Thursday, 4 August 2022

Crimes 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) (14:49): I rise to address the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. At the outset I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. This is a relatively short bill. It undertakes three primary purposes. The first is to abolish the common-law offence of outraging public decency. The second is to effectively replace that with the creation of a new statutory offence of engaging in grossly offensive public conduct. The third and separate aspect of the bill is to delay by a further 12 months the abolition of the offence of public drunkenness.

I might deal with the third aspect of the bill first. When the government introduced legislation some time ago now to abolish the offence of public drunkenness, members on this side did not support that bill, and one of the reasons we did not support the bill was that we knew that it would be absolutely socially devastating to abolish an offence of public drunkenness if you did not have the health services necessary to step into place. The concern of the government was that public drunkenness was being used to lock up people who were a danger to themselves and to others. Yes, absolutely that is exactly what the offence was being used for—to stop people being dangerous to themselves and others through their own intoxication. But if you abolish that offence and you do not replace it with the support services necessary to help those people who are in that situation, you are leaving them to their own devices, to hurt themselves or hurt others. We warned the government about this at the time. We said, ‘You do not have the services in place’. We have got a hospital system that cannot cope as it is. We have got an ambulance system that cannot cope as it is. We have got a mental health royal commission that recommended that ambulance officers effectively be used instead of police officers to deal with a lot of mentally ill people. That still has not been properly implemented. Yet this government wanted to load up the health system in this state with a whole lot of new responsibilities, and it did not have that in place; it was not ready to go.

What this bill is is an admission that the government got it wrong. By delaying for a further year the abolition of the offence of public drunkenness the government is admitting it did not have the health services in place. Do we object to the further deferral of this abolition of the offence? No, we do not. It is clearly necessary. But why doesn’t this government ever listen to people in the first place? In their arrogance, members opposite just believe that they can say something and it suddenly happens. It does not. You need to do your homework. You need to make sure the funding is there, the policies are there, the staff are there, the recruitment is done and the facilities are in place. If you want to set up a sobriety centre—or drunk tank, to use the usual term—you have got to build them, you have got to staff them and you have got to train the staff. You cannot just wave a bit of legislation around and say it is done, because it is not done, and that is why this bill kicks down the road for a further year the abolition of the offence of public drunkenness. The opposition do not object to this part of the bill. We do say, ‘Why don’t you listen, Premier? Why don’t you listen, Labor government?’. We told you this. We warned you about this, and now in the death throes of the 59th Parliament you come in here with a bill to admit that you got it wrong. You should have listened in the first place.

Turning to the other aspects of the bill, I was Leader of the Opposition at the time of the Eastern Freeway tragedy. You see a lot of things in politics and in public life, and there are some things that make you stop. I remember that night when I heard the news. It is one of those things that just makes you stop. The idea that we could lose four of our finest, four members of Victoria Police, in the one incident was tragic in the true sense of that word. I think all Victorians felt a sense of loss that night and in the days that followed.

Then on top of that loss of four officers who were doing their duty, who were serving Victorians, who were keeping us safe, the news filtered out about the actions of one individual who was a witness to the tragedy and his conduct not to call for help but to pull out his mobile phone and film the tragic scene when there were police officers still fighting for their lives. It made me sick to my stomach, and I think it made many Victorians sick to their stomachs too. The thought that somebody could be so heartless, so insensitive and so cruel is just not something that really ever crossed my mind, and I suspect it has never really crossed the minds of legislators or courts in the past, because when the police looked for an offence with which to charge this individual—and I am not going to name him because he does not deserve it—all they could find that seemed to fit the bill was a common-law offence of outraging public decency. That matter proceeded to court. The individual concerned pleaded guilty and was sentenced to jail for three months on that count. There were other counts relating to driving offences and others which meant that that individual went to jail for a longer period of time, but the specific action that gave rise to the outraging public decency common-law charge only resulted in three months jail. The reaction of many in the community was that that was insufficient. Certainly the reaction of many of the families of the police officers who lost their lives on the Eastern Freeway that night was that that was completely inadequate as well. I acknowledge that the government has responded to those concerns in this bill today and I acknowledge the fact that the common-law offence of outraging public decency is to be abolished by this bill. In its place will be a new offence of engaging in grossly offensive public conduct. That is an offence which would have a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

Now, I have consulted, as you would expect me to do as Shadow Attorney-General, with a number of organisations in relation to this bill, and some concerns have been raised. I understand those concerns, and I will put some of those on the record because the second-reading debate is the appropriate place for those concerns to be put in place. But nonetheless, as I made clear, the coalition does not oppose this bill, because it does think that the actions in relation to the response to that individual on the Eastern Freeway did identify a gap in the law. We acknowledge that the government is seeking to fill that gap through this bill here today. How would this new offence work? Well, new section 195K creates an offence of grossly offensive public conduct. The elements of this offence are that:

the offender engages in conduct that grossly offends community standards of acceptable conduct …

So that is the first limb. The obvious question is: what sort of conduct grossly offends community standards of acceptable conduct? And of course that is not defined in the bill. That is what gives rise to some of the concerns that have been expressed publicly and to me by stakeholders, to which I will refer later on. Some people say, ‘Well, you shouldn’t have crimes which are uncertain, and if we don’t know what community standards of acceptable conduct are and we don’t know what grossly offends them, is it fair to have a crime of that nature?’, to which I respond: I understand the concern, and it is obviously better if you can perfectly define matters, but that is not always possible. We currently have a number of offences under statute which do require the application of an assessment of where the community standards lie.

Using indecent language, for example, is a statutory offence. What is indecent? Well, different people would have different views. I suspect if you are at a wharfie’s picnic what is indecent language may be slightly different to if you are at a meeting of the CWA. Somebody swearing loudly at the footy may be regarded in a different context to somebody swearing loudly in a church service. At the moment the law does provide for courts to bring to bear an assessment of what is acceptable and not acceptable behaviour in the minds of reasonable people in the community, so to that extent this is not novel legislation. It is not asking courts to look at something and to determine a view of where the community’s mind is where it has never done it before, because there are currently a number of offences where courts are required to assess what is offensive or not offensive, what is indecent or not indecent, and often context is key to those types of assessments.

Firstly, the offender must engage in conduct that grossly offends community standards of acceptable conduct. Hopefully this will not be an offence which is ever prosecuted, because hopefully this sort of conduct will never occur again. But the government says it uses the term ‘grossly offends’ because it wants to make clear that this is only to capture the sort of conduct that is at the extreme end of the spectrum. I think that is an important point for perhaps future courts who might be reading second-reading debates to try and understand what Parliament was intending when we passed this legislation, and I am sure it will be passed. This is not intended to deal with hurt feelings. This is not intended to deal with, to use the term du jour, snowflakes. This is designed to deal with the most offensive conduct on the most extreme spectrum. We do not want to see this new offence being used or abused in the future. This is not designed to curtail freedom of speech or freedom of thought. It is not designed to curtail protest. It is a very specific offence. I think the context in which this has come about—the context of the Eastern Freeway tragedy, the context of the actions of a particular individual on that tragic night—needs to be seen and understood by future courts when they are understanding and seeking to apply this new offence. This is an offence which hopefully, as I say, will never have to be employed, but if it is, it should be limited to the most extreme and the most offensive type of conduct.

A second limb is that the conduct is engaged in at a public place or is seen or heard by a person in a public place, and ‘public place’ is defined within the bill. We have seen that formulation used previously, I think most recently in relation to the passage of the legislation which banned the display of the Nazi swastika in public places. It is appropriate that Parliament does not seek to govern every single aspect of what happens in every single place in Victoria. There is a place for privacy. Our charter of human rights and freedoms acknowledges that privacy is a right, and I think it is appropriate that the government is therefore limiting the creation of this new offence to actions that occur in a public place or that can be seen or heard from a public place.

The third limb is that the offender knows, which is a subjective test, or is reckless as to whether, which is a more objective test, the place at which the conduct is engaged in is a public place or it was likely to be seen or heard by a person in a public place. Effectively the person needs to either know that they are doing this in a public place or be reckless as to whether that is happening. The offender also needs to know, or a reasonable person would know—again, that is the subjective and the objective aspects coming together—that the conduct would likely grossly offend community standards of acceptable conduct. Something which is grossly offensive to me may not be grossly offensive to you. Obviously we have all got different views as to where the boundaries lie for what is acceptable conduct, what is unacceptable, what is offensive and what is grossly offensive. I do understand the courts will no doubt at some point in the future need to try and draw that line. What we are trying to do through this legislation I think as a Parliament is to put in place a system where we understand that the person who is accused of committing this conduct needs to either know that it is grossly offensive or a reasonable person would have that view.

Interestingly, new section 195K(3) provides that a reference to conduct being ‘seen or heard’ in the earlier subsection does not include seeing or hearing it by electronic communication. The government states that this is intended to remove online activity and electronic communication from the operation of this new offence. If that is the intent, I think that intent is a worthy one. We have seen, or at least I have seen—occasionally you see on social media—what occurs in other jurisdictions, notably in the United Kingdom. Certain police forces in the United Kingdom take a very proactive approach to online activity—arguably overzealously, arguably infringing free speech, arguably taking subjective hurt and criminalising it. This must not be the path that we go down here in Victoria. Free speech still matters. Yes, we have laws against defamation; yes, we have laws against racial and religious vilification. That is entirely appropriate. But just generically hurt feelings should not be a crime, and I think it is important that the government has put that exemption in place in this bill.

One of the questions I did ask in the bill briefing—and I am grateful to the Attorney’s office and the Department of Justice and Community Safety for assisting with that bill briefing—was: what if somebody was showing a video on their phone on a bus or a train or a tram that contained grossly offensive conduct? I do not particularly want to speculate; maybe the member for Polwarth can help me speculate as to the sort of videos I might be talking about. It might be Carlton getting done by the umpires again, as happened the other night.

Mr Riordan: Geelong losing to Carlton.

Mr M O’BRIEN: Well, that would be outstanding conduct. But let us say hardcore pornography. If somebody tried to publicly broadcast that on their phone in a public space like a tram or a train or a bus, with schoolkids on the bus—as the member for Polwarth said—that could potentially be very grossly offensive. I asked the question: will the exemption in relation to electronic communications stop that sort of conduct from being caught by this new offence? I did receive a response in writing, and I must admit that I am not really the wiser as a result of that. Maybe the Minister for Corrections, who is at the table, or other speakers from the government on this matter could perhaps clarify that issue, because I do think that is the sort of thing that sadly we have seen. We have seen instances of people using electronic devices and broadcasting things which are pretty offensive—I do not know if they would meet the ‘grossly offensive’ standard here, but very offensive conduct—in confined spaces like on trams and trains and buses, and I think it is a reasonable question to ask whether this bill could pick that behaviour up or whether it would be excluded because of the operation of section 195K(3). Section 195K(4) provides that:

A person’s conduct does not grossly offend community standards of acceptable conduct just because …

a person uses profane, obscene or indecent language or is intoxicated. I understand the government has put this in as it will be a safeguard to make the offence less likely to be raised against people who have got mental health issues and less likely to be raised against people who have got substance abuse issues. I understand that. There are still concerns from the sector, though, that notwithstanding that intention, section 195K(4) will not necessarily have that effect. It says ‘just because’ a person uses profane, obscene or indecent language or is intoxicated it does not grossly offend community standards of acceptable conduct. But of course what often happens with people who have got mental health issues or substance abuse issues is that it is not just one action. It is not just swearing loudly or vulgarly or obscenely in a public place; it is often combined with a whole lot of actions. So the sector has expressed concern that this does not necessarily act as the safeguard that the government thinks it is. I pass those concerns on, and I would be interested if the government has a response.

In terms of defences, the bill provides that:

It is a defence to a charge … if the accused engaged in the conduct reasonably and in good faith …

So there are two qualifiers at the start: you have to have engaged in the conduct, to establish a defence, reasonably and in good faith. I am not quite sure why you need them both. I am not quite sure of the legal distinction between ‘reasonably’ doing something and doing it ‘in good faith’. I would have thought if you do something in good faith you are being reasonable and vice versa, but I am sure brighter minds than mine have put both of those in there for a reason. But it has to be in context. It has to be done reasonably and in good faith:

in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

in the course of any statement or publication made, or discussion or debate held, or any other conduct engaged in for—

a genuine political, academic, educational, artistic, religious, cultural or scientific purpose; or

a purpose that is in the public interest; or

in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

I think the last time we looked at this type of suite of defences was in relation to the legislation that was effectively banning the public display of the Nazi swastika. There were some similar defences put in place there. As I said, free speech still does matter, even in this day and age. In fact I would say especially in this day and age free speech matters and is a value that should be maintained and protected. Clearly these defences are designed to try and ensure that things that could otherwise be regarded as grossly offensive to standards of public conduct can still occur.

The example that was given was the uproar that was caused many years ago, probably around 1997—in fact possibly even around October 1997—when a certain artist, Andres Serrano, was going to have an exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria featuring one of his photographs, which was a depiction of a crucifix immersed in urine. Particularly considering this was 1997, this did cause a lot of offence, and it was something which went to court. His Honour Justice Harper of the Supreme Court of Victoria had to consider the matter. Did it constitute blasphemous libel? Did it offend the Summary Offences Act 1966? It was a very interesting judgement. His Honour actually alluded to the fact that he felt uncomfortable being put in the position of having to make a decision in matters such as this because it was almost prejudging what a reaction might be. In the end, His Honour decided that because not all the potential criminal matters had been played out to their possible extent, he would decline to issue an injunction, and the exhibition went ahead.

I vaguely remember it. I think I was maybe a baby lawyer at the time, so it was interesting from a legal point of view how the court case would operate and what conclusion might be reached. His Honour essentially took the view that we are a pluralistic society and it is not the role of the state to uphold any particular religion, certainly in a country such as Australia where we do not have a state religion. In fact our constitution prohibits there being a state religion, notwithstanding the fact that no doubt this particular piece of art, as some may call it, was grossly offensive to parts of the community.

But we should err on the side of free speech in my view. We should err on the side of tolerance in my view, and I think to that extent the defences that are provided for in this bill are therefore appropriate. As I said, political, academic, educational, artistic, religious, cultural or scientific purposes are all examples of the sort of activity which you can engage in, and as long as you act reasonably and in good faith, things which might otherwise be grossly offensive to community standards will not constitute an offence. A technical legal issue I should raise is that once a defendant points to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that an offence exists, the onus is then on the prosecution to disprove the defence when it is proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.

There is one further safeguard in this bill. New section 195L provides that a prosecution for this offence must not be commenced without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We do not want a situation where any old officer of the law can say, ‘Right. Grossly offensive public conduct—we’re going to charge you and you can go to jail for five years’. This is a type of offence which should be used so sparingly, because it can criminalise people’s thoughts, words, actions or deeds. When you are dealing with a concept that can be as amorphous as ‘What are community standards?’, the notion of criminalising behaviour which is contrary to that must be done very, very sparingly. So to the extent that the Director of Public Prosecutions provides a safeguard from this offence being abused, I think that is something that we do support.

In the couple of minutes remaining, there are some expressions of concern that I have received. The Law Institute of Victoria said:

Legislation should be clear and not subject to the vagaries of public opinion or outcry.

And they said that:

… this new legislation may result in a disproportionate application of the law, adversely affecting vulnerable people, including those with mental health issues.

The Federation of Community Legal Centres noted:

… the proposed legislation designed to respond to a specific incident, may have far-reaching consequences for communities that are marginalised and already overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

And they noted that:

… the proposed offence affords police a wide discretion in terms of assessing public propriety and decency and could result in discriminatory application …

Liberty Victoria stated:

Because the prohibited grossly offensive conduct is (deliberately) left undefined and ambiguous, the proposed offence will not act as a deterrent.

And they said:

In short, there is no demonstrated need for this new offence.

I do understand the concerns of these organisations, but in responding to what happened on that tragic night on the Eastern Freeway when we lost four police officers, the outrageous conduct which followed and the fact that the law that could be utilised at the time was clearly not fit for purpose, the opposition does think that this statutory offence is an appropriate response. We do note that, should this be applied in a way which is not in accordance with our intentions by future courts, we would have no hesitation in bringing this legislation back before the Parliament and amending it. This should not be seen as a blank cheque for any police or any future courts to try and criminalise conduct which should be dealt with in other ways, because it does carry a maximum five-year jail sentence. But we do think that this legislation does meet a gap that was identified in that single tragic incident. We hope this legislation will never need to be used, because we hope that those horrific events of that night on the Eastern Freeway and the appalling and outrageous conduct which followed will never, ever be repeated.

Mr EREN (Lara) (15:19): I too would like to make a contribution on this very important bill before the house today, the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. At the outset, I have been in this place for nearly 20 years now, and we have seen a lot of legislation come through the house. Unfortunately we need legislation like this because of certain individuals out there that are vile individuals. I will get onto, a bit later on in discussing the bill, how that incident impacted the lives of the four members of the Victorian police force and indeed all of their families, and how we as a government deal with vile individuals like that person I am about to talk about in a few minutes. It is with sadness that we rise in this place for legislation like this but it is necessary. I acknowledge the member for Malvern’s contribution on behalf of the opposition in supporting this bill before the house.

Obviously this is a commonsense bill. As I indicated before, there is a lot of legislation that we have put through, and from time to time some legislation does come back for minor tweaking. This has been a part of a process where we have consulted widely in relation to this legislation, and we think we have got it right at this point in time. The bill will create a new offence to be added to the Crimes Act 1958 which applies to conduct that grossly offends community standards of acceptable conduct and applies to conduct which occurs in a public place or is seen or heard by a person in a public place. This will not apply to online offensive conduct, and I will get to that in a few minutes. I know the member for Malvern had a couple of issues with that. I have sought some advice, but I will get to that a bit later on. It contains defences for good-faith and reasonable conduct that is in the public interest, including genuine political activity, art or science; has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment; and includes a requirement that the DPP consent to any prosecutions. The common-law offence of outraging public decency will be abolished. The bill will also defer commencement of the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021 by 12 months to November 2023. This will defer the repeal of public drunkenness offences by 12 months.

The government is strengthening and clarifying our laws around extremely offensive public behaviour to better meet the expectations of our community. As I have indicated before, the Eastern Freeway tragedy in 2020 took the lives of four Victorian police officers. They are Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor, Senior Constable Kevin King, Constable Glen Humphris and Constable Joshua Prestney. The events surrounding the tragedy highlighted a gap in the law. Obviously that is why we are here today talking about it and introducing this law before the house. This bill will create a new contemporary statutory offence for grossly offensive public conduct with a clear maximum penalty. This will replace the archaic and unclear common-law offence of outraging public decency. The bill will also defer decriminalisation of public drunkenness to November 2023 to allow time to trial and implement a health-based response. I think the member for Malvern picked up on that as well. We need this reform, as was highlighted in the aftermath of the Eastern Freeway tragedy. This horrific incident—again, as I have indicated—took the lives of four Victorian police members. When leaving their home and going out to protect and serve the community they did not expect to be tragically killed in these circumstances and not come back to their families, and I think it is a loss for all of us collectively when something like this happens. Obviously it is very sad and we express our profound and deepest sympathies to the families of those killed in the line of duty that day and acknowledge any family or friends listening to this debate today.

Many Victorians were shocked by the actions of—unlike the member for Malvern I will name this person, because he should be named. He should be shamed every time his name is raised and when he presents somewhere where his name is announced people should say, ‘That’s that vile individual that committed that offence’. Richard Pusey is a vile individual, and I think we should shame people like this and make sure other people do not copy these sorts of incidents in the future. That is why it is important that we should name and shame some of these people—so they are not forgotten, they are remembered for the vile individuals they are. He recorded footage of the crash scene and made offensive commentary. This obviously caused extreme distress to the families of the victims and their friends and colleagues, and indeed all Victorians and all Australians were disgusted by the actions of that individual.

In a modern society we expect that public spaces are maintained as public places of decency and dignity that all members of our society can safely enjoy. Richard Pusey was charged with the common-law offence of outraging public decency. This offence is archaic and unclear in its scope and does not have a clear maximum penalty. This old offence will be abolished by this bill.

While we hope the new offence will rarely or never be used, it is important that clearer guidance is set out in law about how the conduct should be dealt with if it occurs again. The proposed laws were developed alongside heartfelt campaigning by Stuart Schulze, whose wife, Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor, died in that crash. The government thanks Mr Schulze for his constructive and valuable feedback. There are several key features of the offence. The relevant conduct must occur in a public place or be seen or heard by a person in a public place. This includes parks, roads, sportsgrounds, public transport and both government and non-government educational settings. It reflects our society’s expectation that public spaces are maintained as places of decency and dignity that everyone can safely enjoy, free from intimidation and distress.

A relevant fault element is also included. The offender must know or be reckless as to whether the place at which the conduct is engaged in is a public place or the conduct is likely to be seen or heard by a person in a public place. This recognises that there may be circumstances in which a person may not know or foresee the possibility of their conduct being public in nature. The offender must engage in conduct that grossly offends community standards of acceptable conduct. This relates to the physical act that takes place. Offensiveness has a legal meaning, being ‘behaviour calculated to wound feelings and arouse anger, resentment, disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person’. The bill uses the language ‘grossly offensive’ to emphasise the extreme nature and high degree of offensiveness required to meet the threshold.

In relation to one of the issues, in the limited time that I have, that was raised by the member for Malvern, the bill also does not apply to conduct seen or heard when using electronic communication. This is because the online behaviour is adequately covered by the commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to cause offence. The exclusion does not necessarily mean that any reference to an electronic device is completely outside the scope of the offence. Whether the conduct is captured will depend on the particular circumstances, including the exact conduct alleged to be grossly offensive as well as contextual factors. If you consider someone sitting in a tram or train or on public transport discreetly looking at his or her phone and something comes up unintentionally which could be offensive to someone else, if that is not shown to everyone else—if that person does not attract the attention of everybody else to come and look at the offensive detail on their phone—then it cannot be an offence, because there will be certain complications around that. Having said all of that, this is a bill that will hopefully prevent these types of events happening in the future. I am proud to be part of a government that does react and brings in legislation that brings decency to our community. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (15:29:219:): I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 and to speak about some of the issues that were raised by the member for Malvern, but I will focus a little bit more on a different section of the bill. First of all, I think it is really important when we speak on this that we do acknowledge that it has been brought in because of acts of absolutely disgraceful behaviour that I am not going to canvass here. We have seen it canvassed far too often, and we see it through the media all too much. I know every time it ends up back in the media the impact that that has on Victoria Police but I would also say on the emergency services, who would have attended on that night. Obviously all the emergency services who responded on that night would have instilled in their memories the occurrences of that evening.

The bill put in place here is to adjust, as we know we have to adjust, laws as we move forward in a more modern world, because some laws under common law just eventually get outdated. We have got examples of that through many of our pieces of legislation, and I know on occasion it is quite interesting to see some of the things that change in legislation and you did not even realise they were still in the law at the time. They were from an era that was a lot different. If you go back to the old Victoria Police act of 1958 and some of the things that were still there in 2012 and 2013 when it changed, people would be appalled at the things that were expected of some of our Victoria Police and particularly our Victorian policewomen. Some of the conditions that were put on them just to remain in employment were still in acts in 2012, so it is important we do go back and adjust acts.

This legislation is ensuring that we also have an opportunity to send a message about what is deemed as appropriate or what is deemed as inappropriate. Obviously this is to the extreme; however, I was speaking to my friend the member for Polwarth and we were talking about the differences in the era with new social media and people effectively living their life through different elements of social media. There is an article in the Standard where a Dixie woman was charged with culpable driving, and when that charge came through the courts, some of the evidence that came out was highlighting the fact that the driver got out of the vehicle and, more importantly than worrying about calling 000 for a 23-year-old stuck in that car, decided it was her best option to get a quick selfie in front of the car, and that was put on Snapchat before 000 was called. That car caught on fire, and that person died. You can see that the vehicle was already on fire. I know the member for Frankston is here. We know how quickly a car can burn. I am sure he has been to many of them, and it is not often you get there and most of the shell is still remaining. They are usually well and truly alight. To think someone has in this world decided that was a good idea. Now, we are not saying that needs to be in this legislation or legislated, but it is a great opportunity to send a message out there about what is and is not appropriate. We just think of it in here sometimes as common sense. What is common sense? There are circumstances where people just do not live by that same common sense anymore, and I think it is really important we have that opportunity to discuss that and to get that message out there.

The second part I want to focus on today is in relation to the amendment to the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021. When this piece of legislation was brought in there were concerns raised from the opposition around decriminalising public drunkenness without a public health response. That was the first issue that was raised. We had spoken to the Police Association Victoria, who also had concerns around decriminalising public drunkenness not just because of the health response but also because by doing it just in specific, certain areas as a test trial you would have the issue where on one side of the Yarra you could get charged with public drunkenness and on the other side of the Yarra you could not be charged with public drunkenness. We raised these issues at the time as some of our concerns, and I raised it myself and spoke on that bill, particularly around the impact of Victoria Police having to understand that act, being in different areas. When you go from Richmond to Prahran, which are very, very close stations, and you cross those borders a lot, which laws do you apply when you cross the border: the new laws of the new place or the old laws of the old place? If you imagine it being like we have got it on the Murray, where we have special police that go across the border, because there are laws that are different between Victoria and New South Wales, and we created it to be different between Richmond and Prahran. The Police Association Victoria as well as members within those stations were concerned about how that could be enacted, who would be protected, how to ensure that no-one would get in trouble for false arrest, what the public health response for it would be and how they could do that public health response.

The other section in relation to that bill when it was discussed in here—and I know it was quite open, and I am not sure if it was the member for Brunswick at the time who spoke on this—was the Indigenous community. I am going back from memory, and I have not got a note here, but I am pretty sure it was. It is an issue that I know has been raised in relation to the Indigenous community, who are over-represented in our justice system, over-represented within our crime statistics and over-represented drastically when it comes to public drunkenness. There are a world of reasons why that happens: because they generally drink in more public places and homelessness is a bigger issue with our Indigenous community, we see more people and there are a whole range of things. So it is not just the bill, it is actually taking all of those things into consideration as well. In my view we need to go back pre this and find out what we can do before we get to where someone is going to be placed in that position—either arrested or not, depending on where you are—of public drunkenness and how we as a community can react to make that better, to give a better health response prior and to be more preventative than we are reactive. The concern from the police was about what they can and cannot do but also having the power to do something to even put them into the health response.

Now, I hope the member for Brunswick can look at these ones down here. Dandenong have had a very successful program for a long period of time, where if someone was Indigenous and they were arrested and brought into Dandenong police station for public drunkenness, the police officers themselves would prefer not to have them in the cells. There is an alternative that is a better outcome for the police and a better outcome for the person who has been arrested for public drunkenness, and that is that you would call then—and please excuse me if the name has changed—the Aboriginal co-op in Dandenong at the time. They would send around their yellow car, two people would turn up, they would take the person with them and there were no charges. We arrested them and brought them in, they left and then basically we did not want to hear about it from there, because the response was appropriate. If the person was non-violent, there were no other ongoing concerns and we could identify that they could go back with the Aboriginal co-op and get assistance and help, then we supported that as Victoria Police. It did not need a change in legislation; it needed better training in Victoria Police, which I would assume is even better today than when I was there, but it gave a genuine opportunity for police to do that. I am going to assume—and I have not been all around the state—that that is available in other parts of Victoria and possibly something that could be expanded on.

Victoria Police want to make sure that when we look at changing legislation that public health response is there, but also they want to keep that power for arrest for public drunkenness. They find that that is something that is very, very important. But the reason that I raised it today is that this is to repeal one section just to change the date, and this is highlighting that the government brought in this legislation for a media release rather than an outcome. The reason I can say that now is that they have asked for a 12-month extension on a program they have done nothing about since this legislation came in. There has been nothing done by the government to ensure there is that surrounding public health response. They just basically said, ‘We’re going to remove one part of the power, and we’re not going to give you any extra support’. Now they are realising that has not worked without the extra support, so they have got to go back for another 12 months.

What should be happening is today we should be having the debate about whether it should be permanently staying or not. It should have been the government coming out, being able to stand in this room and have this as a separate piece of legislation, rather than tying it in and going, ‘We delivered on these programs to ensure that for people who are arrested for drunkenness—or, under the new terms, taken in for a public health response for drunkenness—those circumstances were put in place to protect those people in a better position’. However, because the government failed, now we have got it here today where we are having a debate and it is tied in with another piece of legislation to make it more difficult to have a genuine vote on this piece of legislation alone. It is my view that this is a concern for the Police Association Victoria and a concern for Victoria Police, and I will continue to listen to them and make sure that going forward we can have our discussions on this. I know we are not opposed, because the other element of it is far too important. The victims on the Eastern Freeway I do not want to politicise, therefore I am only going to be voting to not oppose to ensure that this legislation is there to protect that in the future.

Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (15:39): I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this bill and grateful to have the opportunity to follow on from the member for Lara. I do want to pay credit as well to the member for Malvern for what I consider to be a really reasoned and thoughtful contribution on legislation that has been brought to us that does acknowledge a really awful and horrendous tragedy. Whilst, in line with the member for Gembrook, not wanting to politicise it, I will acknowledge the pain that that horrendous incident caused and the ripple effect that that has had not just on the police family but I think on the emergency services family.

But just to begin, I am pleased to rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This is an unfortunate and regrettable necessity. This bill introduces a new statutory offence which will apply to a person who engages in conduct in a public place that is grossly offensive to community standards of acceptable conduct. I think that it has already been recognised by several speakers, the importance of the very strong language in the legislation that something needs to be ‘grossly offensive’. I think the member for Lara did help—and I will as well—clarify. I will speak to some of the safeguards that are in place as they relate to this legislation, why that language is quite specific and why we do have to make sure that there are safeguards in place. I do feel confident that with this legislation we have taken the action that is necessary, and I am looking forward to being able to provide that clarity.

This bill acknowledges Victorians’ expectations of decency, dignity and freedom from intimidation and distress in our shared public places. This is a fundamental principle, and it is something we have needed to legislate. It is careful in its discernment between low-level offensive behaviour and the protection of fundamental values and freedom from social harm. It is important to note that this bill will not include conduct that is in the public interest and committed for legitimate purposes, such as conduct that has a political, artistic or cultural purpose. The member for Malvern did actually highlight something that I remember in my own long-ago history, some artwork that had at the time been considered to be offensive to many, and it was important to actually take note of some of that historical law, case law, and the reasons for decisions at the time. It is of note that a key difference between the statutory offence in this bill and the common-law offence it replaces is the provision of a clear maximum penalty. This is designed to guide sentencing judges and will provide certainty to the offence.

I will just speak a little bit about some of the safeguards, because I think that that has come up in this debate and it is important to place on the record that there are some really important safeguards that are included in this bill. I would like to highlight new section 195L, which provides that before proceeding with a prosecution the DPP is required to consent to it. This means that the general circumstances of a matter are scrutinised before charges are filed against an accused person, with the overall aim of ensuring that only prosecutions that are appropriate and in the public interest are commenced.

In addition to that, new section 195K builds a safeguard into the offence that makes clear that just being intoxicated or just using indecent, obscene or profane language is not enough on its own to be classified as grossly offensive, and this reflects the high threshold for the offence, which applies only to very serious conduct. This bill introduces a broad defence that applies to ensure that specific types of conduct committed reasonably, in good faith and for a legitimate purpose are not captured by the offence—for example, conduct for any genuine political, academic, educational, artistic, religious or scientific purpose. I did want to place that on the record and also reinforce what the member for Lara said as reassurance and to enhance, perhaps, the debate that has already been had.

If the DPP consents to charges being laid, Victoria Police will provide a brief of evidence to the Office of Public Prosecutions. A case tried as an indictable offence will start in the Magistrates Court to determine if in fact there is enough evidence before being committed to the County Court. If consent is not given, Victoria Police cannot file the charges and the matter cannot be prosecuted. I really wanted to make sure that that was very clear, to provide that context and to provide that understanding as it has been raised in what I think is a really legitimate debate on this legislation.

I also wanted to just acknowledge and respond to the member for Gembrook’s concerns about the deferral of the public drunkenness element of this offence and recognise that this is another element of this legislation. The government introduced the reforms to repeal public drunkenness offences last year in line with the recommendations of the expert reference group appointed to advise the government on these reforms, which recommended a 24-month implementation period for trial sites to be established. But the impact of COVID-19 has delayed the establishment of trial sites as health services deal with the unprecedented impact of the pandemic, and that has, as we know, placed significant demand on many sectors.

I am going to move, though, to recognising and acknowledging the extraordinary pain that so many in our community but particularly our emergency services family experienced after the horror and the tragedy of the events on the Eastern Freeway. I do want to express the government’s and, I think, the Parliament’s—it has been expressed by both sides of course—gratitude to the families who have used what has been a horrendous tragedy to seek for that to never be experienced again. I am going to make sure that I acknowledge the pain but also thank the families for the work that they have done through their pain to make sure that the tragedy and the loss have a consequence that means others are less likely to experience what was experienced.

I do want to start by acknowledging Senior Constable Lynette Taylor and the way that she was represented as a precious and beloved friend, a niece, a cousin, a wife and the glue to a family. I would like to acknowledge Senior Constable Kevin King and the messages that were read out at the memorial services from his wife, Sharon, who remembered her husband as a soulmate, and how important the public service that Kevin King provided to the community was. Of course I acknowledge Constable Joshua Prestney and his family for the way that he served the community and the tragedy that has come from that loss. And finally, I thank the family of Constable Glen Humphris, because there is great pain and agony that has come from that, and I acknowledge his partner, who said that his heart was broken by the loss. Recognising we have several members of this chamber who have come from emergency services, I know that each time there is another tragedy they are more aware than any of us of the pain that ricochets through families. I know when I was a young person a very dear friend of mine lost her brother, who was a member of the police force in active service. To go into their house and see the way that this family was touched—the memorials were really important.

This legislation before us is in response to a tragedy. It would be great if we never needed to do this type of work. It would be wonderful if this was not necessary, but it is. We are here together, and I am not just pleased to commend this bill but pleased as well to be joined in unison with the others in this chamber in wishing it a speedy passage.

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:49): I am also pleased to rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, noting that this is not a bill about the actions of Richard Pusey but in relation to him. I would also like to acknowledge the families—and all the police force, but the families in particular—of constables Lynette Taylor, Glen Humphris and Josh Prestney and Senior Constable Kevin King, who lost their lives in absolutely awful and tragic circumstances on the Eastern Freeway. Subsequently we saw the actions of Pusey, which were despicable—unspeakable. What he did in the aftermath of that terrible accident has brought us to this point.

Again, this legislation is not about that but is certainly in response to that event. Just re-reading before the commentary that Pusey gave as he filmed the aftermath of that terrible event, it was absolutely sickening, and no fair-minded Victorian could not be sickened by what he did and what was said and indeed his entire behaviour throughout that. This is not legislation, though, to punish Richard Pusey, but it is indeed to ensure that similar future events or actions or activities are properly punished in the eyes of the community and indeed of community standards. So the opposition is certainly not opposing this legislation on that basis; however, there is nuance in everything that we say and do, and there are concerns. There have been concerns raised about this legislation and particularly with respect to the objectivity of what might be considered grossly offensive public conduct and what that actually means. There are a number of elements to the bill and certainly parts of it which provide some safeguards, if you like, in particular ensuring that only the DPP can finally approve action on a charge of grossly offensive public conduct, and that is as it should be.

There are concerns that have been raised I think probably by other speakers, but there are certainly some concerns that have been raised with the opposition by some of the groups involved, particularly the Law Institute of Victoria, which has raised concerns about the clarity of the legislation and that it should not be subject to the vagaries of public opinion or outcry. The Federation of Community Legal Centres has also raised some concerns that the proposed legislation designed to respond to a specific incident may have far-reaching consequences for communities that are marginalised and already over-represented in the criminal justice system and particularly that the proposed offence affords police a wide discretion in terms of assessing public propriety and decency and could result in discriminatory application. That is their view. Liberty Victoria similarly has raised concerns about the lack of definition of the term ‘grossly offensive conduct’.

Look, I understand those concerns. I think there is some validity to them, and I am sure the member for Malvern—I was not able to hear his contribution, but I know in his comments to the Liberals and Nationals he has raised those concerns and the fact that the Parliament should be prepared, if necessary, if these changes are in any way overused or over-abused, to step back in and provide that clarity, which I am sure we would be prepared to do. At the end of the day the community needs to have some satisfaction that if that sort of offensive conduct that we saw with the Eastern Freeway tragedy is to occur again, the people involved will be justly punished. I do not think the community saw that in the case of the Eastern Freeway tragedy and its aftermath. So we certainly are not opposing this legislation on that basis, having noted, though, the concerns that have been raised about the lack of definition and how it will be applied. We all hope, I am sure, that this particular offence is not something that needs to be prosecuted from time to time, because we hope that we will not have people like Pusey involved. Unfortunately they are out there, but I hope that this is used sparingly and that it is not needed too often.

The second part of the bill I want to go to is the delay in introducing the decriminalisation of public drunkenness, and I must say I pulled out my contribution on the original legislation from Hansard from February last year. It is not often you get to say ‘I told you so’, but this is exactly the reason that the coalition opposed the bill at the time to decriminalise public drunkenness, because we were concerned—and I made some specific comments on behalf of my community and on behalf of rural and regional Victoria—that the systems were simply not in place to accommodate the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. I highlighted at the time that whilst there was some agreement on the recommendations of the Expert Reference Group on Decriminalising Public Drunkenness, which released its report known as Seeing the Clear Light of Day, we understood—in fact I actually said—that we in this place need to better acknowledge and respect that while there can be a problem and there can be a range of potential solutions, if we do not agree what the government’s solution is, it does not mean we do not accept that there is a problem. What I said at the time, particularly as it relates to rural and regional Victoria, was that the health services simply do not exist to deal with this. I know that one of the recommendations from the expert panel was that primary first responders should be personnel from health or community services organisations, such as outreach services. I gave the example at the time that at 11.30 on a Friday night in Toora or Foster or Yarram there is not going to be someone available from one of those services to deal with a person who is drunk and causing problems in public. At the moment the police play that role. They probably do not like it necessarily, but they also know that they have a role in protecting public safety.

Likewise, the report recommended a range of new transport options be required to deal with people who are drunk in public. Again, I have enough trouble in my community with sober people being able to get public transport through much of my electorate. It is simply not there, and for many of the people who are going to be the subject of these laws, who do have issues with drunkenness, they do not have access to transport or peers around them who can assist. I made the point at the time of this legislation being debated in February last year that the notion that there will be transport options available in small country towns, even in bigger country towns, is just not feasible.

We warned the government then that it had the solution around the wrong way. By all means bring in the health response, bring in a response that says, ‘We will stop treating public drunkenness as a crime, as a criminal issue; we will treat it as a health issue’. That is great, but we do not have the health response set up. I am actually still sceptical that the government will have that in the next 12 months, particularly given the impacts and the pressure on the health system at the moment. We have seen, indeed with the COVID pandemic, commitments and promises about preparing the health system for the pandemic, which have verifiably failed. I think the notion that in 12 months time we are going to be able to have a health response in place—I am somewhat sceptical still. Whether it was the paramedic that I spoke to about this legislation before it was debated, whether it was the Police Association Victoria, whether it was the AMA, they have all had valid concerns. It certainly is good that the government has acknowledged that it is not ready. I still think, though, that it does not have the resources in place to deal with public drunkenness. It is a good decision to delay this for another 12 months, but it has got the wrong end of the stick, and I think it should still be reviewing it further.

Mr TAK (Clarinda) (15:59): I am delighted to rise today to make a contribution on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Like other members that have already done so, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of Victoria Police across the state and in my electorate, at the Springvale and Clayton police stations as well as those at Moorabbin, Cheltenham and Oakleigh. For the last three years we have been keeping all Victorian police busy, especially in the last two years during the global pandemic. Our police officers and emergency services workers have been in overdrive, working tirelessly to keep every single Victorian safe. Like our frontline healthcare workers, police and PSOs have been right there on the front line for the state’s response to COVID-19. A huge thankyou to all the police, PSOs and emergency workers once again. They are protecting us and supporting our community each and every day, so I am glad to be part of a government that recognises the true value of and supports investment in this important institution.

We have here before us today another piece of legislation that goes to the heart of those values, an important amendment bill with two major objectives. Firstly, it creates an indictable statutory offence targeted at grossly offensive public behaviour that is suitable for contemporary society and has an appropriate maximum penalty, and it abolishes the outdated common-law offence of outraging public decency. As we have heard from other members, the context for creating this offence is the Eastern Freeway tragedy of April 2020. I join other honourable members in sending my condolences and my heartfelt best wishes to the families and friends of police officers Lynette Taylor, Glen Humphris, Kevin King and Joshua Prestney—a terrible tragedy, as we all remember from that time. I cannot begin to imagine the impact on those families. I can only hope that in some very small way this bill might help those families and communities.

The new offence proposed to be inserted into the Crimes Act 1958 will (a) apply to conduct that is grossly offensive to community standards of conduct that occurs in a public place or is seen or heard by a person in a public place, (b) will not apply to online offensive conduct and (c) contains a defence for good faith and reasonable conduct that is in the public interest, including genuine political activities, arts and science. It has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and includes a requirement that the Director of Public Prosecutions must agree that the offence can be charged before a prosecution can be commenced. The last qualifier, the DPP consent requirement, is an important safeguard to mitigate the risk of the offence criminalising conduct that is in the public interest and safeguards against possible misuse of the offence. There has been broad consultation in the development of the offence. A range of stakeholders have been consulted about the new offence, including the families of the victims of the Eastern Freeway tragedy, Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Legal Aid, the courts and other legal representative bodies.

Additionally, there are some important changes to the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021, namely, to defer the repeal of the public drunkenness offence by 12 months to November 2023 to ensure a safe, health-based service model can be implemented statewide to replace the justice-led response following decriminalisation. When the government introduced the reform to repeal public drunkenness offences last year, it acknowledged that time was needed to properly design, implement and trial the replacement health-based response. This was in line with the recommendations of the expert reference group appointed to advise government on this reform, which recommended a 24-month implementation period and for trial sites to be established to test and evaluate the health model.

The impact of COVID-19 has delayed the establishment of the trial sites as health services deal with the unprecedented impact of the pandemic. That work is ongoing, but the importance of the decriminalisation of public drunkenness absolutely remains, and it remains an important priority for this government. The government is working with health services and Aboriginal service providers, including providers in the City of Greater Dandenong, which is in my electorate and part of the south-east, to establish a trial of the health-based service response. The trial implementation committees, including representatives from Victoria Police, health service providers and Aboriginal-specific services, have been established to ensure service providers are working together. The trial sites, one in the City of Greater Dandenong, are expected to commence operations progressively from September.

The government is absolutely committed to this important transformation. It is well overdue, and we are committed to ensuring that there are no further delays to this long overdue reform. We all know that the challenges of COVID-19 are still being felt across the health and community services sector, but the government is doing everything that it can to support the establishment of the replacement health model to ensure the necessary services and supports are in place by November 2023.

These are both important changes to our criminal legislative framework. Again, thank you to all our police, locally and across the state, and again I am very proud of the government’s support for police, funding 3637 new frontline police officers and deploying new police when and where they are needed most, using a new and sophisticated staffing allocation model. In fact 75 additional new police are based out in the southern metro region, division 2, Moorabbin division, which makes a great difference to our local community. Another 172 and 225 are working out of the Nunawading and Dandenong divisions, again making a huge difference to our local community.

There is a lot of work taking place in the crime prevention space as well. Over the past 18 months we have had the former Minister for Crime Prevention out in the Clarinda district on several occasions for some of the exciting announcements. Over the last four years there has been a lot of important work taking place under the building safer communities program in collaboration with the City of Greater Dandenong, and that work will continue until 2024.

More recently there have been some exciting new initiatives under the youth engagement grants as well as the African partnerships program. I was privileged to join the former minister in a visit to Afri-Aus Care’s Ubuntu mothers program. They do amazing work supporting the mothers and families of at-risk youth in a two-generational approach to early prevention with a focus on supporting mothers’ mental wellbeing and building their connectedness, wellbeing and capacity to support their young people. It is an amazing project, and you can really feel the sense of focus on families and community and building connections. On the same day we also got to sit down with the Somaliland Union of Victoria, a great local group who are helping young people across our area to find a sense of purpose, a sense of connection and a sense of belonging to their community. Again, some fantastic work is taking place to build the skills and resilience of our young people from our community. I thank Hussein and the team for all their hard work, time and effort. We will continue that work both within our community and here in the Parliament for a safer and fairer community, and I commend the bill to the house.

Dr READ (Brunswick) (16:09): The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 arises from the offensive behaviour of a man who filmed police as they lay dying after a terrible crash. The suffering of the families and those who knew the victims must be immense, and I can only begin to imagine how they must have felt about the outrageous behaviour that ultimately led to this bill. Out of the grief from the loss of four officers who were killed as they worked and out of the disgust at the disrespectful behaviour, this bill was born.

The bill creates a new offence and, not related to those tragic events, it also delays the repeal of an old one. The new offence is one of grossly offensive conduct, and the old offence is public drunkenness. One thing that we learn from this is that it is much easier to create a new offence than it is to get rid of an old one. Consider that in 17th century England well-heeled lawmakers considered the sight of the hundreds of alcoholics from the gin alleys lying in the streets as representing grossly offensive public conduct to the moral sensibilities of the time. Their response was to develop public drunkenness laws designed, as they put it, for ‘oppressing the odious and loathsome sin of drunkenness’. These laws were carried across and have been with us ever since in Victoria.

It is now 30 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody called on governments to eliminate the offence of public drunkenness, which has contributed to the overimprisonment of so many First Nations people, but has strangely had little impact on the impact of white revellers at events like the Melbourne Cup. I understand that there are good reasons for the most recent delays to the repeal of this law, as the government works to develop the necessary sobering-up services. Nevertheless, the history of the public drunkenness offence and the racist manner in which it has been applied contain an important lesson for us to consider when we create this new offence. Will this new statutory offence work the way we think that it should? Probably not. Not if you read the Law Institute of Victoria’s Tania Wolff, who writes that in attempting to solve one problem, this bill creates a dozen more.

As with most discretionary laws, this one will likely be disproportionately applied to the most vulnerable, such as those with psychological problems. It is not hard to imagine someone being grossly offensive if they are mentally unwell and under stress. Homeless Victorians will be affected more because they live their lives in public without the privacy that most of us enjoy. There is no clear benchmark for defining ‘grossly offensive behaviour’. We do not know what we are legislating against, given this law is likely to be used against someone in 30 years. What was offensive 30 years ago may not be offensive now. Criminal lawyer Isabelle Skaburskis argues that the inherent uncertainty in creating such a vaguely defined offence makes it impossible to know what kind of conduct could land you in jail.

Offences of this nature will be unusual, so while the law was born out of one unpleasant act, who knows what will offend a police officer sufficiently in the future to justify the use of this offence? And as Skaburskis points out in her blog, which I urge you to read, all criminal offending is offensive. Many offences that will put you in jail offend community standards of acceptable conduct. The new offence serves no purpose because much of the existing criminal law is written to cover the sort of offensive conduct that harms people or otherwise justifies the attention of the courts.

It is hard to imagine this offence being used fairly. Based on our experience with the public drunkenness offence, among many others, it seems reasonable to fear that it will be applied unevenly and that those more likely to upset or offend the police are also more likely to find this added to their charge sheet, on top of resisting arrest and other popular items on the menu. This bill strays into new territory, though, by penalising departure from what the dominant community finds acceptable. While the bill is not explicit, it seems that the opinions of news editors and talkback radio hosts may determine when this offence should be applied. Skaburskis writes:

Enforcing notions of proper or improper behaviour with threat of criminal sanction is itself offensive. It offends against liberalism. It offends our social unity. It offends against a conception of humanity that recognises that we are all flawed and there are times when each of us is ugly, and no one person stands above another in that regard.

We do not need another new offence with a jail term. What happened was an awful tragedy, and the behaviour of one man offended us all. But creating a trap for others to fall into in very different future circumstances will not undo what has been done. The bill will not deter behaviour it cannot define. I hope that the government reconsiders this bill before it reaches the other place.

Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples) (16:14): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.