Wednesday, 17 August 2022

Bills

Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (18:01): I was rudely interrupted only about 1½ minutes into my contribution, so I look forward to getting back to what I was talking about, and that was following on from the member for Frankston, who had been talking about police numbers and highlighting the government’s record on that. I was just about to say that the decisions that the government made a couple of years ago with respect to police numbers, which they billed as the ‘biggest injection of regional officers in history’, provided South Gippsland shire with the sum total of one new officer. I said that at the time. There was a big announcement that the Bass Coast police service area, which is both South Gippsland and Bass Coast shires, got 11 new police officers. I had predicted a week before and I was sure that we would get very little in South Gippsland, and that was exactly how it panned out—10 of them went to Bass Coast and just one to South Gippsland shire.

At the time we had actually seen since the government was elected a 44 per cent increase in crime in the South Gippsland shire, and as I said earlier, at the start of my contribution, we are blessed in South Gippsland shire in particular that the crime rate is very low from a relative perspective, but it is still an issue. Indeed I had a call only last week, one that is a fairly regular occurrence, from a constituent who had seen some youths behaving suspiciously. They were literally just outside the police station, so she went over to the Leongatha police station to get some assistance and there was no-one there. So she had to call Wonthaggi, who said, ‘Look, unless something happens, we won’t send someone’. Now, that is no criticism of the Leongatha police or indeed any of the police in South Gippsland, because I know that they are doing their absolute best, but it is indeed a very, very thin blue line in the South Gippsland area, including Bass Coast. I know this is an issue that The Nationals candidate for Bass, Brett Tessari, is also interested in.

I do not like to say it too often publicly but my understanding is from Sunday night through to Thursday night for the whole area from basically Phillip Island—Cowes—through to Welshpool there are literally two cars and a sergeant available. So if you have got an accident at Welshpool or Toora and you need a call-out for a hot burglary in Nyora, you are going to be waiting a long time because there is just not much there on the road.

As I said, we are in a situation where the crime rate is quite low in South Gippsland. Our men and women in blue do a great job, but they are certainly severely stressed, particularly in a situation where, while their numbers in principle, on paper, might look okay, when you take into account leave, maternity leave, WorkCover issues, long-service leave and deployments, very rarely are they actually replaced, and that is one of the problems that we have.

This legislation, though, has one other impact of concern that the member for Gembrook raised. I would certainly reiterate the concern, and that is about event cost recovery and how that will impact on events. Basically at the moment organisers of large-scale events are charged for the services of police within the ground or venue of whatever is happening, and the change in clause 22 will allow for the charging of services provided outside the venue, whether that is traffic management or managing people coming to and from an event. It would be good to get some clarity from the government, on the record—ideally from the minister—that this is not something that is going to be charged to small country shows, to small festivals or even to large festivals in country areas, particularly those not run for profit. Hopefully that is the intention—that it is not going to be targeting the likes of the Mirboo North Italian Festa, for example, where we have huge numbers. Ten, twenty thousand people were at the last couple of festivals before COVID hit—massive numbers there. They put on a huge event. The Meeniyan Garlic Festival I believe is also coming back in 2023. Again, these are big festivals, but they are community festivals; they are not run for profit. I would not like to see them charged for police services outside the venues where they come. Obviously the police do provide a service in terms of security and being around for a big event like that, but as the member for Gembrook indicated, this is something that we are a little bit concerned about and would seek some clarity and some assurance on, I guess, from the government. I understand that in the briefing to the opposition when these concerns were raised the response was ‘That is not the intention of the bill’, but we do get that a lot, I must say, from the government and from the departments: ‘The intention is not this’. We actually need to look at what the letter of the law is, so some assurances on that would be good.

There are a number of other clauses. I have not gone into in particular the number of clauses with respect to sex offenders and sex offender registration, but there are a number of changes to them. They may well be minor in nature or quite specific and detailed, but they all add up to important changes and we certainly do not oppose any of those. Then there are some other issues raised in there regarding the chief commissioner’s powers and the management of the force—the management of the officers in the force as well as PSOs.

I do note that there is one section that the member for Gembrook did not manage to get to in his contribution, which he suggested I might raise, and that is with respect to random drug and alcohol testing of police officers. I think this relates to clauses 16 and 17. There is a concern that those new officers, in their first 12 weeks of operation in the force and not yet considered sworn officers, if they did test positive to drugs or alcohol, actually do not have a right of appeal. That was a concern that the Police Association Victoria raised and that the member for Gembrook wanted to also have placed on the record as a bit of a concern. There should be the usual processes of natural justice.

Otherwise the bill addresses a compendium of issues across the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 amendments and then further the Victoria Police Act 2013, where there are a number of issues. I think it is important that the government understands that while it is forever patting itself on the back for what it does in community safety and particularly for police numbers, it is not necessarily spread right throughout Victoria and indeed especially not necessarily right throughout regional Victoria and rural Victoria. We see a lot of the numbers go to the big centres. The police officers that manage our small country towns, whether it is the 16-hour stations, the 8-hour stations or indeed the one-officer stations, of which I have a couple still in my electorate, are often doing it very tough, and the communities in those areas are relying often on cars and officers to travel a long distance for relatively minor events.

I should reflect that it is very similar to the situation with ambulances at the moment. I had someone in Fish Creek a couple of weeks ago tell me they called an ambulance and it came from Sale, which is a good hour and a half away. That happens day to day, depending on the workload and the issues that are happening at the time, but these are the sorts of concerns also happening with police that are a concern to many in my community. However, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is not something that we are opposing, and I wish it well through this chamber.

Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (18:10): I am delighted to say a few words in the 4 minutes that remain at least, and perhaps beyond. Our government’s track record on policing and community safety is well known. I am proud to say that our record investment in our police has resulted in the policing budget today being 63 per cent higher than when we came to government in 2014. This term we have invested a record $4.5 billion in new funding for police, which includes an additional 502 police officers and an extra 50 PSOs in the most recent budget. Gone are the days of the boom-and-bust cycle in police resourcing. Today police resourcing is not determined by election cycles but by experts, thankfully. We have invested a record $4.5 billion in Victoria Police since coming into office. It is imperative that Victoria Police have the powers and resources they need to keep the Victorian community safe. We will not apologise for supporting a well-resourced police force. Our priority is a safe environment for our state, and we must focus on tackling serious organised crime and the ever-present threat of violent extremism.

The crux of this bill is a range of amendments that will ultimately make our state safer. For example, the police and protective services officers will have new 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 return if they do not have a legitimate reason, and removing or arresting them if they do not leave. Measures like this will clarify existing laws and address gaps. The gap in this situation was that police only had the power to remove antagonistic individuals from police premises if they had committed an offence. Additionally, amendments contained within this bill will deliver on pre-existing commitments and drive new, innovative initiatives, like supporting the need for Victoria Police to better determine and recover costs for services they provide at large-scale for-profit events. This represents our proactive response to legislating in the area of policing. We do not wait for issues to come up. We identify problem areas and fix them.

I am pleased and proud to say that my daughter works for Victoria Police, and I am always happy to see changes to this great institution. Many of the changes proposed today are, in my opinion, especially prudent, like the new sentencing provisions for offenders who ram police cars or injure police officers and PSOs. If you injure police in this state, you should expect the full force of the law.

The changes we have made to the criminal justice system have worked. The latest batch of crime statistics shows that the offence rate per 100 000 Victorians has decreased by 11 per cent, the alleged offender rate has decreased by 18.6 per cent and the overall victimisation rate has decreased by 2 per cent. When you compare the most recent 12 months of this government with the last 12 months of the previous government, the crime rate has fallen 9.7 per cent. These are not empty statistics. These represent the tangible outcome of a deliberate, planned policy approach. We have increased police funding, we have changed the way policing is done and we have introduced innovative new measures to assist our frontline police. Yet another independent—

The SPEAKER: Order! The time has arrived for the joint sitting to choose a person to hold the seat in the Legislative Council rendered vacant following the death of the Honourable Jane Garrett MLC. I will now ask the Clerk to ring the bells to call members to the joint sitting. The Assembly will resume after the joint sitting has concluded, and the bells will ring again at that time.

Sitting suspended 6.15 pm until 6.23 pm.

Mr KENNEDY: I am just wondering how many precious seconds I have left. Good. Back to the more interesting topic of the night: we have increased police funding, we have changed the way policing is done and we have introduced innovative new measures to assist our frontline police—that was just to see if you were listening at the last there, when we broke. New material coming up: yet another independent example of this is the recent Productivity Commission Report on Government Services 2022, which shows that Victorians are feeling safer in their homes and communities. This is incredibly important for the peace of mind of Victorians. I have a community survey that constituents often fill out, and I can tell you right now that many of the residents of Hawthorn rate community safety among their most pressing concerns. I share their qualms on this issue, which is why I am proud of the investment of this government in our police force and why I am proud of our police. They are out on the streets protecting us day in, day out—rain, hail or shine. So what I am saying is thank you to all the hardworking police officers in our state. I want to say that we as a government appreciate your service.

I would like to just make some brief comments about the culture of police and their changing nature and why these particular changes represent further enhancement of their role. I mentioned the fact that my daughter is a police officer. She graduated with arts and law degrees but did not want to be a lawyer, so she joined the police. Now she has been in for about nine or 10 years—half a dozen on the beat and four or five at the Magistrates Court. What is interesting is she was in group 20, and she told me how the whole range of people coming into the police now actually represents a wide variety. She said at least half were university graduates and half were people from, say, private enterprise—from businesses and what have you—and it just seemed to me that that represented a change in recent times in terms of the intake and so on of police. I think we can be well pleased about that. I cannot identify particular factors or whatever.

The other thing where I think there is a bit of a change in the culture is in this whole question of crime. When I was standing for Hawthorn back in November 2018 we attended a crime and safety night at Boroondara council, and one of the councillors very proudly got up and said that he was working on the Adult Parole Board of Victoria and that he was very proud of the fact that he rarely, if ever, granted parole to adult offenders. Now, I just thought he was a little limited in his approach to the thing, but what was fascinating was the fact that nobody jumped up and gave him a wild applause. People did not sort of say ‘Well done. Lock ’em up. Do this. Do that’ and so on. I was really very impressed by that, and what I put it down to is increasing amounts of education. People are starting to realise that it is not just a matter of locking people up, and can I say that the police have similar attitudes and that their contribution to that culture is quite considerable.

I also remember during that election campaign that the other side made a lot of the victims of crime. I remember one of my opponents, the then member for Hawthorn, introduced me to the president of the Crime Victims Support Association as they were going through our area in the Hawthorn West shopping centre. The main point they were making to me was how the man’s daughter had been abused and that the person who was found guilty was only given one year by the judge. I thought to myself, ‘This is pathetic’, and I looked across at the member for Hawthorn and told him so. I thought, ‘How can a Shadow Attorney-General encourage that sort of attitude that says that you question what the judge decided without having really any idea of the context—what it was, what happened, why the sentence was this amount and so on?’. When I looked at that situation of the victims of crime, I thought, ‘Yes, look, I think we are improving’. But the great thing about it is the fact that the police are matching that. Their background, their formal education, is being lifted, and so are their ideas when it comes to things like victims of crime or crime and punishment and so on. That is my take on that. Really, our police officers must be protected at work. They take extraordinary risks on our behalf, and today it is our turn to take measures to protect them. I commend the bill.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (18:29): Well, it is of course logical that commercial event operators should be paying for the total cost of policing their events. When I was on the board of the Melbourne Cricket Club we had a pretty significant line item devoted to paying for police resourcing at sporting events, and there was a debate internally, I guess, about whether that was a public good or a private good, whether that was the sort of thing that ought be met by the event itself through ultimately ticket pricing and charges to patrons or whether that ought be met by the state more broadly. I think frankly it is a reasonable thing that those who are at events expect those events to be secure, particularly when they are at places of great public importance like the Melbourne Cricket Ground, and it is entirely appropriate given that to have a cost-recovery model available to police.

But if you are going to do that you have to fill out the picture, don’t you? It is not enough to say the police walking up and down the rows of seats are able to be cost recovered but those outside the ground are not. We know, particularly given the density of events in Melbourne’s premier and indeed world-renowned sporting precinct, that there can frequently be traffic challenges, security challenges and all sorts of challenges relating to the movement of people around the precinct. I know that there have been occasions in Melbourne where we have had Australian Open tennis scheduled at the same time as one-day international cricket matches, both very well frequented. You could potentially have as many as 100 000, 120 000 or maybe even 140 000 people utilising the entire precinct. You have pedestrian flows over the Jolimont rail yards in both directions. These are all things that need to be managed by police for the safety and benefit of those patrons and more broadly for community safety, and of course it is entirely reasonable that if we are making a cost recovery for the police that are deployed inside those venues we make a cost recovery for police deployed in service of the event but not strictly speaking within the boundaries of the venues. So that element of this act I think is a very sensible one. It ensures that the state is not unduly burdened as our events industry roars back to life and that it is not finding itself having to ultimately subsidise, in effect, those events with police resources.

I think one of the greatest disconnects in modern Victorian politics is the suggestion that there are some in this place who are great at law and order and some who are not or whatever, but when Naomi Oakley is elected as the member for Warrandyte on 26 November and when Jackson Taylor is returned as the member for Bayswater there will be two former police officers on this side of the chamber and only one on the other side. That is testament, frankly, to the enormous effort, the enormous resources that this government, the Andrews Labor government, has put into policing in the state of Victoria.

It is not just through some of the headline measures that perhaps have been the focus of some over the journey. It has also been through some really clever, thoughtful, well-consulted changes that have been made not just to police funding but in fact to the way police are funded. In particular the staffing allocation model that has been spoken about a bit in this chamber is a very, very important model because it allows police resourcing to better reflect need. Clearly in a modern electronic age it is easier to deploy this more sophisticated way of allocating resources than might have been the case under the old analog systems. That has resulted in a far better prioritisation of resources.

I know members of the coalition are fond of decrying any contraction in police station opening hours as a signal that somehow the government is soft on crime. In fact nothing could be further from the truth, because by redirecting police hours from behind the desk to out in the community we are allowing them to do their job better, we are making it easier for them to do their job and we are making the community safer. Having police trapped behind desks doing stat decs—administrative nonsense; the opening hours of a police station are ultimately largely about administrative matters—is not about community safety. Community safety is achieved when you have well-resourced police supported by the government and given the tools they need to do their work.

Of course it is not just the staffing allocation model that has changed. Throughout this term of government we have invested a record $4.5 billion in new funding for police, including funding for an additional 500-odd police officers and 50 PSOs in the recent budget alone. It is a convenient narrative for some to suggest that somehow this government has not been the most fulsome supporter of Victoria Police, and nothing frankly could be further from the truth. This government has essentially given police every single tool they need to do their work, and that includes significant technological upgrades. We are taking VicPol’s tech out of the analog and fax machine age. We have got mobile devices, iPads, placed in the hands of every single frontline officer, and that gets them connected to the intelligence, the communications and the data gathering that they need in order to be able to prosecute their jobs efficiently but also to make sure that they can ultimately prosecute criminals efficiently as well.

Indeed with the body-worn camera innovation there was some resistance, sure, at the outset of that. There was I guess a fair bit of work to be done on both sides of that debate. But the body-worn cameras have undoubtedly been a great innovation in modern policing. They ensure that when people lie about their interactions with police there is a record of that and we have the ability to hold those people doing the wrong thing to account, but equally there is also an accountability measure for police and that is very, very important as well.

Another component of this Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is providing both police officers and PSOs the ability to properly protect police premises, including requiring a person to provide their reason for being there and asking them to leave if they do not have a legitimate reason. The previous threshold required that they needed to have committed an offence in order to be asked to move on or be detained. This lower threshold is a very, very sensible threshold that does not unreasonably impinge on civil rights. We do to varying degrees impinge upon the civil rights around free assembly, but we do that reservedly, we do it carefully and in this case I think this is a proportionate, measured and sensible response to a very real risk. We know that police premises are high-value targets. We know that they are likely to come under pressure from various criminal organisations in our society and criminal elements in our society, and it is important to make sure that police officers and PSOs have the tools available to be able to respond to those circumstances, to be able to adequately protect the premises they are charged with protecting and ultimately to be able to protect their comrades as well. Because ultimately, protecting police premises is not just about the bricks and mortar, it is about protecting the personnel who are inside those premises.

This justice legislation amendment bill also establishes a legislative framework for the restorative engagement and redress scheme to support current and former Victoria Police employees who have experienced past workplace sex discrimination or sexual harassment. That of course is a very serious matter and something that is part of the cultural change that has come through VicPol. It is part of the response from a government that is always about safety in the workplace, always about ensuring that people can live out their work lives and indeed their lives free of vilification, harassment, sexual harassment and worse. We need to make sure that Victoria Police workplaces are just as safe, if not safer, than all the other workplaces in the state of Victoria. That is a very, very important matter indeed.

There are some additional changes here around the obligation on police personnel to only access, make use of or disclose police information if required by their current duties, and that is in order to impose a clear, standalone obligation on police personnel to maintain the confidentiality of police information. There have of course been some pretty high profile matters around this. It is very, very important that if someone is in police custody, charged or not, the presumption of innocence is in place and similarly they are not subject to adverse publicity—or any publicity—by police personnel. That is a very, very important principle, a principle that is embodied and enunciated very clearly in this legislation. I could go on, but regrettably I am out of time. I do commend the bill to the house.

Mr TAK (Clarinda) (18:39): It gives me great pleasure to speak once again, on this bill, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022. It is great also to follow the member for Burwood and his fine contribution. Last week I had the privilege of making a contribution on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 in response to the Eastern Freeway tragedy, and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to another bill that aims at supporting Victorian police—our police officers and PSOs. Again, as other members have done already, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of Victoria Police from across the state and in my electorate. We are fortunate to have and thankful for all the members at the Springvale and Clayton police stations as well as those at Moorabbin, Cheltenham and Oakleigh. They keep us safe and have worked especially hard over the course of the global pandemic. Our police and emergency services workers have been in overdrive. Like our frontline healthcare workers, police and PSOs have also been right there on the front line for the state’s response to COVID-19, and 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. It is so very important that as a government we recognise the true value of and support our police and emergency services through investment and through legislation.

We have here before us today once again another piece of legislation that goes to the heart of that, an important amendment that will introduce 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. The bill will make a host of amendments to the Victoria Police Act 2013, the first of which will allow Victoria Police to recover costs from organisers of large commercial events for policing services deployed to the area surrounding the event. Just to clarify in terms of the events covered, the amendments refer to events where charges are made for admission to or participation in the event, or an event that is commercial in nature or that is commercially promoted or sponsored. As such, an event that is conducted for fundraising and/or charitable purposes will not be considered as commercial in nature and costs will not be recoverable there.

Moving on, the bill will provide police officers and protective services officers, PSOs, with powers to protect the security of police premises, such as requiring a person to provide their reason for being there, asking the person to leave and not return if they do not have a legitimate reason, and removing or arresting them if they do not leave. The relevant clause here is clause 15 of the bill, which introduces new sections 59A and 59B into the Victoria Police Act. Further, new section 59A(8) provides an inclusive definition of ‘legitimate reason’. In terms of why this is necessary, police officers and PSOs are authorised to exercise similar powers to maintain the security of locations such as Parliament, the courts and the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. Further, Victoria Police premises can present security risks due to the sensitive information held at the premises and the nature of work undertaken by Victoria Police.

Most importantly, Victoria Police and the Police Association Victoria have reported numerous security incidents at a number of police premises over the past four years, including antagonistic persons attending police premises in the absence of a legitimate reason and harassing police officers and other employees. This is not acceptable. Police stations and premises are also workplaces, and these powers are necessary to support police to respond to these risks.

Moving on, the bill clarifies that the Victoria Police Act does not limit the places where PSOs may exercise special powers under the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003, as recommended by the Review of the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003. Just to clarify, these are not new powers for PSOs. The stage 2 report of the review recommended that:

Legislative amendments should be made to clarify that protective services officers may exercise special police powers anywhere within authorised areas, consistent with the broader role of protective services officers and subject to the provision of appropriate training.

That was recommendation 12. I have spoken previously on the findings of the Expert Panel on Terrorism and Violent Extremism Prevention and Response Powers. There was also a host of recommendations and findings from the panel on the importance of creating pathways for early countering of violent extremism intervention, which is really important, and those were implemented here in Parliament last year.

More broadly on that point, we are continuing to do some great work in the south-east on community harmony, enhancing social cohesion and promoting community harmony through our community groups and the many multicultural organisations in Clarinda and particularly across the City of Greater Dandenong. We know from the review that isolation is a big factor in potential radicalisation and the consequences of that, and this makes the opportunity to share one’s culture, beliefs and experience with others even more important. Through this opportunity we can develop a greater sense of trust and belonging among all Victorians. In doing so, we have also seen in Clarinda and across Victoria the minimising of social division, misunderstandings and isolation. Clarinda is a great example of multicultural Victoria and, I believe, a success story of multicultural Victoria. I am proud to be part of a government that continues to celebrate our diversity.

There are a host of amendments that I will not get the chance to touch on, but I will mention the establishment of the legislative framework for the restorative engagement and redress scheme to support current and former Victoria Police employees who have experienced past workplace sex discrimination or sexual harassment, to provide transparency about eligibility for the scheme and to protect the privacy of the participants. This is a very important initiative and was a key recommendation arising from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission 2015 review. There are also some important clarifications around the offence of sexual assault of a person with a cognitive impairment or illness, as well as the listing of the commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to prepare or plan to cause harm to, engage in sexual activity with or procure for sexual activity a person under 16 as a class 2 offence.

This is a robust bill with a range of reforms which are aimed at keeping our community safe and supporting Victoria Police. These are important changes which I am happy to support, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr McGHIE (Melton) (18:48): It is always a pleasure to contribute after the member for Clarinda. I rise to also contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022. The bill introduces a range of amendments to the Victoria Police Act 2013 and the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, including but not limited to allowing Victoria Police to recover costs from the organisers of large commercial events for policing services in the area surrounding the event—for example, traffic control services that may be surrounding those suburbs. I know from my experiences within the ambulance industry for major events and for large commercial events the ambulance service has a check sheet in regard to the safety requirements and the provision of ambulance services in regard to these larger organised events. Those organisations that seek assistance from not only the police but the ambulance service have to meet certain standards, and the ambulance service determines even the resources that it requires at those events. In most cases paramedics will be called in on overtime to do some of those events, or there may be spare paramedics on reserve. It can be quite a costly exercise for the ambulance service and, I dare say, for Victoria Police. That is why this is a good measure to try and retrieve some of those costs and recover those costs.

This bill also provides police and protective services officers with 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 return if they do not have a legitimate reason and removing or arresting them if they do not leave. Clearly there would be people that have seen this occur. Again, I know in my experience as a paramedic I saw this happen many times around police stations. You may have some person that arrives at the police station and basically makes a nuisance of themselves. The police try to do the best thing by convincing that person to move on, but in some cases common sense does not prevail on the individual and the police have to take greater action when dealing with that person.

The bill also establishes a legislative framework for the restorative engagement and redress scheme. It provides transparency about eligibility for the scheme and protects the privacy of participants. It provides for the Chief Commissioner of Police to direct or permit a registrable offender to report to police electronically if a state of emergency, state of disaster or pandemic declaration is enforced and require registered offenders to provide improved information. It also 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. It lists the commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to prepare or plan to cause harm to, engage in sexual activity with or procure for sexual activity persons under 16 as a class 2 offence, and any person who commits this offence is automatically a registrable offender and subject to the reporting requirements of the act. Of course the amendments in this bill are necessary to address gaps and provide clarity—including, for example, clarification of existing PSO powers—and to ensure police have the powers they need to keep their members and members of the community safe when attending a police premises.

I would like to take a moment just to acknowledge the police in my electorate, the Melton police, and in particular the area command, for the fantastic work that they do throughout Melton and within the community, not only in keeping us safe but also dealing at the community level and being engaged with many community programs, whether that be through community groups and through the schools or just through youth groups and engaging with the youth. I cannot thank them enough for the tireless work that they do, even more so over the last 2½ to 3 years during the pandemic, when it has been difficult for everyone but in particular it has been very difficult for the police. It is not only the Melton police but police in the western part of my electorate, at Bacchus Marsh. Again, I cannot extend my appreciation enough to the Bacchus Marsh police, who deal with such a big area and a wide range of issues. But it is the way that they deal with the community. It is even the way that they deal with offenders. The professionalism of our police is amazing. So to both the Melton and the Bacchus Marsh police I say thank you, in particular for your tireless efforts through the last 2½ years.

This bill also contains amendments which deliver on commitments and drive proactive initiatives, including establishing a legislative framework for the restorative engagement and redress scheme and supporting the need for Victoria Police to better determine and recover costs for services they provide at large-scale for-profit events. I know Wayne Gatt and the Police Association Victoria have been closely consulted on the amendments set out in this bill. They support the amendments and in particular welcome the actions of the government to provide police with the powers they need to ensure police premises continue to be safe for both police and members of the community.

The community legal centres and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service have also been consulted on the development of the bill. Community safety is a key priority of the Andrews Labor government, and that is why we have invested a record $4.5 billion in Victoria Police since coming to office. That is to ensure that police have the powers and the resources that they need to keep the Victorian community safe. Of course the Andrews Labor government makes no apologies for supporting a well-resourced police force. It is essential to providing a safe environment for our state in how it tackles serious and organised crime and the threat of violent extremism. This bill will deliver important amendments to the Victoria Police Act 2013 and the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. These amendments are designed to keep the community safe, clarify a number of provisions and protect the privacy of participants in the restorative engagement and redress scheme.

Of course our record is one of backing police and delivering on our commitments to Victoria Police and the police association. It is always better to work with the representative bodies of our service industries—police, ambulance, fire; it makes it a lot easier. We get a better outcome for the whole of the Victorian state in regard to our service and emergency service industries. It is what we have always done and what we will continue to do.

The government is clear on its stance on policing and community safety. Since being elected in 2014 we have provided the resources, the tools and the powers that police need to keep the community safe. We turned around police investment with the policing budget—it is 63 per cent higher than it was in 2014. Throughout this term of government we have invested a record $4.5 billion in new funding for police, including funding for an additional 502 police officers and 50 PSOs in the most recent budget. This investment is building on the 3135 new police officers already on our streets, which includes general duty police officers working in local communities but also specialist officers, including hundreds of family violence police officers—and we know what the family violence situation is like in the state, in particular after the pandemic, so it is essential that we have these specialised family violence police officers. We have worked with the force command on developing this recruitment pipeline, which includes the development of the staffing allocation model, a sophisticated model that assists police to guide police resourcing needs.

One of the issues, and it is a matter of fact to point it out, is that the relationship between the former government and Victoria Police command was not a happy one, and the governance issues in 2012 and 2013 that plagued the relationship between the executive arm of the government of the day and Victoria Police are well documented. Reports such as the Rush inquiry tabled in this Parliament document all of that for everyone to revisit if they wish to. But our government is focusing on what matters: providing Victoria Police and PSOs with the resources and powers they need to keep our community safe. We know that each and every day Victoria Police members perform the vital work needed to keep Victorians safe, and we acknowledge this work and we thank them for it.

This bill is an important piece of legislation that covers a wide range of issues facing policing in Victoria, and I thank the Minister for Police and his staff for their work on this bill. I support these reforms and I commend this bill to the house, and I thank Victoria Police.

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (18:58): I rise to just make some quick comments on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022. In general we are very supportive of a number of changes. There is one clause, clause 22, which I have somewhat of an issue with, particularly with the police’s ability to charge people at public events. The events industry has it so tough at the moment, and it is a real concern that the government will be imposing potentially more charges on the events industry. These could be community events. These could be festivals. These could be food and wine events. This could happen right through regional Victoria. This could be schools. We know that this industry has had it so tough. We want to get the events industry back on its feet, but we do not need this government, the Andrews government, imposing more costs on the events industry. So I do ask that this be taken into consideration and certainly that the events industry are supported at each and every turn, because without that we are going to see more events providers close. We are going to see the kinds of things that put smiles on people’s faces actually turn them the other way around.

We need hope, and this is very much something that is all about community. It is all about bringing the community together. It is all about taking us forward after being locked down for two years. I would say and I would plead with the government: do not use this bill as a hidden path to actually impose more costs on the events industry—as if they have not had it hard enough. This is not just about the big, large, main, major events that have got budgets, these are the community events. This is the grassroots kind of stuff. They should not have impositions on them. They should not have additional charges. The government should be working with the events industry, not trying to charge them more as part of this. That is why I would ask the government and implore the government to consider clause 22 and what the ramifications might be of getting the police to effectively charge the events industry for additional security.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.