Thursday, 1 September 2022

Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms KILKENNY:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern) (11:27): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, a bill where I have to say the title is much more impressive than the content of the legislation. When I heard the government trumpet that it would be introducing a major crime and community safety legislation amendment bill just in the shadows of the election, I thought, ‘Right, the government has finally woken up from its slumber when it comes to some of these issues and it’s going to deal with the scourge of outlaw motorcycle gangs. It’s going to deal with the fact that we have outlaws, drug dealers parading around as social media influencers, seemingly completely unconcerned about raising their profile, completely unconcerned about drawing the attention of police’, because in Victoria we seem to be the haven state when it comes to outlaw motorcycle clubs. I will return to this during my contribution because this is such a missed opportunity. This is the mark in the goal square and the government has managed to miss it and kick a point.

Members interjecting.

Mr M O’BRIEN: And I know a little bit about that, member for Mordialloc, as a long-suffering Carlton supporter. Disappointment is with me. It is like my suit; it is always with me.

But this is a missed opportunity. Having said that, the issues in this bill themselves are inoffensive, and the opposition will not be opposing this bill. Let me just go to the purposes of the bill:

to amend the Confiscation Act 1997 in relation to—

digital assets …

search warrants and seizure warrants …

exclusion applications …

the partial forfeiture of tainted property …

the enforcement of pecuniary penalty orders against real property …

…

information gathering powers and examinations …

…

restraining orders; and …

miscellaneous matters. Another purpose is:

to amend the Crimes Act 1958 in relation to—

search warrant powers under that Act …

the lodgement of search warrant reports with the Magistrates’ Court; and

the retention, destruction, disclosure and use of fingerprints taken from persons under that Act …

There are also some relatively minor amendments to the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004. There is amendment to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 in relation to the quantity of 1 4-Butanediol that will trigger automatic forfeiture provisions in the Confiscation Act. I understand that 1 4-Butanediol is better known on the street as GHB or liquid fantasy, so I think measures there to make it easier to confiscate the assets of those who traffic in such deadly drugs is a worthy amendment. Finally, it is to make a consequential amendment to the Sex Work Decriminalisation Act 2022.

In terms of the Confiscation Act 1997 amendments, I think one of the major things this bill does do and which is welcome is in relation to updating definitions to provide for the fact that we now have these things called digital currencies. We know that people who act in an illicit way, particularly in the drug trade—there is a lot of money to be made in the illicit drug trade—often need to find ways to store those ill-gotten gains, that illicit wealth. They try to store it in such a way that they put it beyond the reach of authorities, so you see different money-laundering schemes, different attempts to hide this illicit wealth.

Of course we have seen the advent of digital currency. We have got our bitcoins; we have got our Ethereum; we have got our Dogecoin, which Elon Musk is a big fan of; and we have got stablecoins, which turned out to be not so stable—they were supposed to be pegged to the US dollar, and that link came away and we saw some significant disruption to the market. Now, I do not pretend to be an expert in digital currencies. In fact what I know about digital currencies you could probably fit into a matchbox without taking the matches out first. But what I do know is that criminals will find a way to try and hide their illicit wealth and they will try and find a way to put that illicit wealth beyond the reach of authorities. So it is important that we do update the terminology used in the Confiscation Act 1997 in order to be able to take account of the fact that this is a new opportunity for money to be held in different forms.

We have also seen the advent of the non-fungible token, the NFT. I am looking forward to perhaps the member for Broadmeadows talking about the Bored Ape Yacht Club and the NFTs that have been sold through that. In fact our own Melbourne street artist Lushsux has been a very big pioneer locally of the NFT. I think certainly, according to some of his social media posts, he seems to have made quite a reasonable amount of money out of selling non-fungible tokens of his original art. Again, I do not pretend to be an expert on how these operate, but I do understand that these are assets and they can be sold for millions of dollars. On that basis we need to make sure that they are brought within the scope of the Confiscation Act 1997. We need to ensure, as I said, that police and authorities can get access to those assets wherever they are hidden, so updating the terminology used in the act is something that is to the government’s credit, and we support those measures.

In relation to search warrants and seizure warrants, I think the government is now attempting to update some of the provisions relating to changing definitions relating to accessing data held on computers and data storage devices. Perhaps government speakers can clarify this, but warrants can effectively require a person to assist the police through providing access to data storage devices; I am assuming that a mobile phone would be regarded as a data storage device, and what I am interested in is: would these provisions enable a court to require somebody to therefore provide their password to the police if the mobile phone is subject to a search warrant? You can get a mobile device, but if it is password encrypted, how do the police actually get access to the data that is stored on the phone? At the moment they cannot. We know that there have been a number of issues with mobile phone manufacturers, including Apple, where they have refused to cooperate with authorities in some circumstances, saying, ‘Well, it’s not our job to provide you with the ability to crack the encryption on these phones’. Obviously that is an issue, because sometimes, particularly if we are talking about heinous crimes such as child pornography, getting access to digital devices is going to be critical in order to be able to determine whether the crime has been committed, to provide evidence against those who are guilty of engaging in such practices and also hopefully to rescue any children who might be affected by it. So I would be interested in whether the government proposes that these changes will actually enable a court to require somebody who has a password to a mobile phone to provide it. Would it require somebody to place their thumb on the reader if in fact it is a biometric-accessible device? This is where technology is today. I do not disagree at all that legislation needs to be updated to take account of new technology, but I am interested in how this would operate in practice and whether that is in fact the intention of these amendments in relation to search warrants and seizure warrants.

The bill also amends provisions relating to who can apply for a seizure warrant in respect of tainted property in a public place—that will just be a police officer—and provisions relating to who can apply in respect of forfeited property which is in a public place, and that can be either a police officer, a person who holds a prescribed office or a person belonging to a prescribed class. It also provides that certain seizure warrants are extended in their scope of operation in that they will only cease to have effect six months after issue, unless they have been recalled and cancelled by the court or unless, of course, they have been executed.

New sections are inserted. A warrant may authorise the giving of a direction by a police officer requiring assistance from a person with certain knowledge—that is new section 80A. As I indicated before, I would be interested as to whether the direction encompasses the provision of a password or in fact a requirement for somebody to use their fingerprint to provide access to a mobile phone where in fact the device is encrypted with a biometric gateway. Interestingly self-incrimination is not a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with such a direction. This bill also creates the offence of a person failing to comply with such a direction without reasonable excuse, which can send you to jail for a maximum of two years.

There is new section 80B, which enables a court—and it could be the Magistrates Court, the County Court or the Supreme Court—on application by a police officer to make an order requiring a specified person to provide any information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow a police officer to do certain things, including accessing data held on a computer or data storage device at a warrant premises or that has been seized from a warrant premises. Failure to comply without a reasonable excuse in such a matter is actually an indictable offence under new section 80C, punishable by up to five years imprisonment. And again, self-incrimination is not a reasonable excuse. I suppose at some point you may then get criminals weighing up the matrix: ‘If I provide access to this information, how long am I likely to go to jail for and is it more or less than five years?’. I would appreciate some clarity in terms of the scope of the directions that the government envisages by these measures in new sections 80A and 80B.

Exclusion orders are important in relation to the way in which the Confiscation Act works. Clause 15 of the bill reforms the terms upon which a court may make an order excluding the applicant’s interest in property from the operation of a serious drug offence restraining order made in relation to a serious drug offence. In particular clause 21 has the effect that where a person applies under section 53 to exclude their interest in property from automatic forfeiture the court may make an exclusion order if satisfied of a number of things: first of all, that the property is not tainted property or derived property—so it cannot be derived from the proceeds of crime; that the applicant was not involved in the commission of the serious drug offence; or that the applicant’s interest in the property was not subject to the effective control of the accused at the time the accused was charged with the serious drug offence or the date when the restraining order was made, whichever is earlier. We do not want people being effectively used as patsies by serious drug operators and claiming, ‘I need to have access to this property’. If they are really being used to simply facilitate the continuing control of a serious drug offender, then clearly that is not grounds for an exclusion order being made. Also applicable is that where the applicant acquired their interest from the accused it was acquired for sufficient consideration. In other words, it must be a proper transaction. It must be a transaction that reflects to some extent market value or is at least not unreasonable and indicates that, again, it is not just a subterfuge in order to be able to put assets beyond the reach of the authorities. I could go into considerable detail about the various changes that are made here, but I will just say that on the face of them they seem to be fairly reasonable changes.

Clause 34 makes it clear that a charge on property created because of the making of a restraining order or a pecuniary penalty order ceases to have effect if the restraining order is set aside or ceases to be in force. I am actually surprised that needs to be in there, because you would think that would be a fairly self-evident proposition, but sometimes we need to put these things in clear black and white to put them beyond any doubt.

There are some changes to examination orders and information-gathering powers. These provisions enhance the capacity to require somebody ordered to undergo an examination to also produce information or documents that are specified in that notice, and there is a provision in clause 46 that authorises a credit reporting body to provide relevantly held information about a person who is subject to a proceeding or enforcement action.

In terms of the Confiscation Act changes, they do appear to be sensible. They do appear to be proportionate. The only thing I would seek some clarification from the government on is in terms of the directions that can be made by a police officer to a person who is on the premises and may be reasonably able to assist. Is this aimed at getting access to passwords and/or biometric data to be able to access devices? Trying to enforce that may be tricky, particularly when it comes to biometric devices.

Part 3 of the bill amends the Crimes Act 1958 and expands the powers that police may exercise when executing warrants issued by a magistrate under section 465 of that act. It also provides for the lodgement of search warrant reports to the Magistrates Court. Also there are some amendments to police powers to retain, destroy, disclose and use fingerprints taken from persons under certain provisions.

We know that the Confiscation Act is important when it comes to trying to ensure that, where people have committed crimes and have done so for material gain, for personal profit, we confiscate those proceeds so that the person cannot benefit from their criminal act. We also want to send a broader message to others who may think about participating in significant criminal activity that, even if you think you can get away with it for a while, ultimately as a society we will come after your assets that you have achieved through breaking the law. It is important to send those messages to serious criminal figures, to organised criminal figures.

That is why I do note that what I was expecting when this bill was first tabled were measures in relation to outlaw motorcycle gangs. We know that OMCGs are very active in the drug trade. In fact I think the motorcycles are really just the front for what is increasingly hardcore drug manufacturing and trafficking. I refer to an article in the Age newspaper of 27 June this year entitled, ‘“Trigger point”: warning on bikie laws after Fawkner shooting’. I will put some of this into the record because, number one, I think it warrants it and, number two, it does indicate where this government has missed an opportunity in this bill to strengthen laws that could really assist with tackling organised crime:

A senior policeman behind Queensland’s successful crackdown on organised motorcycle gangs has warned that Victoria needs additional legal powers to stop organised crime-linked offenders or risk becoming a haven for bikies.

Former Gold Coast superintendent Jim Keogh urged the Victorian government to strengthen its laws against motorcycle gangs, saying a shooting on Melbourne’s streets on Saturday was a “trigger point” for legislative change.

The move would bring Victoria into line with Queensland and NSW, which have both introduced tough anti-association laws to crack down on organised motorcycle crime gangs.

“When members of the public are drawn into the frame, that is the trigger point for legislative change,” Keogh said. “If that trigger point from Saturday … doesn’t spark legislative change, nothing will.”

The article goes on:

Former Mongols bikie and professional boxer Suleiman ‘Sam’ Abdulrahim was targeted in a failed execution as he left a funeral at Fawkner cemetery on Saturday.

Abdulrahim, a 30-year-old known in boxing circles as ‘The Punisher’ drove himself to a nearby police station after being shot in the chest on Box Forest Road.

Those responsible then carjacked a woman and her young son, fleeing in their Ford Territory, which was later found torched in Epping.

There is more in this article I could put on the record, which I will not at the moment. What I would say is that when we have organised crime figures trying to take each other out on Melbourne streets and when we have a mum and her son carjacked in the getaway attempt, we have got a problem. When we have experienced police officers saying that our laws in Victoria are not up to the job and that we have anti-association laws that are too weak to prevent this state becoming effectively a haven for outlaw motorcycle gangs, where is the government action? As I said, I was genuinely surprised when I saw that the government had introduced a bill entitled the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 which completely fails to deal with one of the most pressing matters that confront Victorian community safety today. We have drug dealers acting as social media influencers with huge Instagram followings, we have attempted assassinations in broad daylight and we have the carjacking of a young mum and her young son. Where is the government’s legislative agenda to deal with this? Why won’t the government listen to the experts, such as former superintendent Jim Keogh, who is saying that our laws are too weak? Mr Keogh said the consideration for where a member of an organised motorcycle gang would trade was simple:

Where it’s easiest, where they’re not going to be the subject of harsh legislation.

If you haven’t got a united front [across states] … that’s what will happen.

Sadly, that seems to be what is happening in Victoria.

While the measures in this bill are fine as far as they go, they have missed the obvious problem. We do not have time now to deal with this before the election. This government has had four years for its legislative agenda. It has had a very strong majority in this chamber. It has had an effective working majority in the other place between the government’s own numbers and its reliable friends on the crossbench. In fact the government could look to the opposition and seek our support for any serious attempts to deal with strengthening anti-association laws, because I can tell you that that support would be forthcoming. There is no need for this to be a political fight. We all want to see a safer community, and I just cannot understand why this government seems so unwilling to grasp the nettle—to do what Queensland has done and to do what New South Wales has done—and bring our laws up to speed. I am all for competitive federalism but not when it means Victoria is exposed and vulnerable when it comes to organised crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs, because that is what we seem to be seeing at the moment.

This bill also has a couple of relatively minor amendments. One is to the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004. It amends requirements relating to Victoria Police employees—not sworn officers, but Victoria Police employees—relating to making and determining applications for an authority to use assumed identities.

I appreciate that I am allocated 30 minutes to speak on this bill. The measures here are fine such as they are. I am not quite sure why it has taken four years to update definitions relating to digital currency and digital assets. I am not complaining about that; I just genuinely do not understand why this government seems so unwilling to tackle what is the most pressing issue in this state when it comes to organised crime. Just this week we heard the police say—it was reported in the media—that the two gunmen who were responsible for the attempt on the life of Mr Abdulrahim have fled overseas. Apparently they had fake passports and were off within 48 hours. So there have been no arrests of the gunmen concerned.

It is so important that we step on this before it becomes a problem. I have been in this place for, what, 16 years now, and I remember what happened during—I am not quite sure what the preferred terminology is—the underworld wars, the underbelly wars or whatever you want to call it. It all occurred because not enough was done early on to prevent these violent attacks. Too much money was at stake. These organisations had built themselves up and had become very powerful. That is why, yes, we will be supporting the measures relating to strengthening the Confiscation Act, because we do want to attack the assets and the financial power of organised crime.

Outlaw motorcycle gangs, as I said, are not, you know, just bikies driving around town doing the occasional toy drive for PR purposes; we know they are basically drug organisations. It is not a surprise to anybody. We know what the problem is, we know that Victoria has become a haven for outlaw motorcycle gangs, we know that they are brazen in their showboating on social media, we know that they are brazen increasingly in their attacks on each other in the public and are involving innocent members of the public in these matters and we know that our laws are deficient, so I do not understand why the government is not willing to make the changes that are necessary. I am not suggesting that we slavishly copy what every other state does. I think the Queensland government at one stage in relation to outlaw motorcycle gangs made a decision that OMCG members who were convicted would have to wear pink uniforms in jail. They felt that that would be something that they would not enjoy wearing. I am not necessarily suggesting that that is the path we need to go down, but we do need to strengthen our anti-association laws.

It is one thing to say ‘We’re going to have tough confiscation laws once you’ve already committed crimes’ and ‘Once you’ve already made your money, we’ll try and take it off you’, but how about we actually strengthen the laws to stop them committing the crimes in the first place? Wouldn’t that be a better outcome? Wouldn’t that be putting the horse before the cart? Let us strengthen the laws and give our police the tools they need to stop these gangs committing the crimes in the first place. The Premier has been a big one for his mantra of ‘Whatever the police need—whatever the resources, whatever laws—they’ll get it’. Well, we have police officers now frustrated to the point that they are speaking out publicly about the fact that we need stronger anti-association laws in this state if we are to tackle outlaw motorcycle gangs, and yet for reasons that are beyond me the government is unwilling to act.

I should put on record some of the comments made by acting commander Peter Brigham from Victoria Police, who is from the anti-gangs division. It was reported:

He said investigators were confident of making an arrest for the shooting—

of Abdulrahim—

in due course.

As we know, that has not happened, because the alleged suspects have fled overseas. Here is what acting commander Peter Brigham said:

Understandably, incidents such as the Fawkner shooting create concern across the community. Apprehending those responsible and holding them to account is our highest priority at this time.

There is always tension and sometimes this tension can escalate into violence on our streets. But to be very clear, this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.

Well, yes, I do not think anyone would disagree with that. Further:

Brigham said legislation introduced in other states had been effective in combatting gang issues—

let me say that again, ‘Brigham said legislation introduced in other states had been effective in combatting gang issues’—

but believed police were already making an impact here in reducing gun violence.

Well, clearly it is not enough of an impact. That is not a knock on Victoria Police; that is a knock on the government, which has not been providing Victoria Police with the legislative tools they need to get on top of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

We do not want to see a repeat of what happened here in the 1990s and the 2000s. We do not want to see a repeat of the gangland wars. You have got police from outside Victoria saying Victoria is a problem. You have got police from inside Victoria saying other states have introduced effective legislation to combat these outlaw motorcycle gangs. Why is the government silent? Why doesn’t the government have an agenda to give the police the tools they need to keep us safe? This should not be a matter of politics. As I said, it is not as though you are going to have difficulty in getting such legislation through the Parliament. We would work with the government—next week? Next sitting week? There is still an opportunity. We would work with the government to provide those additional powers, because keeping communities safe is something that every one of us here, every one of the 88 members here, should have as a priority.

This government does need to explain why it is ignoring what the police are saying. It is ignoring the obvious holes in legislation. While the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 will make minor improvements at the edges in relation to the Confiscation Act, the missing piece of this puzzle, the huge hole in the middle of this bill, is the lack of any anti-association laws. That is the missed opportunity, that is what Victorians need to keep us safe. That is what Victoria Police wants. It is what other states have got. This government needs to step up its game and, in the last sitting week that is available, give the police the tools they need to keep Victorians safe.

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (11:56): Put simply, this bill extends provisions in place for banks and financial institutions to the digital world and digital assets. This is the critical understanding. The relevance is to make sure our laws are in line with new and emerging technologies in the fight against criminals and organised crime. This is why this legislation is important. Here is the context: organised crime has long been using digital currencies to partake in illegal transactions and make the tracing and identifying of digital currencies and assets difficult. This bill includes Australian-first reforms to bring digital currency exchanges within the definition of ‘financial institution’ for the purposes of confiscation powers. There is the direct linkage. These exchanges hold records of cryptocurrencies and other digital assets in private wallets and provide exchange services where cryptocurrencies can be transferred to other currencies, including traditional currencies. Under these reforms law enforcement can require exchanges to provide account information as well as monitor and freeze digital assets in the same way they already can with banks and bank accounts.

This bill will go a long way to clamping down on the criminals and make it much harder for them to skirt around these laws through opaque digital exchanges and anonymous accounts—because that is what they are doing. These amendments also provide powers for digital assets to be monitored and frozen to prevent them from being dissipated by a criminal target. This bill will also clarify and strengthen investigation and enforcement powers, including those regarding serious drug offenders, information gathering by law enforcement, restraining orders and the enforcement of confiscation.

The bill extends offences that trigger the automatic forfeiture of assets upon conviction to include: the possession of a trafficable quantity of firearms—that is incredibly important—and trafficking amounts greater than 60 grams of the drug known as a surrogate for GHB. Again, this is how we can actually keep tracking and tracing. The bill also allows law enforcement to issue multiple individual information notices to seek updated account information during ongoing litigation so the pursuit can continue. It also expands the circumstances in which the production of documents can be compelled. So these are strong laws. There is a compelling proposition in here as well. The reason is that it is essential that law enforcement has the power needed to effectively identify and locate possible proceeds of crime.

The Confiscation Act 1997 already has strong information-gathering powers, and this bill makes improvements to expand them. For example, law enforcement will be able to demand documents, in addition to their current powers to ask questions when examining suspects about their assets. These amendments will ensure our confiscation laws are fit for purpose and give police the powers they need to investigate, identify and confiscate the illicit profits from crime. The amendments to the Crimes Act 1958 clarify and streamline Victoria Police’s powers for fingerprinting and search warrants, enabling better use of police time.

The bill empowers Victoria Police to personally take copies of electronic data from computers and storage devices. I just want to emphasise this in response to questions from the lead speaker from the opposition. The bill will empower Victoria Police when executing a warrant under the Crimes Act to, first critical point, seek assistance from people with specialised skills or technical knowledge. The examples cited are locksmiths or forensic accountants—so how you get in, get to the data and are able to scrutinise it, analyse it and then see whether it complies, without those assistants being named in advance in the warrant. The next point is it will secure electronic equipment for operation by experts. It will take a copy of data stored on a computer or data storage device. It can break open a safe or other storage receptacle or transport it to a different location to safely search it. So these are the mechanisms in place. I am trying to provide a step-by-step explanation so that people understand the depth, the range and the reach of this legislation.

Additional safeguards will be included in this bill with respect to the expanded search warrant powers. Police will be required to lodge a detailed report with the court following the execution of the warrant, and people with an interest in the warrant can then expect the report. So here is the balancing safeguard. In addition, the Magistrates Court will be able to require a police officer to give evidence on the matters in the report and also to direct that a seized item be returned to its owner, consistent with existing laws. So that is the safeguard there. The bill ensures this power will only be exercised where the expert skills are necessary to execute the search warrant. Provisions are included to clarify that, where reasonably necessary, Victoria Police may break open a safe or other storage receptacle on warrant premises or transport it to another location to be searched safely. So that is that key proposition.

The bill also modernises processes for Victoria Police to authorise specially trained public servant employees to operate assumed identities under the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004. These amendments extend the duration of assumed identities for Victoria Police public servant employees from three months to 12 months, giving them critical extra time, and where an assumed identity application for a Victoria Police public servant employee is being considered, it will remove the requirement that it is impossible or impractical for a law enforcement officer to acquire or use the assumed identity. What this bill does is modernise the mechanisms required to track and trace to be able to help undercover work which is predominantly done through online profiles. The vast majority of current assumed identities are dedicated to this task. These tasks are best undertaken by highly trained employees of Victoria Police and not necessarily sworn officers. This would allow a more efficient use of resources and allow investigators more easily to undertake this work.

So in bringing these themes together, police will be given stronger powers to investigate organised crime, seize ill-gotten gains and target cybercriminals under these laws. It will help in response to the growing issue of cybercrime. Specialist Victoria Police staff will have more power to investigate online child grooming, using assumed identities under the supervision of a police officer. We know from the Betrayal of Trust report, conducted by and supported unanimously across this Parliament, how devious this can be, how the grooming of children can be done, and this is a really important evolution in our ability to crack down on paedophiles and to bring them to account because it is incredible, the deviousness that occurs. And if this is being done increasingly in the digital world, this level of entrapment must be pursued with absolute vigour for the protection of our children. The bill will allow for intelligence officers to more easily acquire or use an assumed identity by removing the requirement for the Chief Commissioner of Police to be satisfied that it would be impossible or impractical for a sworn officer to do so. This is important legislation. It is groundbreaking in Australia. It can give our law enforcement people the best tools available to track and trace crime that is increasingly occurring in the digital world. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (12:06): I rise to also make a contribution on the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I guess, like our lead speaker, when I saw this bill come into the chamber, I thought finally we have some legislation coming forth that will deal with some of the major and more significant problems that we have in this state. As our lead speaker pointed out, the issues that we have around outlaw motorcycle gangs and their criminal activities I would have thought would have perhaps been at the forefront of this amendment bill, but they did not get a mention. The reason I would have thought that outlaw motorcycle gangs would have been at the forefront of this legislation is that it is a topic and an issue that our police—they have got to be careful what they say, of course, to be non-political—have made pretty clear in a lot of their media commentary that they are seeking more support on and seeking changes in legislation to better deal with the problems of outlaw motorcycle gangs in this state. As was pointed out by our lead speaker, there is legislation in other states that has given more powers to police to be able to deal with these very issues, so why not here in Victoria? If we have legislation that has been introduced to other jurisdictions that has assisted police to uphold law and order, particularly in relation to outlaw motorcycle gangs—and through the test of time, that legislation having been rolled out, it has proved successful, it has proved effective and it has been indeed welcomed by police—one must ask the question: why not here in Victoria?

I also note that whilst it probably is getting a little bit late in the term, our lead speaker did point out that we would be very happy to work with the government on legislation. We might be pushing it to get legislation through both houses in the final week, but it is something that we should not have waited four years to be dealing with, and now it looks like we are possibly not going to deal with this issue at all in this term of government. While this bill does address some matters that will certainly help and assist police—and I will cover off on them shortly—one must ask why we have this bill coming in in the second-last sitting week of the year to have these changes made. There is barely enough time to get this through the upper house next week, and with all the valedictories to occur in the upper house next week—and I believe there will be a few—it will be interesting to see if this government indeed brings it on in the upper house next week in an effort to push it through.

So, what does this bill do? It amends the Confiscation Act 1997 in relation to digital assets, search warrants, seizure warrants, exclusion applications, partial forfeiture of tainted properties and the enforcement of pecuniary penalty orders against property, and it improves the processes for information-gathering powers and obtaining restraining orders—all areas that will assist police in going about their job.

It amends the Crimes Act 1958 in relation to search warrant powers and the lodgement of search warrant reports with the Magistrates Court. This is a positive move, one of the reasons we will not be opposing the bill. It will streamline the processes and make things easier in the rolling out of search warrants, which will be of assistance to police. This bill also amends the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004 in relation to the circumstances in which authorised civilians, and those civilians who are VicPol employees no doubt, can be authorised to assume identities under the act, which will be beneficial to investigative processes. Once again, this is another area that will assist police in upholding the law. Some of the great investigations and subsequent arrests that have been made over the years have been as a result of Victoria Police people assuming identities and infiltrating those groups or organisations that are not upholding the law, not doing the right thing by society. This relatively minor amendment, I must concede, will assist police in streamlining even that process so that they can undertake that very important work that they are also doing. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and the Sex Work Decriminalisation Act 2022.

Many of the changes in this bill relate to definition changes, but there are certainly some areas and new sections of interest. In some cases these relate to warrants. Self-incrimination will no longer be an excuse for failing to comply with a warrant. One of the great frustrations I think that society has generally is that when investigations are taking place and police are homing in on unravelling complex situations to hold people to account for the actions they have taken, we hear this term that people are ‘not going to cooperate’ or are ‘not going to make a comment’ because of fear of self-incrimination. I think any steps we can take to remove or make it more difficult to use this as an excuse to impede investigations is something that should occur and is no doubt welcomed by members on both sides of the chamber.

There will also be new powers to enable a court to make an order requiring a specified person to provide any information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow police officers to do certain things. This can include the example that is given in the second-reading speech of accessing data held in a computer or data storage device on a warrant premises or that has been seized from a warrant premises. This component of this amendment is about removing the ability for potential offenders or alleged offenders to be able to hide information that may incriminate them or allow police to undertake the investigations required in heading towards making an arrest. This makes it more difficult to hide data, particularly digital data, on storage devices where a warrant has been executed. This is something that the police, I am sure, would have been calling for for quite some time, and here we are, in this penultimate week of the Parliament’s sitting term, putting this through. I hope that it is brought on next week and that we can get this through the upper house.

Another area of change is failure to comply without reasonable excuse. It is an indictable offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment. And again, importantly, self-incrimination will not be deemed to be a reasonable excuse. People who are under investigation, who have clearly got something to hide, should be held to account for failing to comply with an investigation. Again, that is another element of this legislation, this bill, that we would indeed support.

There are also changes around exclusion orders and the forfeiture of property for drug offenders. There are changes that are being made around restraining orders and more generally toughening up information-gathering powers. A lot of these issues were covered off by our lead speaker, so I will not go into repeating his commentary in any level of detail. We will call them relatively minor amendments, and they are, but we on this side of the house recognise that they will assist police in going about their investigative roles and in holding offenders, potential offenders and alleged offenders to account for their actions. That is obviously the reason that we will not be opposing this bill, because we support police being able to go about their roles and undertake their duties. Those who are facing the law should not be able to hide important information that is relative to cases and investigations. This does take some small steps in not only providing the police with stronger powers but also introducing some harsher penalties for those who are not prepared to cooperate with police and who are not prepared to do the right thing.

In summary, there is a level of disappointment that this did not tackle some of the big issues that are facing police. They have called for stronger laws in relation to outlaw motorcycle gangs and being able to hold them to account, and it is disappointing that is not included in this bill. There are some changes that will make some improvements to investigative powers, and that is the reason that we are not opposing.

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (12:16): I too rise to speak on the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This bill makes a number of important changes to how our government can tackle criminal activity. Before I begin my contribution today, because we are coming to the end of this term of Parliament, I do really want to give a huge shout-out to all the wonderful Victoria Police officers that operate right across our great state but also give a particularly big shout-out to those working in Wyndham. It can be really hard in Melbourne’s western suburbs. It is a very, very big place, and I have come across many fantastic, wonderful, dedicated and committed local police officers of families that I have gotten to know quite well. Also those that are new to the area, who start learning the ropes and come in as graduates, learn about being a great police officer from some of those that have been around a long time in the western suburbs, and they do a truly marvellous job.

I want to give a really big shout-out—after four years of developing a great relationship with him; I think I am going to get this right—to Senior Sergeant Steven Hayes. Steven was at Wyndham North police station. He is no longer there. I think he has moved up the ropes and moved on, but he is still in the western suburbs. Senior Sergeant Hayes is an incredibly lovely young man, and he was tasked with the really big job of communicating what Victoria Police do and addressing some of the really critical issues affecting folks and families in Melbourne’s outer west when it comes to crime, community safety and CALD communities, where English is quite often not the first language. He was able to take on the job of, I think it was initially, community liaison officer. When I think back to when I was a kid, a community liaison officer might have been the local cop coming down to school and talking about all the things you needed to do to not engage with the criminal justice system—I remember those talks very well, even starting in primary school. But Senior Sergeant Hayes took it upon himself to speak with me and reach out to me and encourage me when I had issues raised with my office from concerned constituents within our community about community safety to pass them on to him, and he would be able to give them a call and deal with them directly, which I thought was a really great way to collaborate with the local member and take on issues that maybe did not necessarily come across his desk in his normal, day-to-day operations. But certainly for those particular families and the many, many issues he dealt with he was able to take them on board and give people a call and let them know where their case was at.

On one particular occasion I was at the Hoppers Crossing Gurudwara and Senior Sergeant Hayes and a number of other police officers came along to give a really great talk about domestic violence to the local Sikh community there in Hoppers Crossing and what they needed to do and who they should contact. It was such a great session, and it made me really reflect on new and emerging communities. Sometimes in the countries they come from police are not always as fabulous as our local Victorian police officers, so having that connection in a place like the Hoppers Crossing Gurudwara is a really good start for so many families in our community to get to know and understand the outstanding job that Victorian police officers do day in, day out. So to Senior Sergeant Steven Hayes, wherever you are, and I am sure you are not going to be reading this in Hansard, thank you for your friendship and hard work over the past four years. I wish you well in your future endeavours in whatever station you end up in.

We heard, when I was lucky enough to be Acting Speaker in the previous hour, in relation to the casino bill debate—I think it was the Minister for Housing talking to the member for Malvern—about how the way in which the community engaged with gambling over previous decades had changed. Certainly it is very much relevant to this bill, because we know that as technology advances, crime develops a new way to hide itself. It sort of becomes more advanced, and this makes it really difficult for conventional police activity to appropriately uncover these activities as well as appropriately seize evidence of these activities. As someone who started off in the criminal justice system and wanted to be a criminal law barrister—I spent a bit of time in court as a judge’s associate—I know evidence is so, so, so important.

It is clear now that we need to update and modernise powers to continue to give our police the tools that they need to keep our communities safe, and it is something that I know our government wholeheartedly supports and is committed to doing. In the last eight years since coming to government we have heavily invested in this space, in growing and expanding our police force right across Victoria, and growing a police force, to put it bluntly, is really important in growth areas. Everything needs to grow, everything needs to expand, including our police force and including police stations.

I am very, very happy to say that in the outer west we have seen a fair bit of investment, particularly lately around our police facilities, with Wyndham North being built under our Andrews Labor government in Tarneit. In 2018 I was very lucky to get in there and have a look at it very early on as it was established. Anyone who is heading down the highway to Werribee cannot miss on the left-hand side a massive, brand new complex that I think was opened earlier this year by the then Minister for Police, the member for Bellarine, and the member for Werribee. Unfortunately I was unable to attend. It opened and a tour was able to take place, and a couple of months later I popped in and had a tour myself. This facility is huge. It is absolutely massive. It is catering for so many local Victorian police working in the heart of Wyndham in tandem with Wyndham North police station there in the heart of Tarneit. This is an incredible complex. What struck me was that it is not just for tackling crime and community safety, it is also a really fantastic workspace and place to do the office administration and everything else behind the scenes that police need to do to tackle crime in an office environment. It is a first-class facility. It is what our local police need and deserve, and I am very, very proud that we have been able to upgrade that facility. It is just brilliant.

I also understand Point Cook is going to get a new police station to help improve police coverage in that part of the outer west, and we will also have our justice precinct underway very soon. I am very much looking forward to having the Attorney-General out there in a couple of weeks with the member for Werribee to check that out.

Very quickly in the time I have got left—one of the things that this bill is going to do, very importantly, is tackle the emerging cryptocurrencies that have popped up over the last decade. Like I said, 10 to 15 years ago probably none of us would have known what bitcoin was or indeed how it could be used, but we have seen the technology evolve and know there has been an increase in the use of cryptocurrencies and digital assets, which if not properly regulated can be, very sadly, abused. Indeed this bill foresees the use of cryptocurrencies to hide the proceeds of crime, with money laundering and the like, by tying them up in digital assets that are very tricky to seize or even sometimes locate. We have seen legislation bring this into line at the federal level, with amendments to the Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing Act 2006 requiring these currencies to be registered with the digital currency exchange register. Quite often state legislation does need to work in tandem with commonwealth legislation in order to reduce crime but also to catch criminals.

This is a great bill. It is keeping us up to date with new and emerging technologies, which is always very important. It builds upon our commitment to keeping Victorians safe, most importantly while tackling and reducing crime. It is going to make sure that people who commit crimes cannot tie up their assets in digital currencies and mix them with other assets, which is really all about disincentivising people from engaging in these types of practices, because let us be frank, people who are guilty of criminal offences will not look into cryptocurrencies to seek to mix their assets if they know that law enforcement can get their hands on them. This is why I commend the bill to the house.

Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (12:27): I too rise to speak today in support of the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I am very pleased to follow the contribution of my good friend the member for Tarneit, and I think that was an excellent contribution. This bill is important because it delivers on commitments this government made to keep our community safe. I would really like to thank the Attorney-General, her ministerial office and the Department of Justice and Community Safety for the hard work they do every day as well as for working on this bill to bring it into the house. So thank you very much to you.

Before I begin to speak on this bill I want to say how pleased I am that we now have affirmative consent laws in Victoria. Our new affirmative consent laws are about respect and autonomy and will make our state safer and better. These have just passed the upper house, and this is brand new and so important. With explicit, informed and voluntary agreement now enshrined in law we have shifted the focus from the victim and towards the accused and what actions they took to confirm consent. This law is another example of our government’s commitment to stopping all forms of violence against women and is legislation that I am incredibly proud of.

Also, as the sun sets on the 59th Parliament, I want to acknowledge the former Attorney-General, the member for Altona, for the contribution she has made to law reform in Victoria, including on industrial manslaughter, the decriminalisation of public drunkenness, wage theft and the banning of gay conversion therapy. Further, as health minister the member for Altona led landmark reforms, including the introduction of safe access zones for abortion clinics, assisted dying laws and nurse-to-patient ratios. Our state is indebted to her contributions, and we thank her for her courageous and compassionate work.

But back to the bill, prior to the introduction of this bill to the house, work was done to consult with a variety of stakeholders and organisations involved in policing, financial services and the justice system. As always consultation is key in shaping any proposed legislation, and I thank those people from the department and the ministerial office who were involved in the consultation and really allowed these stakeholders to have meaningful input and feedback on this bill. We know that that is important, and it is something that is very important to me.

As we recognise this important bill regarding major crime and community safety, I want to recognise the day-to-day work of all those involved in keeping our communities safe and in particular to thank my local police in the electorate of Wendouree and throughout Ballarat. It is tough and challenging work that takes a toll on members and their families. I thank you for the job you do every day to keep Ballarat safe, and I would really like to give a shout-out to two of my favourite Victoria Police members, Caroline Johnson and Amy Underwood, who are very, very good officers and exceptional people.

Further, it is my first opportunity to congratulate the member for Ivanhoe on his appointment as Minister for Police, and I look forward to welcoming him to Ballarat to visit the police assistance line and the Ballarat regional forensic hub, which I am very pleased was opened by the member for Frankston earlier during this term. It was great to have him in Ballarat. I cannot wait to show the new Minister for Police the great forensic work that is being done right in my electorate, in Winter Valley, and have him meet our hardworking and dedicated VicPol members.

It is integral that the work of VicPol is supported by a modern, thorough and continually improving legislative framework. This is why this government is delivering on our commitments made in the Community Safety Statement 2018–19 to strengthen Victoria’s asset confiscation scheme and improve search warrant and crime scene processes. What will this bill do? This bill will deliver on these commitments. It makes a range of improvements to how proceeds of crime are confiscated in Victoria, including dealing with digital assets and improving procedural efficiencies, as well as updating and streaming search warrant processes. It also reforms how fingerprint information is kept and used, as well as how assumed identities are utilised online in criminal investigations. In doing so, this bill amends several bills, primarily the Confiscation Act 1997, the Crimes Act 1958 and the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004.

Under existing powers, digital assets are often difficult to confiscate as proceeds of crime, a fact that is increasingly being taken advantage of by organised crime groups. These amendments will disrupt the criminal activity by modernising the Confiscation Act to allow law enforcement to identify, to seize and to secure these assets. It also specifies, as the member for Tarneit explained, that digital currency exchanges are to be considered as financial institutions under the act, so they can be required to provide information and freeze cryptocurrency assets in the same way that banks are. Amendments to the Confiscation Act will also provide information gathering through creating examination notices, which will compel documents for use in an examination process by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The bill additionally removes limitations that can prevent police from obtaining information notices for some properties used in criminal offending. This is balanced by robust safeguards ensuring that information notices may only be issued to senior police officers, who must justify in writing their belief that a property is related to criminal offending. Annual reports on the use of information notices by VicPol will have to be tabled in this Parliament.

Several further amendments will improve the application of enforcement and the finalisation procedures for confiscating the proceeds of crime. Officers within the Department of Justice and Community Safety will be able to apply for warrants for the seizure of forfeited property on behalf of police, although executing these warrants will remain a police responsibility. The warrant period will also be lengthened from one month to six, better reflecting the time it can take to intercept vehicles on the road. Police will also be better empowered to access and secure seized digital assets, such as cryptocurrency wallets.

Additional legislative inconsistencies are also addressed to ensure that property effectively controlled by offenders, as well as property involved in serious drug offences, is liable for forfeiture. Improvements are also made to the process of enforcing restraining orders which are put in place to facilitate payment orders made against an offender. This includes that restraining orders will no longer be required when using forfeited property to compensate victims. These amendments and more will together ensure that confiscation procedures are fit for purpose and reflect the realities of modern policing.

The next area that I want to talk about is the search warrant reforms. This bill further delivers on search warrant reforms, enacting another commitment from the Community Safety Statement 2018–19. Search warrants are critical policing procedures regulated under the Crimes Act 1958, and the practical application of these regulations must keep up with the times. This bill allows for experts, such as IT or firearms specialists, to assist in seizing evidence when required without these assistants needing to be named in advance. Police will also be permitted to break open locked safes when reasonably necessary. And, bringing Victoria into line with other Australian jurisdictions, police will be required to lodge a comprehensive report of seized assets instead of bringing those items back to court, and they will be able to display these items to the media where appropriate to publicise the outcome of investigations into serious crimes. Under these procedural improvements, search warrants will be safer, more efficient and more effective.

We are also going to look at issues regarding fingerprints, and the amendments to the Crimes Act 1958 also reform how police fingerprint information is kept and used by Victoria Police. They reduce undue administrative burdens on police concerning when fingerprint retention periods overlap and end, and they also facilitate the retention of fingerprint information for people who have passed away for use as evidence in solving and closing cases. Police will be empowered to identify seriously injured and deceased people based on fingerprints to then disclose their identity to medical practitioners and coroners. These are commonsense amendments that will streamline police processes and provide benefits to our community.

Finally, this bill also makes regulatory changes to how assumed identities can be used in criminal investigations. These acknowledge the changing reality of where and how these investigations take place, and the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004 was introduced at a time when assumed identities were primarily used in person by undercover operatives. We are making sure that some robust safeguards that are within the current act remain and that they are applied. Taken as a whole, the important amendments in this bill will modernise regulations that would otherwise delay or compromise essential policing work. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (12:37): I am pleased to rise to contribute on the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Could I begin by thanking the Attorney-General and the Minister for Police for this important bill and what it means for our community in terms of safety. I also do want to acknowledge the previous Minister for Police and the work that she did leading up to this as well.

I also want to follow on from the member for Tarneit and the member for Wendouree in thanking our local police force for the work that they do—Victoria Police, and in particular the police force in Geelong, who provide such a great service in our community. The last couple of years have obviously been pretty tough for our police and first responders. I do want to acknowledge the work they do in keeping our community safe and just how important this bill is for them in terms of delivering community safety in all of our communities across Victoria.

This bill is about giving stronger powers to investigate organised crime, seize ill-gotten gains and target cybercriminals. Our investment into specialised police has been really important for our state, and particularly in addressing cybercrime and new and emerging technologies. Trying to stay on top of those emerging technologies is particularly challenging. I think our law enforcement have done a great job in doing that, and we will continue to support them as a government to do that, given its importance. The bill will strengthen the assets confiscation laws and give more power to investigate and seize proceeds of crime and disrupt organised crime on the black market.

It is important that we also respond to the growing issue of cybercrime with more powers given to specialist police staff to investigate online child grooming using assumed identities. Child grooming is a serious issue. Many parents fear their child will innocently become a target. I know when I talk to many parents in my community there is always that real fear that perpetrators will access their children online. I know there is technology to help prevent those things from happening, but children being children, they can often get into sites that are not necessarily the safest place for them to be. With perpetrators out there—and we know they are out there—we do not want children to be able to be accessed by those perpetrators and become targets. This bill is about catching the perpetrators and protecting our children in our communities, which is really, really important.

The bill will allow for intelligence officers to more easily acquire or use assumed identities by removing the requirement for the Chief Commissioner of Police to be satisfied that it would be impossible or impracticable for a sworn officer to do so. This bill allows for more victim compensation that will be able to be paid from forfeited properties.

We know the impact on victims. We have heard in this chamber many times stories from local members of Parliament, from their communities, and the impact of crime on their constituents and the importance of making sure that victims of crime are given every possible support. This government has certainly done that. There have been many changes to legislation, so we have done a lot in that space, but what this actually means is that there will be more compensation available to be paid through forfeited property. This is a really important component of this bill, and I think for my community that means a lot. We know, as I said, the impact of crime against people has been really significant on them. As I mentioned, we have put many resources and policy changes into victims of crime policy direction, which is protecting those people to some degree.

This bill makes important amendments that acquit commitments in the Community Safety Statement 2018–19 to strengthen Victoria’s laws targeting proceeds of crime and improve Victoria Police search warrant powers, crime scene powers and ability to effectively gather and manage evidence. The bill also addresses the need to improve police investigations and reduce administrative burdens on Victoria Police by streamlining and modernising the legislative powers related to the execution of search warrants, the use and destruction of fingerprints and the use of assumed identities in criminal investigations. In streamlining these powers the bill maintains appropriate safeguards for their exercise, such as court oversight over the execution of warrants.

The bill addresses the growing use of digital currencies and other digital assets by criminal groups, expanding law enforcement powers to effectively identify and seize digital assets. The bill extends the obligation of financial institutions under the Confiscation Act 1997 to digital currency exchanges to allow law enforcement to obtain account information from them in the same way that information may be obtained from banks. The bill also makes changes to the Confiscation Act to update provisions to ensure they are applicable to digital assets.

The bill inserts new powers for law enforcement to require the assistance of people with knowledge of computers, data storage devices or other means of accessing digital assets to gain access to these assets when executing search warrants. The bill addresses operational limitations on the existing information-gathering powers provided to law enforcement in the Confiscation Act by expanding the use of the powers and the types of information that can be accessed to support investigative and enforcement efforts. The bill strengthens the state’s ability to enforce and finalise confiscation outcomes. Specifically, the bill provides a clear statutory pathway to enforce pecuniary penalty orders against real property and a mechanism for a court to order a sale of land. The reforms are intended to reduce the complexity of the litigation that can currently occur in these cases while maintaining safeguards and judicial oversight of the process.

The bill addresses gaps in law enforcement’s ability to investigate and seize property that is tainted by criminal offending. The bill resolves an inconsistency in the Confiscation Act that currently allows tainted or derived property to be excluded from forfeiture in relation to serious drug offences when it cannot be excluded for less serious offending. It also gives courts discretion to order the partial forfeiture of tainted property in circumstances where there is a sole owner of the property, mitigating disproportionate impacts and undue hardship when an entire property is forfeited, especially when it is the family home. We are making provisions in this bill to ensure that people who are living in a family home are protected.

But I think the bill is very much around protecting our community and providing safety, particularly in relation to emerging technology and what is happening in the cyber world. This is very new technology. Even a lot of us in this chamber today do not necessarily get our heads around what it all means, but we know that we have specialist law enforcement officers out there making sure that they are covering those things and catching the perpetrators, particularly those in cybercrime and predators on children that they target online. These are really important matters that need to be dealt with every single day. We know that our law enforcement officers are out there doing that. We need as a government to provide them with the ability to do their job, and to do it thoroughly, with the resources and expertise that they need.

This is a really important bill. It is about protecting our entire community. It is about making sure the resources that are required and the expertise that is required are in place when they are needed. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (12:47): I am pleased to rise this afternoon to make a contribution in relation to the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. We can see in clause 1 of the bill that the purposes of the bill are to amend the Confiscation Act 1997, to amend the Crimes Act 1958, to amend the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004, to amend the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and to make consequential amendment to the Sex Work Decriminalisation Act 2022.

Before I get into the details of that, I just want to make some more general comments in relation to policing. I particularly think back to our local situation out in the City of Whitehorse and the City of Monash, where the Forest Hill district is. I particularly think about the Forest Hill police station, which is an outstanding police station. Indeed it was a 2010 election commitment that I made in the run-up to the state election in November 2010. That police station was subsequently built and opened some years later, and it has ended up being one of the stand-out facilities for Victoria Police (VicPol), not only in the east but throughout the state, in terms of its design. The design that the architects came up with actually won awards. It has gone down well and truly on the public record as being one of the best facilities for local police in the metropolitan area and probably more broadly. I remember clearly the words of one of the senior sergeants who had been in the job for over 30-something years and was about to retire. He said he had worked in many, many stations all around Victoria and that the Forest Hill police station was the best one that he had ever been in. That is a great asset for not only the local police but also the broader community out in Melbourne’s east. That reflected the commitment that the government at the time had and the now Liberal-Nationals opposition continues to have towards policing and to making sure that it is properly resourced and has the assets and the resources that it needs.

Certainly locally the police are doing an outstanding job. I have various interactions with them from time to time on different matters and get updates and whatnot. They do a great job to protect and to serve our local community. Even this morning as I was listening to the radio very early I heard that the Box Hill criminal investigation unit are investigating a very substantial burglary up in Blackburn, which is just adjacent to the boundaries of Forest Hill district. They are looking at a $250 000 burglary from a home up there, which is a very substantial crime in our area. That just happened to be reflected on the news this morning. Obviously the police are doing work, constantly dealing with all kinds of matters and offenders that we do not know anything about. They are out there day and night, 24 hours a day, protecting our community, and they are to be highly commended and thanked for that.

In terms of some of the major crimes that we are seeing here in the state of Victoria, there has been an alarming run of them I think in recent times where we have seen some very public shootings and very public other serious offences that really do strike at the heart of law and order in the city here. My comment in relation to that is that it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that Victoria Police has the necessary resources to get on top of that sort of crime. We saw recently that shooting—we have had numbers of shootings of course, but this was a very serious shooting—where someone with alleged bikie connections was shot in broad daylight, and then the offenders crashed the car that they had left that scene in and one of them proceeded to do a carjacking. That is a dreadful situation on every level but certainly for the victims of that carjacking. My recollection is that there was a mother and a child in that vehicle, and they will be probably forever traumatised by that very significant impact on their lives.

When we are seeing brazen crimes like that throughout the streets of Melbourne, we know that we have got a serious problem. I just hope and trust that the government are doing all that they need to and ensuring that the police are properly resourced to deal with these very serious matters. Very often, as we know, those sorts of crimes are linked inextricably to drugs and to other general illegal activity. I would urge the government to ensure that they are doing all they can to send a clear message to the underworld and to the bikie community that that sort of behaviour and those activities are not welcome here in Victoria, because they, as we know, erode the very fabric of society that we are trying to work to improve.

On top of that we have continued to see a rash of home invasions. I remember numbers of years ago when the first one of those became apparent. That was just extraordinary because it was a crime that effectively we had not seen in Victoria, or if we had it was extremely infrequent. Sadly now for all Victorians it is basically a regular situation where there are home invasions, and there is no discrimination as to where they might occur. Again, I think this reflects some of the lawless attitude that has crept into our community, and again I would urge the government to ensure that they are doing all they can to protect the community from these sorts of offences.

It is ironic that whilst we have had these sorts of high-end crimes where significant resources are tied up and going into prosecuting these matters, which is very appropriate and very important for the protection of the community, we have had a series of situations where people in the last few years have been arrested for basically meaningless alleged offences. We saw, I think it was earlier this week, that one of those people, who for an alleged incitement in relation to putting a particular matter on social media in regard to a public event was subsequently arrested in her own home, turned up to court to deal with that matter some years later, and the matter was just dropped by Victoria Police. That particular person had done effectively no harm in the community yet had to live with that hanging over her head for those subsequent years. Quite frankly, I think that that is not good enough. That person has gone through incredible stress and anxiety as a result of that, and the publicity that she received when she had committed no offence is appalling. I would encourage the government to ensure that there is no politically motivated police action in relation to matters that it disagrees with for whatever reason, because I think that that has been quite apparent. There are other examples which I could cite—but I will not; I have not got time to go into them today—where it seems that the government has been politically interfering in what VicPol has been doing.

It is interesting too that today the Auditor-General has tabled a report in this place: The Effectiveness of Victoria Police’s Staff Allocation. It is interesting to see the conclusion that the Auditor-General has reached in relation to that. He talks about why the audit is important and who and what he examined, but the important aspect for members here and for the broader community, I think, is the fact that we can see what the Auditor-General concluded:

Victoria Police’s staffing needs are not clear because it does not have a strategic workforce plan.

The report goes on:

Without knowing its future staffing needs, Victoria Police continues to rely on what it receives from the government, rather than providing evidence-based advice.

Victoria Police also cannot assure itself or the community that the 2,729 additional police officers it received as part of the $2 billion Community Safety Statement … program delivered community safety outcomes.

The Auditor-General goes on and makes six recommendations, and I commend the Auditor-General for his work and his team’s work in relation to this particular matter. It is interesting to note the chief commissioner’s reply, which is on page 25 of the report. He says:

It is an ongoing challenge to assign resources in a manner that is effective, sustainable, and fair across all facets of an obligation that is constantly evolving in its ability to respond to ever changing needs and demands.

He goes on:

… The system was not designed as a tool to inform Government how many additional resources Victoria Police require.

In relation to that report I trust that the government and VicPol have agreed to most of those recommendations—certainly in principle to two and in full to the other four. But I trust the government heeds the recommendations of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office and implements those improvements in their own system so that we can ensure that the community gets that increased level of police action and assistance when they need it.

In conclusion, I note the opposition is not opposing the bill.

Mr McGHIE (Melton) (12:57): I rise today to also contribute to the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. The bill will deliver Community Safety Statement 2018–19 commitments to strengthen Victoria’s asset confiscation scheme and improve search warrant and crime scene processes. I should say up front that I know very little about cryptocurrency and I have not got my head around cybercrime either, but I am pretty pleased that this bill will be delivering the laws that will deal with this sort of crime. But, as I say, as an elderly gentleman, I have no idea about cryptocurrency. There you go. I do not think I will be investing in it.

Mr Edbrooke interjected.

Mr McGHIE: Yes, I know. I do not think I will be investing in it.

This bill has been developed in consultation with key government and legal stakeholders, and I am pleased to see that those opposite are not opposing this bill. The bill will improve Victoria Police’s response to serious and organised crime, and it will streamline, clarify and modernise fingerprint and search-warrant powers and the use of assumed identities in criminal investigations and create operational efficiencies for the police and for our courts. The bill specifically will amend the Confiscation Act 1997 to improve Victoria’s asset confiscation scheme by strengthening investigation and enforcement powers, updating offences that result in the automatic forfeiture of assets and modernising the scheme to account for technological developments—for example, just by extending provisions to digital assets like, as I said, cryptocurrency. The important point is that increasingly criminals are choosing to use new, modern technologies to hide their gains. Clearly in the criminal world they will continue to do that to try and manipulate and, as I say, hide their gains through their criminal acts.

The bill also amends the Crimes Act 1958 to modernise Victoria Police’s search warrant powers and fingerprinting framework and the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004 to streamline and modernise processes for Victoria Police to authorise and use assumed identities in the online environment. I know we have not got much more time left. Organised crime has long been using digital currencies to partake in illegal transactions, which makes the tracing and identifying of digital currencies and assets difficult.

Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.01 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.