyone’s community throughout Victoria. I certainly commend this bill to the house. I wish it a speedy passage through this house and the other house. I would be very surprised if there were any people who found issue with this bill. I would say to anyone who does, if they have read it: go and speak to some survivors, go and speak to some parents who have had forced adoption, and they will change your mind.

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (11:50): I am probably going to disappoint the member for Frankston, but I do want to congratulate him on his contribution and the points he made on that particular element of the bill. I agree it is totally bipartisan, and I think there is wholehearted support across the Parliament for what has been done.

Unfortunately I do have some issues with some other parts of the bill. I guess the fact that we are dealing with yet another omnibus bill, which is a grab bag of bits and pieces, really points to the thinness of the government’s legislative agenda; it is very, very thin. We have an absolutely broken health system. We have a CBD that is screaming for support and getting next to none. We have an infrastructure agenda that even the Treasurer admits is at risk of collapse because of a shortage of materials; we have heard that in the last few days. While we are talking about justice, we had a story on Anzac Day in fact warning that there will be a crisis in the courts that could take decades to clear. We have the government refusing to confirm the number of pending cases. We have the Auditor-General saying we need a 179 per cent increase in the number of courtrooms. A few days after that the figures were released. I can understand why the government was not keen to have them released, because they showed there were 116 000 cases pending in the Magistrates Court; that is up 45 per cent. Then a couple of days ago we had the Herald Sun reporting that criminals are walking free from jail early because of the backlog—judges reducing sentences to try and get guilty pleas to deal with the backlog. This is a very, very unnecessary and difficult situation for our justice system, but it is a reality.

There is nothing in this bill that addresses any of the multiple crises that we have currently across the state. Just look at the second-reading speech: clarifying an issue in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010; gender-inclusive language in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities; reforms to the Adoption Act 1984 and the births, deaths and marriages register—which, as I said, is I think the important issue in the whole bill. We have got diversity on the Judicial College of Victoria board, how they appoint alternate directors, a change to VCAT’s jurisdiction, updating of the Crimes at Sea Act 1999 and the secrecy provisions in the Gender Equality Act 2020. None of those things are problematic in terms of the actual legislation, but they are essentially administrative matters. None of them fix the crisis that our justice system is facing across the state.

Before I speak about the range of matters that are in the bill, I do want to make some comments on part 8, which is the integrated birth certificates part of the bill. Part 8 makes a range of amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 and the Adoption Act. They are quite technical changes, but the outcome is to facilitate integrated birth certificates. As I mentioned earlier, this is a very important reform, and I think it is a very welcome reform that will enjoy strong support. It picks up recommendation 26 of the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into historical forced adoptions. This is an extremely difficult subject, and it has had a difficult history over a long period.

I have no doubt that many of the people that were engaged in the practice of what has come to be known as forced adoption felt that they were doing the right thing. But we need to be clear: they were not doing the right thing. It was a practice that led to enormous trauma for far too many, and it is a practice that has had ongoing impacts across the generations—the impact of trauma, mental health impacts and potentially physical health impacts. This can, should be and I believe is a bipartisan outcome. I am proud of the fact that I was part of the 2012 apology—a part of the government that introduced that apology—and I am certainly proud to be standing here today saying I strongly support the changes that are part of this reform.

Going back to the chronology of the bill, in the time that remains, changes to the Crimes at Sea Act , part 2—irrelevant to Victoria but necessary, absolutely. Changes to the Equal Opportunity Act—now, the member for Malvern talked about clause 7. The advice we had was that it is an avoidance-of-doubt clause. If that is in fact the case, then I think it is quite a reasonable change. New section 176B adds to the section 176 secrecy provisions to codify a range of exceptions. According to the second-reading speech it is about enabling disclosure where necessary to protect the safety and wellbeing of others. There is nothing unreasonable there. I think it probably does indicate a weakness in the current FOI system—that the FOI system could be frustrated by hiding behind the secrecy provisions. And perhaps it also indicates a weakness in terms of the mandatory reporting provisions—the fact that we have to beef up this act to ensure that those things are still observed. Surely if we had a system that was doing its job, those provisions would override this, but unfortunately it appears they do not.

The changes to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006—clauses 9 to 24—are largely about changing ‘his or her’ to ‘their’, ‘that person’s’, ‘the child’s’, ‘the member’s’ or ‘the Minister’s’. It is interesting in the style convention that ‘the minister’s’ has a capital ‘m’ even though it does not apply to a particular minister but ‘the member’s’ does not. I am not sure how that evolved, but it is an interesting observation. Is it a reasonable change? From my perspective, absolutely it is. Personally, I would like to see this change happen a lot quicker than it is happening. I would like to see the legislation just done across the board, sort of similar to the 1958 consolidations of legislation that were undertaken.

I know some people are concerned about these sorts of changes. I suspect it is more about what you are used to than specific pushback about the intent. The fact is many people simply do not like change. That is the fact of it. I recall probably three or four decades ago the debate about whether you have a chair or a chairman or a chairperson. That debate has largely been forgotten now, and over three or four decades that practice has changed. Now of course we talk about batters et cetera. So from my perspective, the sooner we can get this done the better. It is a debate that we do not need distracting us in difficult times.

Changes to the Judicial College of Victoria Act 2001—the second-reading speech suggested that it was about implementing the recommendations of the review of sexual harassment in the courts and VCAT. Well, yes, it is about one recommendation, I think it was recommendation 7, but it is dealing with the big issues again: prohibition on acquiring or disposing of personal property of more than $50 000—I do not know why it was in there in the first place, but this takes it out; removing the reference to the need to execute delegations under seal; board absences approved by the chair not the Attorney-General; and fewer meetings a year—three meetings instead of four. Why not make it four meetings a year rather than saying ‘every three months’? And permitting the chair to appoint a temporary chair. There is only one change related to the review, as I mentioned, and that is changing the number of directors from eight to nine or 10 and boosting the number of people with broad experience in community issues affecting courts from two to three or four. So that is the implementation of recommendation 7.

The Magistrates’ Court Act 1989—as I said, 116 000 cases pending, 45 per cent up. What are we doing? We are changing the mechanism for adjusting the court rules. VCAT, federal matters—again something needs to be done, but it is hardly a matter of moment. The changes to the Adoption Act—I will not have time to go through them, but they are again an important part of that process and certainly to be supported.

There is nothing remarkable. These are largely administrative reforms. Most of it is housekeeping. The changes that I identified at the outset of my contribution are the important changes. I would like to see far more matters of substance on the legislative agenda of this place. I live in hope.

Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (12:00): I am delighted to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Before I go into the bill I would just like to acknowledge the opening speaker, the member for Altona, who as the previous Attorney-General did refer this to the Legal and Social Issues Committee. What I did not realise until I heard her speech was that the member for Yan Yean and the member for Macedon had been really integral in coming up with this as something that needed to be addressed. I have certainly spoken to the member for Yan Yean about it and know there is this passion, but I did not realise that she was the driving force behind it, and I do thank her for that.

I am on the justice committee and went through this inquiry. It was probably one of the most harrowing inquiries that I have sat through. Of course if I found it harrowing, I can only begin to imagine what it was like for the mothers and indeed children that came and spoke to the inquiry. I think we all acknowledge how retraumatising it can be to continue to tell those stories. As the member for Frankston did in his contribution, I really, really want to acknowledge those women for their continued fight to keep this issue at the forefront, because it is incredibly harrowing for them to tell their stories again and again. This bill for me shows that this government is really committed to getting on with implementing the recommendations from the forced adoption inquiry, and that makes me very proud. As I say, having listened to many of the contributions, these are people that really need acknowledgement of the terrible injustice that was done to so many of them.

The committee heard over 114 submissions over 11 days of hearings, and we did those hearings both here in Melbourne and also in regional Victoria. It was really startling to know just how widespread this practice was and really the suffering that it has caused. Approximately 40 000 adoptions were arranged in Victoria between 1958 and 1984. When we discussed the terms of reference and what sort of time period we would look at, one of the things I found personally fascinating was that there was a dramatic drop in 1974 of adoption, and of course that is when the Whitlam government introduced a single parent payment. It goes to show what a difference an act like that can make—that people could actually keep their children or they could fight back. A lot of times these women told us that there was no option. The things that they talked about—being drugged and having their child taken away from them. One of the things I found really distressing to hear about was them being given medication to dry up their milk without being told that was happening. There was such a sort of overt impost on women’s bodies and women’s lives. I think everybody in this place should be shuddering that this debate is going on again in America, about who has the right to discern what happens to women’s bodies. Even in our very own house, in that other chamber, to hear the despicable words come out of that member’s mouth that in fact what is happening in America around Roe v. Wade is a good thing is an obscenity. Women should have control of their bodies at all times. The forced adoption was really one of those iterations, that all of that control was taken away from women. As I said, they went through some really traumatic experiences in terms of being drugged, having children taken from their arms. It was a really, really difficult inquiry to listen to, but I am so, so grateful that those women keep sharing their journey and their experience so that we as the broader community can understand what happened and make sure that it never, ever happens again.

On the debate at hand I would just like to make a comment that the member for Malvern and the member for Gippsland South both did question one element of it, which was around parents’ consent in adoption, and I just want to make the point that what we as the committee really felt in the end was that adoption is absolutely last resort. It has got to be the last resort. People did talk about someone being drug affected: how can they have that right? Well, that bond still exists. Talk to children that have come out of domestic violence situations. They still love their parents. And we still do great damage separating families. So adoption, which is irreversible—not entirely irreversible but pretty irreversible—is an absolute last resort, and of course the thing to be aware of is that the court retains that right of consent. It is an important part of the bill. I can understand why those on the other side have raised questions about it, but having sat on the committee I heard how much people need adoption to be seen as an absolute last resort.

I also want to acknowledge my colleagues and fellow committee members, and of course in particular the chair, the member for St Albans, but also the member for Geelong, who is in the chamber and was incredibly passionate in this space and talked really from the heart about how important it was that we got some of this through. Thank you for your guidance in what was my first committee. I thank also the member for Clarinda and the members for Gembrook, Caulfield and Brighton for all of their contributions and dedication to the inquiry. It was during the pandemic, and it was, as I said, traumatic, so I thank everyone.

I also want to just take a moment to thank the secretariat. Yuki Simmonds went to such lengths to make sure that anyone who was speaking to us was well looked after at all times. There were support workers in the room, and they were just so incredibly sensitive to the complexities in this issue—and it is complex. What I found extraordinary to understand was that there are so many different positions on this, but the one thing that united everybody was the pain and suffering that both the adopted and the forced adopted went through. So I do want to thank the secretariat, because as I said, there was an extraordinary level of work and commitment by them to make sure that we looked after these people that were talking to us and minimised that trauma that comes with telling your journey and your experiences again and again. We all know that we cannot undo what was done, but we can recognise the harm that was caused, and we can provide some really meaningful support.

The integrated birth certificate was really one of the key things that came out of it. There are different views on this as well, and of course it remains optional. You can go ahead and do it if you like. I have got two sons, and their birth certificates—it really is about your identity; it is the thing that you hand over again and again to say who you are. I know that when people spoke to us they said they were living a lie, that their birth certificate is not true, and they wanted their birth certificates to represent who they truly are. There are people, as I said, who do not necessarily agree with it, but it is optional, so they do not need to go there. I can understand that perhaps it might be painful to in effect say to people, ‘This is the trauma I went through’. But that option is there, and it is an incredibly important option.

I am really proud that we have taken action straightaway on the redress scheme. Given the kind of time frame when this happened, a lot of these women are ageing—as indeed we all are—but it was incredibly important that we acted very quickly and swiftly. To that end I would like to thank the current Attorney-General for her swift action and her swift response to the inquiry. I am glad these elements have bipartisan support. I think we all acknowledge that terrible things were done to too many people in the past. Whilst we cannot undo them, we can seek to acknowledge them and in some way provide some sort of redress, and this bill goes a long way to doing that. There are other elements which I acknowledge, particularly around the language in gender equality, but I think really for me, having been through this inquiry, to see this government enact so quickly what we found and to try and provide some redress— (Time expired)

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (12:10): Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate today on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This bill includes a number of amendments to legislation in the Attorney-General’s portfolio. We have heard that that includes the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and the Gender Equality Act 2020, but like many members in this place today, and I do want to acknowledge the terrific contributions that have been made so far, I will focus my contribution on the proposed amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 and the Adoption Act 1984. I will do that because, like others in this place, I note that these amendments respond very swiftly to some of the priority recommendations arising out of the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria.

That committee, in its report, made 56 really important, significant recommendations. The report was tabled in September last year, with the government’s response tabled in March this year. In this government’s response there was a clear recognition of the significant trauma experienced by Victorian women who were subjected to forced adoption practices. I too would like to acknowledge the tremendous work of the former Attorney-General as well as the Attorney-General in the other place, but also the department for bringing in the changes that we see in this bill today and bringing them in so quickly, just two months after the government’s response was tabled in this place.

The bill will implement, significantly, recommendation 26 of the committee’s report and that will see the introduction of integrated birth certificates for adopted people. I understand from reading the report that the need for integrated birth certificates was a recurring theme in evidence that was presented to the inquiry, and it is tremendous that with the amendments in this bill today adopted persons will have the choice to obtain an integrated legal birth certificate which includes the details of the natural parents as well as the adoptive parents and the date of adoption. As we have heard, this is a choice, but it is a really significant choice and part of this important process of not only healing but also understanding and discovery and just enabling these people to address some of the issues, some of the trauma, some of the grief and to come to terms with and learn to understand what has happened.

The bill will also implement recommendation 34 of the inquiry. There are amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act that will ensure, importantly, that things like search certificate fees will be waived for people affected by forced adoption. Again, that is removing one of those barriers, those hurdles, that confront many people in this process. The bill will also make further amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to implement recommendation 28 of the committee’s report. The requirement that has been in place for mandatory counselling for people applying for adoption information will now be replaced with an obligation on the department to offer counselling.

Why is all of this important? Well, as we have heard, it is important because these amendments really are the start of a process to address a dreadful wrong—a wrong that has impacted and literally changed the trajectory of people’s lives over generations; a wrong that we know was barbaric, cruel and frankly almost incomprehensible in the level of deceit, unconscionability and immorality; and a wrong that we know has led to unimaginable and long-term suffering and grief for so many people. Unfortunately it was a wrong that did take place as a result of deliberate policy decisions made at both government and institutional levels with such absolute disregard particularly for the welfare of mothers who have been impacted.

Important steps have been taken. We have had really heartfelt, important apologies delivered both in this place by the former Premier of Victoria, the Honourable Ted Baillieu, back in October 2012, and of course in the federal Parliament by the former Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable Julia Gillard, in March 2013. Significantly both of these apologies followed the 2012 Senate inquiry into the commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices. But we know so many of those recommendations have not been implemented or have only been partially implemented.

That leads us on to the inquiry conducted by the Legal and Social Issues Committee here in this place. I too want to acknowledge the various members who made that reference—the member for Altona, the member for Yan Yean and the member for Macedon. I want to thank them for starting that. I also want to acknowledge the extensive, really empathic, detailed and important work conducted by the committee, chaired by the member for St Albans. It is clear, listening to some of the speakers today, including the member for Buninyong, that the submissions and the evidence before the committee had a really significant impact on that committee. It is really important work that they have undertaken, and I thank the committee for their work and the final report, including those 56 recommendations, a number of which will be implemented with this bill, with many more to follow. Of course the committee’s work was made all the more challenging because of the pandemic, but despite that they pushed on. They held face-to-face meetings, they held online meetings and they did everything they could to put progress this inquiry.

To all of those who participated in the public hearings and to many more who made written submissions, I want to say thank you. It no doubt takes so much courage to share those kinds of experiences, particularly ones as profoundly personal as those which reveal such abuse and trauma and unimaginable loss. I can only hope that by sharing these experiences—some for the first time, I understand—that has enabled some healing for some of these mothers and for some of the people affected by forced adoption.

I would also like to acknowledge the various organisations who participated in and informed the inquiry, particularly those organisations whose mission it is to support people affected by forced adoption practices, and they are organisations like the association representing mothers separated by adoption and VANISH—organisations that evolved more than 30 years ago because people understood the need for an independent support service that is run by and for people who have got lived experience in forced adoption. Their work supporting people affected by forced adoption is really just so important and will continue to be important as we roll out the implementation of the various recommendations, including of course, I am so proud to say, Australia’s first redress scheme for people impacted by forced adoption.

I want to acknowledge this government’s commitment to doing just that. I want to acknowledge the support of the Attorney-General, the Treasurer and the Premier for making available a special hardship fund which will be implemented ahead of the redress scheme as well as further funding that will be made available to organisations such as VANISH to support applicants through that process.

This is such a significant step in the process to support mothers affected by forced adoption as well as people affected by forced adoption to start that healing process. It is so important that we are publicly discussing this matter. It was kept secret for way too long. Harm has been done; we must do everything now that we can to minimise that.

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (12:21): I too rise to make a contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. It is an omnibus bill which seeks to make a number of amendments, but the important ones, as has been canvassed by many in this house today, are in relation to the implementation of the recommendations of the forced adoption parliamentary inquiry. I do want to thank the former Attorney-General, the member for Altona, and the current Attorney-General for bringing this very important bill to the house today and also congratulate the member for St Albans, the chair of the parliamentary Legal and Social Issues Committee, who put in an enormous amount of work—and all of the committee members—to listen to the testimony and come up with some very strong and powerful recommendations which are the basis for the legislation today.

After a couple of years of hearings and deliberations, some of which were delayed by COVID, on 8 September 2021 the Legal and Social Issues Committee tabled its report on the inquiry into the responses to historical forced adoption in Victoria. Like many others, I was deeply saddened by the stories from mothers, forcibly removed children and others who shared their significant grief and trauma caused by the shameful practices that were shared. I am very proud to lend my voice of support to the amendments, which begin the process of change to meaningfully support those who have been affected and acknowledge the harm caused by these dreadful practices in our state’s history.

As was canvassed in the report, unwed mothers were historically regarded as unfit to keep and care for their babies, with decisions about their babies taken from their hands. They were often sent by their families to maternity homes. One which was in and around my area was the Kedesh Maternity Home, which was established by the Mission of St James and St John in 1926. It was established in Carlton originally, then it moved to Kew in 1929, and in 1986 it was closed and replaced by the Kedesh Hostel in Box Hill. It is a very interesting etymological name because ‘kedesh’ has a Hebrew origin. The root of the word ‘kedesh’ is ‘kadesh’, which is ‘holy’, and ‘kedesh’ itself means ‘sanctuary’. For the women who were in this place it was anything but a sanctuary. The institutions that were trying to provide these services might have felt they were doing a holy task in providing a sanctuary. It is interesting in that context that the committee did take a lot of evidence in this regard. In its executive summary it said that it did:

… not believe that historical forced adoption was a reflection of the values and attitudes of society at the time. Rather, there is evidence that the practices were the result of deliberate policy decisions made at government and institutional levels.

Towards the end of that period, and this was particularly during the 1950s and 60s—it was from the 20s but particularly through the 50s and 60s as well—there was the introduction of the single parent pension by the Whitlam government in 1974. Combined with changing social attitudes, this changed the orientation of the service into what it became in moving into the hostel in Box Hill. There are a number of histories written about this particular institution that are online, and one history of the mission describes the approach that was taken during the 1960s:

… most girls had little to do with their baby once it was born; it would be adopted from the hospital under a tight veil of secrecy. This was believed to be best for the mother and the baby. The babies were adopted by ‘good Christian families’ and the girls were told ‘you’ll have your baby and you’ll go home and forget’.

In its hearings, the committee noted that many women reported feeling isolated, alone and ashamed, having been sent to the hostel to wait out the last trimester of their pregnancies, after which their children were adopted out. Of course the legacy of grief and distress this caused for these women and for many children forcibly removed lives on and can never be forgotten.

Our government’s response to the inquiry was tabled on 10 March 2022—so barely two months ago—and the committee made 56 recommendations, of which 33 were supported by the government, including plans to introduce a redress scheme, with the remaining 23 recommendations to be further considered. I echo the sentiments of the member for Carrum in saying that it is terrific that in such a short time—in just two months since the government response—we have been able to get this legislation to Parliament to introduce some of the highest priority elements and amendments towards redressing some of these past wrongs.

In particular the bill makes a range of amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to implement recommendation 26, which is to introduce integrated birth certificates to be issued at the request of an adopted person who is 18 years or older. That is a legal birth certificate that includes the details of both the person’s natural parents and their adoptive parents and the date of adoption. Currently the only legal birth certificate in respect of a person who has been adopted is the post-adoption certificate, which only shows the adoptive parents. The bill will allow the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages to issue a post-adoption birth certificate that includes the details of the natural parents and the adoptive parents and can be used as a valid proof of identity. This is a small step, but it is an important step towards implementing some of the committee’s recommendations which support the needs and interests of those who were adopted and bringing our system into line with others that are already in place elsewhere. It grants the right for the individual to choose whether to discover or disclose the nature of their birth and their adoptive parents.

The bill also implements recommendation 28 of the inquiry, which seeks to amend section 87 of the Adoption Act. That section currently provides that a person who has applied for adoption information, including an adopted person, must attend an interview with an approved counsellor before they can receive information about the adoption to which the application relates. This bill further empowers the adopted person or other applicants with the right to refuse counselling or a previously mandatory interview prior to the release of adoption records. In its inquiry the committee heard that while the interview process may be considered beneficial for some, the mandatory requirement to be interviewed may be detrimental to others. Some participants reported that they felt disempowered, vulnerable and traumatised after the process, while others criticised the slow and bureaucratic nature of the process. Putting the power back into the hands of the individual who was adopted or the individual applicant provides some level of redress and of acknowledging those past wrongs and giving that power to those who need it.

Other amendments in the bill will empower the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to obtain historical adoption records and information to preserve them for access now and into the future. Faithful keeping of records that may be accessed where and as appropriate preserves our state’s adoption history so that we may learn from past wrongs and continue to do better in the future.

Just finally, the legislation also makes a number of other amendments, in particular in relation to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and the Gender Equality Act 2020. In relation to the Equal Opportunity Act, there is a specific change to section 83 to clarify that religious discrimination in education institutions is only available on a religious basis. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (12:31): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I want to start by thanking the Attorney-General for her work on this really important bill and of course the member for Altona, the previous Attorney-General, who referred this inquiry. On 8 September 2021 the Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee tabled its report on the inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria. The government response to the inquiry report was tabled on 10 March 2022. There were 56 recommendations, of which 33 were supported by the government, including plans to introduce a redress scheme. The remaining 23 recommendations will be considered further. As a member of this committee I was proud of the work of the inquiry, and I want to acknowledge the chair of the committee, the member for St Albans, and other members and the secretariat. This was a really challenging inquiry.

I want to acknowledge the member for Buninyong’s contribution. It was, I think, her first inquiry, and she shared her thoughts in her contribution today. We were given the absolute privilege of the trust of those mothers who sat in front of us and gave evidence to the inquiry. I do want to acknowledge and thank the mothers who bravely came forward and gave evidence of their experience. They were subjected to horrific experiences that impacted them for their entire lives. They were taken away, hidden and made to feel they were unfit to be mothers. They suffered so much shame for that. They were drugged and never saw their babies. Many had lived their lives in silence until they gave evidence at that inquiry. It was so traumatic for them to do that. Some of those women who gave evidence were speaking for the very first time about what had happened to them many years ago, so it was very traumatic for those women.

We heard about the trauma of trying to get information from the homes that they were sent to, from the hospitals, from the religious organisations. These were homes that would never be able to operate today. But when they were operating, when those young, vulnerable mothers were sent to these places they were treated like dirt. They were treated like they were not human beings and were pushed into this situation where they felt utter shame and felt that they were not fit not only to be mothers but to be human beings. Some of the evidence that we heard was really traumatic for those women giving the evidence, but as the committee sitting there listening to what had happened to those women it was really challenging for all of us as well. To know that this actually happened and was condoned not only by government but by organisations right across this state was so disturbing. As I said, we heard from mothers who had never spoken of this trauma. For some it would be a bit of a healing process; we know that. Some of them we were able to speak to after the inquiry and they had conversations with us about what this meant to them.

I think the important thing for me is to now see that we are starting to implement some of those recommendations from that inquiry. It just proves to me how important these sorts of inquiries are—because that is how we make change, and it is how we make change that actually supports all of those mothers, all of the women that gave evidence at the inquiry—and that this government does care. We do care about what happens to them. We responded very quickly after the report was tabled in this place. It was a matter of months, and we were talking about what we could start to roll out and what in this bill is really important for these women. It shows them that we are going to start making progress.

The bill makes a range of priority amendments to enable some key recommendations of the inquiry to be swiftly implemented. Firstly, the bill makes a range of amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to implement recommendation 26—to introduce integrated birth certificates for adopted people. It also amends the Adoption Act to enable the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety to disclose adoption information to other organisations that require access. This amendment is necessary to allow a forced adoption redress scheme to be implemented in line with recommendation 18. This will also allow future academic research into open adoption to occur, as set out in recommendations 14 and 15.

The redress scheme is a key part of the work that we did. For many of those women it was not about being financially compensated as such, but the redress scheme for them was seen as an acknowledgement of what actually happened to them. I think for just about every woman that we spoke to or who gave evidence during the inquiry it was a big issue—around acknowledgement. They felt they had not been acknowledged, that it did not really exist, that it had been hidden for so long. Even though other things had transpired over the last 12 years they felt that the acknowledgement just was not there. That was important to them, and the redress scheme was a key component of that.

But so are the areas of this bill that we are talking about today—about integrated birth certificates, about whether you actually have to have an interview or not and the stress caused by having to sit through that. For some women it was okay; for others it was really challenging. This is the sort of evidence that we heard, which informed the report and the recommendations that were so important to those women. There are many recommendations that we are working through as a government, but I think some of these key ones are really important to acknowledge today when we talk about the outcomes of this report and what women specifically asked that we look at in terms of our recommendations. And of course the redress scheme was really important, but it was really important as part of that acknowledgement of what actually happened to them.

Other amendments give the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety a clear function to provide additional adoption support services, which is the subject of recommendations 32, 37, 38 and 39, and they amend the Adoption Act to enable the secretary to obtain an order to properly protect certain adoption records.

We are not waiting to begin the important work in response to the inquiry’s recommendations, which is why we are standing here today talking about this bill. These changes are meaningful changes. We cannot change what happened to those women in the past. We will never be able to compensate for what happened to them, but we can at least begin with the changes for the mothers who experienced the lifelong effects of forced adoption. The evidence we heard in this inquiry was shameful, and it has caused lifelong trauma for those women. So I am really pleased that we are now seeing these recommendations come through the legislative process. It is evidence that our committee work is so important. It changes lives. This is such an important step. Although we may consider these to be smaller parts of the recommendations within the report—for some of those women they are not small, I have to say—they are actually the beginning of making the changes that we need to ensure come through this place. That is why I am so proud that the Andrews government has listened to those women. We are addressing the issues that they have raised. We have acknowledged the recommendations. We have accepted the report. There are, as I said, many recommendations within the report. It is important that all of us continue to acknowledge the work that needs to be done, and the contributions in this place today are to be commended from this side of the house.

Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (12:41): It is my pleasure to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This is a bill that shows that the Andrews Labor government is getting on with the job of streamlining, modernising and reforming our justice system. Whilst many of these reforms may appear incremental, as a whole they represent a coordinated, consequential approach to our justice system. These are reforms which every member of this chamber can be proud of.

Opening the batting for the opposition, the member for Malvern raised a number of matters that I find myself in considerable agreement with. He was referring to things like clerical tidying up et cetera and sometimes the issue, too, between practical justice and symbolism, and that is something that will always challenge lawmakers and law practitioners of course. However, there was just one thing there that I think he needs some correction on, and that is on the appointment of so-called ‘short-term’ magistrates. If you recall, the member for Malvern was very concerned about what he understood to be the situation in regard to such appointments. I must point out, on advice, that there is no plan to bring in temporary magistrates and there has never been a plan to bring in temporary magistrates.

We have very clear legislation in Victoria that provides that the appointment of magistrates is until the age of 70. A magistrates expression-of-interest process launched online and in print last year, and the process included an error which referenced an appointment duration of two to three years—I emphasise that was an error. This was subsequently corrected to make it clear that the role is ongoing and reposted to reflect the legislated duration for magistrate appointments. We continue to support our courts, including our magistrates.

The Victorian budget invests more than $41 million in funding to help clear case backlogs caused by the pandemic—which was a concern for the member for Malvern and all of us really when you think about it—when a number of in-person court services were deferred to keep the community safe. This includes bringing on more remote hearing services, upgrading technology, appointing more judicial officers and staff and providing legal support to resolve matters before they get to court. I thought it was important that we just clear that up and move on with some other aspects.

This bill is a continuation of a pattern of reforms by the Andrews Labor government in supporting our courts in recovering from COVID. We know that our justice system has been especially affected by the onslaught of COVID. However, this is a government that knows the paramount value of our independent, effective justice system. This is why we so consistently in the house debate justice legislation, because our court and legal system is the linchpin of our society.

We have injected a gargantuan $340 million since the start of the pandemic to ensure the courts can hear cases and resolve them. The 2022–23 budget handed down more than $41 million in funding in order to clear case backlogs caused by the pandemic. And that is not all. There was $80 million invested in 2020–21 for justice system recovery and there was another $210 million in 2021–22 to continue justice recovery, help drive down court backlogs and bolster resources in courts across the state.

I know that my seat of Hawthorn is likely rivalled only by Malvern and Brighton in terms of lawyers per capita. Indeed it is a hub for magistrates and for Melbourne’s diverse legal community, with personalities ranging from the ever-present Julian Burnside to our good friend Chris Blanden, a man whose work I have no doubt all of us in this chamber are aware of. Despite our differences I think we can all take pride in Melbourne’s legal fraternity and indeed our broader civil society. It is this continuation of minor improvements to our judicial system by this government that supports this vital segment of our society.

In this bill the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court is clarified, gendered language is removed from the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and a number of other changes are made. An important aspect is the elimination of sexual harassment in the Victorian court system. The former Attorney-General, the member for Altona, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Honourable Anne Ferguson, instituted the preventing and addressing sexual harassment in Victorian courts and VCAT review. This review primarily identified how to build a culture that calls out sexual harassment and allows individuals to speak up without fear of retribution. The review benefited from 36 submissions or interviews with persons who had experienced sexual harassment; 26 roundtable discussions with 175 participants from legal and court settings; 50 interviews with judicial officers, experts in sexual harassment and leaders of relevant organisations; and 11 institutional submissions. A small number of the recommendations were aimed at the government, and this bill is implementing recommendation 7, which improves the education provided to judicial officers by making the board of the Judicial College of Victoria more diverse.

I would like to remind all of us in this chamber is that in the Australian Human Rights Commission 2018 national survey 33 per cent of respondents who had been in the workplace in the previous five years had experienced workplace sexual harassment. One-third is a huge amount, and this statistic shows us how much work we have to do in this area, which is why legislation like this is so important.

I would like to move towards a conclusion in regard to the changes to section 83 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. As a former Catholic secondary school principal, this interests me. I would just like to say that it is so important that we get the balance right. I think the Attorney-General somewhere wrote, ‘We will better balance the right to equality with the right to religious freedom, ensuring protection and promotion of both rights’. So we are not just talking about one side or the other; it is a question of both.

I think it is important to understand that when we are talking about religious beliefs we are also talking about the charism of the school. We are talking about a number of other requirements, if you like, that might not be specific religious tenets but could well be part of what the ethos of the school is all about. There is no suggestion in this legislation that the ethos can be just ignored, if you like, or even acted against. Really what this is about is recognising the right to equality on gender, marital status and sexual orientation. So it is about respecting one’s private life; it is as simple as that. It does not mean that people can behave in any way they like in the school community or say whatever they like necessarily in a classroom of impressionable young adolescents, for example, but it does mean that private life is just that—private life—and that there is no opportunity or entitlement to investigate private life. I welcome these amendments and simply point out that they must be seen in light of the other needs of the school, the charism of the school and the unofficial curriculum, dare I say.

Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (12:51): It gives me great pleasure also to rise and to make a contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. As has been noted in the chamber today, this is indeed an omnibus bill that is addressing several areas of reform. All the areas of reform in this bill hold up that tenet and that principle before law that everyone has equity before the law, and many of the changes that are being proposed in this bill fall within that category. Indeed it is a tenet of the law that this government will always promote and will always try to make sure that the enforcers of the law do uphold.

Being an omnibus bill, there are several provisions to the bill being proposed. I do note the very strong contributions that my colleagues have made on this side of the house, particularly in relation to the inquiry into historical forced adoptions in Victoria. You cannot have reform in this state unless you have a commitment to investment in it and investment in the justice system as a whole. The amendments in the bill complement the very many investments that this Andrews Labor government has made in supporting our court system in particular to recover from COVID. There has been funding of some $340 million since the start of the pandemic to ensure that courts could continue to hear cases and to speed up the resolution of matters. This included bringing on more remote hearing services, upgrading technology, appointing more judicial officers and staff and providing legal support to resolve matters before they even get to court.

The 2022–23 budget just handed down provides more than $41 million in funding to help clear case backlogs which have been caused by the pandemic, when a number of in-person court services were deferred to keep the community safe. In addition to this year’s budget funding, the government’s total investment includes close to an $81 million investment for justice system recovery. That is made up of $12.47 million for initiatives to resolve matters before they get to court; $44.21 million for initiatives to provide safe and secure court access for all Victorians, including upgrading of audiovisual link technology, providing better court infrastructure and supporting the digital transformation of court and tribunal case list filing and management; and $24.15 million to ensure cases are heard and finalised quickly, including the expansion of the online Magistrates Court and the very successful pilot of electronic pop-up courts with improved AVL capabilities, and to facilitate improved case management and listing programs.

Also there has been a $210 million investment to continue justice recovery to help drive down court backlogs and bolster resources in courts across the state. This includes close to $35 million to reduce wait times in court by providing extra resources, including innovative case management programs, expanded online services, the appointment of additional judicial officers and court support staff and remote hearing services; $40.9 million to fund further expansion of the online Magistrates Court; $56.78 million to enable VCAT to transition more of its hearings online; more than $22.9 million to continue successful measures such as active case management at the Supreme and County court levels; and $55.3 million to Victoria Legal Aid, Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions, Corrections Victoria and victim services to ensure that they have the necessary resources to play their part in backlog reduction.

It is with these investments in the judicial system that we also see there being support throughout the whole court system. In many ways it is the Magistrates Court which makes up the muscle, if you like, within our court system, and those moneys that I have just discussed, those types of investments, go towards assisting the transition and the amendments that this bill is proposing in relation to the Magistrates Court. First, the bill amends the process for making rules of the court, providing additional flexibility for the court and ensuring that not all deputy chief magistrates need to be involved in decisions of the court. Second, the bill also ensures that the court can hear matters that VCAT is unable to hear due to constitutional issues, which did arise and indeed were addressed by the Parliament last year.

The amendments will also help the court manage hearings and assist it to get through the backlog that has been caused by COVID restrictions. Whilst COVID did present very many challenges to all of us in all walks of life and in particular a court system which had to virtually halt overnight, within that there were several opportunities as well—opportunities which have been exploited and have been deemed to be successful in being able to get the backlog down. The court’s pending caseload as a result of the pandemic did dramatically rise, but through the hard work of those court officials and the judiciary and the magistrates and supported by these government investments that I have spoken to what we are starting to see is those backlogs now beginning to decline.

The pending caseload of the Magistrates Court has been falling since the start of the year. It is very, very impressive that more than 5000 cases have been cut from the backlog between March and April of this year—to be able to administer justice in this state, as I said, at that Magistrates Court level that really does make up the muscle within the court system. It is very impressive that these new initiatives that have come post pandemic are able to trim the backlog to that degree. Some ways that it is doing that are through the use of online hearings as well, a much better modernised court practice, and expanded powers for judicial registrars, which are enabling the court to maintain access to justice and progress matters through the system in a very timely manner.

Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.01 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.