Wednesday, 17 August 2022

Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr CARBINES:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (15:28): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022. If I could just start with the fact that obviously yesterday was a big day within Victoria Police. It was the 24th anniversary of the loss of Gary Silk and Rodney Miller. Gary Silk and Rodney Miller just went about their everyday duties in 1998 and in the early hours of the morning of 16 August were slain whilst out doing their duty of protecting Victorians.

I went to the memorial yesterday at St Kilda. Whilst I was there one of the things that struck me was not just the fact that so many had turned up, not the fact that we had so many young police officers there who were also part of that family and would have felt the attachment just by going to the event and how important they are, but listening to Peter Silk, the brother of Gary, who said that for the first time since they were slain on that day, 16 August 1998, there are no legal proceedings. All legal proceedings are done, and the family can actually find some closure. They did state some of their views and opinions on some decisions that have happened over the past 12 months, but Peter asked everybody to take a step back and recall the lives that these young men lost. Without those proceedings now the families have an opportunity to move on.

Can I just say to all the people who were there yesterday—to the Police Association Victoria, who organised the event, to the paramedics who went to the scene in Moorabbin, to all the police officers who would have got called out to the code 9 on that night, to everyone else who attended and assisted, to those over the years who have supported the families, football clubs including St Kilda and Hawthorn who keep the memory alive with their annual match, to every person who yesterday at some stage stopped for a second and thought about the lives of Gary Silk and Rod Miller—we thank you all, because it is so important that we continue to do that. I thank the house for the indulgence to go through that, because it is a very, very important part of our history.

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill is a bill for an act to amend the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, the Victoria Police Act 2013, the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and for other purposes, and according to the Minister for Police:

The Bill before the House introduces a range of policing reforms which are aimed at keeping the community safe and protecting the privacy of applicants to the Victoria Police Restorative Engagement and Redress Scheme.

We had a briefing from the department. I thank the department, who I know are here today, for their briefing. At a normal briefing, on most occasions we have the briefing from department staff where they do a lot. This one did tend to have more involvement from the minister’s office, which we found a little bit different to our normal briefings. It should be more, in my view, the department briefing us at those.

The bill before the house brings in, obviously, a lot of provisions, going through the changes it will make. I will go through a couple of those in here and raise a couple of concerns that we have, but I put on record at the start that we will put a ‘not opposed’ position and we will reserve our right in the upper house to look at any amendments et cetera to the bill that we believe may be suitable when it gets up there. Some of the measures in here around the Sex Offenders Registration Act are just to clarify that a registrable offender has contact with a child if the offender engages in any form of actual physical contact, any form of oral communication or any form of written communication for the purpose of forming or maintaining a personal relationship. We know in this place, and we have heard and seen in the community too often we would say, some despicable behaviour, disgusting behaviour, things that we would be offended by in normal circumstances, but we also understand there are people out there that are the reason this legislation has to come in. I think that is probably the best way to put it—there are people out there who are the reason this legislation has to come in. We do support the fact that the government is acting on these areas within what is happening with some of the people in the community to ensure that the act is staying up to date and to ensure that people cannot maintain or persist with some of those relationships.

Clause 4 amends section 14(1) of the Sex Offenders Registration Act to clarify that a registrable offender is required to provide information sufficient to identify where the person sleeps on a regular basis if the person has no fixed place of abode. This is actually one that at first, I will be honest, I had a bit of concern about, but after speaking to others in the association, out in the police force and others that implement this, our concern originally was that people with no fixed place of abode tended to not get bail. It made it obviously easier for them; however, one thing that I had not considered is that when someone does not have a fixed place of abode that can be that they are just moving from location to location, staying with friends and family. They just do not have anywhere they call a permanent residence for themselves, so I think the change in that to ensure that a person does update and identify it in their records so that Victoria Police are aware of where they are is a sensible and commonsense change.

The bill also amends section 23(1) of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 so the duty to report in person is subject to the new section 23A, which is inserted by clause 6. The duty to report in person under section 23(1) of the Sex Offenders Registration Act is clarified. It provides that a reference to doing a thing in person is a reference to personal attendance at a place, and it is not sufficient to attend the place by telephone or other electronic means. It is probably more important today than in history. We have got Zoom, we have got everything else that happens now, so when someone needs to report it must be in person. We have probably all been on Zoom where we have got a fake background on, so you could be anywhere at any time according to a screen. It is pretty easy to mislead someone about where you are if you are over the phone, so I think this again is a good commonsense change that would ensure that offenders or people needing to report, if they are under those circumstances, would need to report in person to say they are where they are.

Clause 6 inserts a new section 23A of the Sex Offenders Registration Act to provide for electronic reporting in the circumstances of a disaster, emergency or pandemic. Clause 7 inserts new section 73L into the Sex Offenders Registration Act, which is for a transitional provision arising from the amendment of clause 8. It is in relation to some of the areas that will change, and as I said, we will be, on the way through, mostly supporting those.

There are a couple of issues we would like to raise. First of all is clause 22, on event cost recovery. In the bill briefing, when we asked specific questions, we did hear the words ‘this is not the intention’. However, ‘not the intention’ and what actually happens can be, as we know, a lot different. One of these issues is event cost recovery. Currently large-scale events can cost recover for the use of police officers at an event. An example would be—one that is quite commonly used—the MCG. So for a footy match, if they need to get Victoria Police inside the ground, they might have 20 staff available. Obviously it depends on the size of the game. If it is Fremantle versus St Kilda, it might only be about three police officers, but if it is Collingwood versus Carlton, you might need 150 police officers—it is going to depend on the crowd in there. But the AFL would be required to cover the cost of who is inside that ground.

Mr Brooks: More if Collingwood wins.

Mr BATTIN: I will not make any comments because you can only lose votes picking on Collingwood outside. At a large-scale event at the MCG you will require more police officers. It would be reasonable, and it has been reasonable for a long period of time, that the AFL would cover that cost—or for a concert or for whoever else needs Victoria Police inside. The issue here goes to the cost recovery for the external area. When you leave the ground and police are required outside the facility to maintain crowds and maintain order, that is one of the things that will change. They will be able to do a cost recovery on that. I raise this concern because this impacts on any large-scale event, not just at the MCG and not just the AFL, being a billion-dollar organisation.

As I said, whilst the intention is not there, it could be used at any time, so it could be a change for a show. I will use my local one: the Berwick show, a wonderful show. It is the longest running show in Victoria. I just thought I would put that out there in case anyone was wondering. It is one of the best agricultural shows around. It is a fantastic event, but they are facing challenges, and those challenges are directly related to finances. Committees struggle with the amount of red tape that gets put on them now and the amount of extra costs. They do not mind; they all understand that we have to have improved occupational health and safety. Rides have to be safer, you have to provide security, you have to make sure that steps in the place are marked—all those things you have to do with occupational health and safety now. But it does place increased pressure on those committees to deliver those shows.

We do not want to go backwards in those areas, but at the same time we have also got to take into consideration that if we do not have events like that, there will be an impact on the community. With something like the Berwick show—and they have in the past paid for Victoria Police to come within the show—if they have to pay for areas external to the show, that could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. At the moment, with the cost of tickets and cost-of-living pressures, the show’s numbers are down. They have slowly declined over time. Weather does play some part in that when it is only a one-weekend event; however, what we have seen is on average a decline in the numbers over a longer period of time. As the population has grown you would like to think more people would be coming to the show, but the reality is less are coming to these shows, and the costs are continuing to increase because of the delivery of services.

If you speak to those at the show, just to deliver a traffic management plan—so just a plan, not any staff, not any facilities, not any infrastructure—is about $5000. Now, $5000 is not a lot, but when you are putting it into the cost of tickets, they need to sell a lot of tickets just to cover the plan to put to the council before they actually deliver any part of that road management to make people safer on the roads. To convert a highway—it is on a highway—down to a 40-kilometre zone, because a lot of kids are going to be crossing it, is going to cost $10 000 to $15 000 in staffing, in putting out equipment and in hiring a company to do it. You cannot just have anyone do it. In the good old days we would walk out in a vest—you would be lucky if you had a vest on—and you would put your hand up and hope the cars would stop to let people go. That has changed. We know that. We now have to have companies with people who are qualified, and we have to ensure that the kids are protected going across, because a lot of the parking is across the road.

However, again that puts a massive cost impost back onto an organisation or small organisations that deliver great community projects. If the police then want to turn around and say, ‘We’re going to start to cost recover for police use outside of that’, the cost implications could be quite large, and I think that is something that we need to seriously consider in this bill. How is it going to impact on not just the MCG, on billion-dollar companies, but on small events? Because if something like this increased our tickets by $5, the Berwick show would struggle to survive next year at a time when we want more and more people coming to the shows.

This is not just in Berwick. This goes all the way across regional Victoria, and I know there were some definitions or discussions around what a large-scale event is. I would say a large-scale event in Melbourne might be 20 000, but a large-scale event in regional Victoria might only be a couple of hundred people. So who is going to make those decisions on what is large-scale and when that ‘large-scale’ is being used? The costs are already there—that has already been done—but as I said, we are just worried about the stream of revenue.

The second section we want to raise concern around is clause 14, which is the additional powers for protective services officers. Protective services officers, as we know in this place, because they protect us here, are amazing, and they do a fantastic job. Over time in the last probably 15 years—or since I came into Parliament, so 12 years, since 2010—the role of protective services officers has changed, up to and including that they obviously protect this place and they protect the shrine, which they have done for a lot longer than protecting here, and we have seen them expand to railway lines and railway stations and ensuring people are safe at our railway stations here in the state. We have seen over time that, although when we introduced that in government the opposition at the time did not support that, later on they have realised the importance of using the PSOs, and Police Association Victoria support for PSOs and the growth in what they can do and the ways we can use them throughout the state to best protect different parts of our state has been fantastic. This clause will give PSOs the power under the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003, or the terrorism act, to patrol specific areas in relation to a terrorism threat or as a result of something to do with terrorism, and there is a high bar to be pushed so they can be used for those purposes.

I argue that PSOs are suitably qualified and suitably trained, or you would not be using them. So the high bar in there may not be as big an issue in our view. In the example we raised around what happened in Bourke Street, with a vehicle going through Bourke Street—and obviously we lost a lot of lives on that day—would the PSOs be able to attend that event? The answer is yes, but the process is it has effectively got to go through the Supreme Court. I am not sure how quickly that process can occur, but my view is that if you need PSOs at an event like that down on Bourke Street, you need them now, not after going through a court process to get them down there. The current process in this bill is it has got to go through the Supreme Court.

We will argue that it should be just going to the Chief Commissioner of Police. We trust the chief commissioner—we trust the person that is put in place to protect us and if you do not trust the chief commissioner to make these decisions then you have maybe got the wrong chief commissioner. I would trust the chief commissioner that in Victoria, whether it was reactive like Bourke Street or proactive if there was a genuine threat at an event or in one of our significant places in the city, we could utilise PSOs where we needed to and it does not take away from other resources within Victoria Police. It would be a last resort, I think. That is probably the best way to put it. We have already got the police response unit. I was going to say FRU—it used to be the force response unit; I think it is now the police response unit. We have got traffic control police that can come and get recalled. We have got police that can be recalled. You have got movement at stations that you can allocate and step up effectively and bring them into areas where you need them the most and still allocate police staffing to keep the areas they are already in protected and safe. But there are also times when you have major incidents where you cannot do that. In Melbourne alone at any given time we have generally got between two and four PSOs here. You have generally got four to six down at the shrine. You have generally got them at the railway stations. And we have got four stations in Melbourne from where you can utilise them, if you need to, and move them around.

So I think there is a capability in Melbourne to get a very quick response from the PSOs if we require it. It may mean alternative or adjusted training to be prepared for that. It may mean that when they go back and do their operational standards tactical training at the academy each time they update some of that training to include how they react to terrorism, what their role would be when they are there and how it would change and impact on the role they have. We have got obviously super training with the special operations group in Melbourne at the highest level. The police response unit have got amazing training with different weapons and different abilities to go into terrorism situations and highly dangerous and risky situations. You would need the PSOs to maybe adjust some of their training. So I am not saying bringing them up to a SOG but saying bringing them up so they understand what is going to happen and who is going to be reacting when they are in there. It is a concern that we have raised. We have consulted with the police association on this and we understand that on the whole they are actually supportive of the bill, so they have not got any objections to what is in the bill. However, they are supportive of the fact that we are looking at these changes, and it would be something they would be happy to have that discussion about in terms of where we can change what is going on in relation to this bill.

We will continue, as we always have, to support Victoria Police. We have always supported changes that better protect our community, particularly those who are vulnerable in relation to sexual offences, so we will continue to make sure we do support that. As I said, in this house we will not be opposing, but in the upper house we will reserve our rights to look at amendments that we could make, particularly around the chief commissioner’s powers moving forward.

In closing on this bill, I think there is one thing that the community expect of us in here. The one thing when they look at the Parliament that they most see is question time, with the theatre of it, but when they are looking at Parliament what they do expect is that at the best of times, when we do work together, we generally have better outcomes. Those outcomes today should be from every person speaking on this bill, from both sides, around the victims or potential victims when it comes to sexual assault. Every person in this house should have that as their first thought—not politics, not anything else but that. That was behind our decision, particularly around sexual assault and sexual offenders, to make sure we support that, because we want to make sure this bill does get through.

We have got limited time and not just in this place; we have got limited time left in the Parliament until the new term. Obviously, with the 26 November election, we have only got two more sitting weeks after this, so if the government are serious on this, we would be happy to have the discussion around the ideas and options we have for amendments so we can ensure that the bill goes through the upper house as quickly as possible, gets back down here and goes off to be put in place to ensure that these laws can be enacted when it comes to protecting, as I said, our most vulnerable. Also on some of those clauses I read out earlier on around no fixed place of abode, we must make sure those things are in there so our restrictions in a world of newer technology are placed upon people who are currently having to answer for that as well. The opposition will not oppose this bill, and as I said, will look to move any amendments in the upper house at a suitable time.

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:48): I would also like to begin my contribution by paying tribute to Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rodney Miller and acknowledging some of the words that the Shadow Minister for Police has said. Once you read about that case and you read about what happened around Cochranes Road and the Korean barbecue, the case they were on, the offenders and the level of their offending, I think there were probably quite a few people that, when Operation Lorimer ended, were hoping that offender might actually make the wrong move and draw a weapon; there was that much emotion. But the professionalism that was shown in the police force at the time when they were dealing with members of their own who were murdered is something to remember. It is also something to be reminded of—as we were, member for Gembrook, in this place today—that it is possible to go through that trauma, get to the other side of it and have a life with respect to those people that we are missing as well. Well played, member for Gembrook, and well spoken as well.

I am very, very happy to speak on Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022 today. It is just a pity I have only got 8 minutes now. I would love 30 minutes to have a go at this one, but I will get right into it. The bill introduces a range of amendments to the Victoria Police Act 2013 and the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, including but of course not limited to allowing Victoria Police to recover costs from the organisers of large commercial events for policing services in the areas surrounding the event—for example, traffic control services in surrounding suburbs. This is not a dissimilar change to what is operating now in, I believe, Queensland and New South Wales, and indeed overseas. Just a quick google shows that in Seattle in the US they were looking at doing this for quite some time, because like Victoria Police once they are outside the event—so we might talk about a Harry Styles concert or something at the MCG—which is where some mischief can happen sometimes, they actually cannot charge promoters a fee for effectively using police resources to maintain the peace.

This bill also provides police and protective services officers with the powers to protect the security of police premises, including requiring a person to provide a reason for their presence, asking a person to leave and not come back and, if they do not provide a legitimate reason, arresting them if they do not leave. There has been some consultation on this, but as has been pointed out this legislation brings police stations into line with law courts, the Adult Parole Board of Victoria and also Parliament as well as the Shrine of Remembrance. I think that new section 59A of the Victoria Police Act has been actually drafted so they can only exercise these powers when there is a need for the powers, it is legitimate and the person does not have a legitimate reason to be at the premises. Of course the definition of ‘legitimate reason’ is now included in section 59 as well.

Moving on, this legislation also establishes a legislative framework for the restorative engagement and redress scheme, provides transparency about eligibility for the scheme and protects the privacy of participants. We have had a scheme that has been operating under an administrative model for three years, since 12 December 2019. The reforms in this bill establish a legislative basis for the scheme to provide better participant privacy and confirm the key principles of victim centricity and the importance of confidentiality and privacy and independence from Victoria Police, which is very important. The Department of Justice and Community Safety still administers the scheme independently of Victoria Police, and that is a key element of that scheme.

This legislation also allows the Chief Commissioner of Police to consider terminating the employment of a police recruit or a PSO who has not yet been sworn in if the individual returns a positive drug test. I think that goes without saying. Everyone will have their view on the issues around the recreational use of drugs and where we might be in the future and how that should affect someone’s career, but right now I think that makes a whole lot of common sense. The legislation then goes on to amend another act to empower the chief commissioner to direct or permit a registrable offender to report to police electronically if a situation such as a state of emergency, state of disaster or pandemic is in force and require that registrable offender to provide the information that is already in the act.

The bill clarifies that the offence of sexual assault of a person with a cognitive impairment or illness is a class 2 offence when committed against a child, and any person who commits this offence is automatically a registrable offender and subject to reporting requirements. This is to clarify some ambiguity with class 4, where an offender would potentially be ordered by a court to be on the registrable offender list. With class 2 now there is no doubt that anybody who commits the offence of a sexual assault on a person with a cognitive impairment or illness will go straight through, via that class 2 offence, onto that list. The legislation also lists the commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to prepare or plan to engage in sexual activity with or procure for sexual activity persons under 16 as a class 2 offence, with any person who commits this offence automatically a registrable offender and subject to the reporting requirements of the act as well.

Everyone in this chamber have to talk about things that are reality and very hard to talk about at times, but for offenders who prey on children, and we know those bastards are out there, we need to make sure that police have all the powers that we can confer on them to provide justice and fairness and to make sure that our kids are protected as much as possible. I am sure that everyone on this side of the house is happy to hear that the whole Parliament is behind this bill, particularly when we are talking about children and offenders who prey on children.

This government is one with a record that is nationally known on policing and community safety, and we started that in 2014. We have been very clear on our stance that policing and community safety are a priority. We have provided the resources, the tools and the powers to give police the balance they need to keep our communities safe. I just want to go through a few highlights as well, because this bill is the latest tranche of providing police and the judicial system with what they need. We have turned around police investment, with a policing budget 63 per cent higher than in 2014. Throughout this term in government we have invested a record $4.5 billion in funding for new police, new equipment and an initial 502 police further on top of the 3152 members we initially committed to. All those people have been rolled out onto the streets as sworn officers now. We have even announced 50 new protective services officers in the recent budget. We have worked very closely with police command to develop the staff allocation model, and that included consultation with Police Association Victoria. That is the staff allocation model as well, which essentially dictates when and where police resources will be stationed and used. As of March 2022 I am very proud to say that there are a further 3356 more police officers in stations and in specialist units than in November 2014. That is a 26 per cent increase. We have 355 more PSOs across our public transport network—that is a 32 per cent increase—and under our watch the force has grown by 4855 police staff. That includes sworn members, PSOs and Victorian Public Service members. That is a 28 per cent increase.

We are not just funding things, though. It is great to talk about percentages and dollar amounts, but we have given police body-worn cameras, made investments in mobile devices, new intelligence systems, the police assistance line, new vehicles, longarms, protective vests, conductive energy devices, or tasers, as well—just the tools they have been asking for to be able to deal with the kind of offences they see in their everyday policing. I think it is very, very well known how much we support community safety and our police, and that has been reflected in the latest crime statistics, which have gone down 11.9 per cent. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:59): It is a pleasure to rise to speak. I will not be speaking for very long on this occasion on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022. If the member for Frankston had kept his contribution to 5 minutes, then I would have had a bit more of a go. I will let the member for Frankston know at 6 o’clock when I get the chance to come back. He can come back and listen to my insightful comments on this legislation. There are quite a number of amendments across a range of areas, including sex offender registration issues and police matters—the operation of the force directly.

I am pleased that the member for Frankston was just talking about police numbers, because it is something that the government likes to talk about in great detail, and I would like to do that as well, particularly when it comes to my electorate. South Gippsland in particular is an area of relatively low crime, and for that we are very grateful.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.