Thursday, 1 September 2022

Monitoring of Places of Detention by the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (OPCAT) 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) (15:34): I rise to speak on the Monitoring of Places of Detention by the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (OPCAT) Bill 2022. This bill is to facilitate visits by the United Nations subcommittee, which will be visiting Australia and particularly visiting Victoria, I believe, in about six weeks time. I am advised by the Attorney-General’s office that between 16 and 27 October this year this United Nations subcommittee will be landing and they will be wanting to have access to Victoria’s places of detention, so this bill is to facilitate and to set out the strategic framework for how that visit takes place.

Perhaps a little bit of history: in 2017 Australia signed the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, known as OPCAT for short. That optional protocol has been signed by some nations and not by others. A quick look at the United Nations website will give us an indication of the membership of the subcommittee, and my assumption is that the subcommittee is made up of people from countries that are actually parties to the protocol—in fact that is confirmed by the website. It says the subcommittee on prevention of torture (SPT):

… is composed of 25 independent and impartial members drawn from countries which are parties to the Protocol. Members serve in their personal capacity and are drawn from a variety of different backgrounds relevant to its work, including lawyers, medical professionals and detention and inspection experts. Members do not work for any Government and do not receive any instructions from state authorities …

and that is probably a good thing given they are supposed to be independent.

I note that a variety of countries are represented by the members of that subcommittee. They include Lebanon, Tunisia, Senegal, France, Morocco, the Maldives, Germany, Panama, Norway, Peru, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Poland, Spain, Argentina and Denmark, amongst others, so we have a wide variety—a veritable United Nations—of countries represented by the membership of the subcommittee on the prevention of torture. Of course those countries have got differing human rights records themselves. It would be fair to say that not all of those countries could be held up as shining examples of the protection of human rights. But I think Australia has always regarded itself—or we would like to regard ourselves—as being one of the stronger, if not one of the strongest, countries when it comes to protecting human rights, so with that in mind, the then federal coalition government signed Australia up to the optional protocol in 2017.

Signing up to the optional protocol comes with obligations, and one of those obligations is to facilitate visits to our places of detention by this United Nations subcommittee so they can see for themselves what we are doing and they can make reports. So the purpose of this bill is to facilitate visits to places of detention by this UN subcommittee, to provide for the subcommittee to be given access to information for the purposes of the subcommittee’s functions under the optional protocol and to provide for necessary safeguards to enable detaining authorities to preserve privacy, security, good order, welfare and safety in places of detention during visits by the subcommittee.

In researching this bill and preparing to speak on it, I looked for some articles about how other jurisdictions have dealt with visits by the subcommittee, and I was drawn to an article in the Australian newspaper published on 4 June 2020. It notes that:

Authorities in New Zealand, a signatory to the treaty, were sanctioned some years ago for not providing enough butter to inmates for their toast each morning. A minimum security prison in Britain was told by inspectors it should not have been surrounded by razor wire.

Well, I would hope that the members of the subcommittee will concern themselves with things that actually matter, with things that actually go to whether prisoners are being kept in appropriate and humane conditions, not measuring the amount of butter they get with their toast every morning. That is the sort of thing that, frankly, gives the United Nations a bad name. That is the sort of thing which gives many people in the community pause for querying Australia’s participation in multilateral bodies when we see the obvious and outrageous and egregious abuses of human rights that are happening right across the world, and if we get UN inspectors focusing on measuring amounts of butter accompanying toast in the morning, that is not what this should be about. I think this is obviously a test for Australia in terms of our compliance with the requirements of the optional protocol, but it is also, I believe, a test for the United Nations. Are they a serious body looking at serious issues or are they going to concentrate on frivolities, are they going to concentrate on trivia, are they going to concentrate on things that, frankly, most reasonable people would regard as being as far removed as can be from torture and cruel and inhumane treatment? Having said that, there is some serious work to be done, and this article also goes on to note that:

In NSW, prisons have already been upgraded to remove choke points and other hazards, though the UN recommendations are likely to argue for privacy screens to be installed for inmates and to limit some search powers.

Reasonable people of goodwill can differ over the extent to which conditions in a prison are appropriate, but I do hope that with this bill receiving passage through the Parliament—and I am sure it will, and the opposition will not be opposing it—we see the United Nations focus on real issues. One death in custody is a tragedy, but we have seen too many deaths in custody and a number of deaths in custody in Victoria in recent weeks, months and years. We know we have an over-representation of Indigenous deaths in custody as well, which is of grave concern. So I think we do need to examine how we can do things better, and to the extent that the United Nations subcommittee will be providing sensible advice and undertaking proper and rational examinations, their contribution will be welcomed. Again I say, if they are going to be taking out the measuring jar and checking the amount of butter on the toast, then their contribution will be devalued. It remains to be seen which direction the subcommittee will go.

The bill defines a place of detention as including a prison, a police gaol, a remand centre, a youth justice centre, a designated mental health service at which a patient is detained or a residential treatment facility. It gives other examples. It does not include a courtroom. Interestingly it does not include a place at which somebody is quarantined pursuant to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. It is very interesting that the government has chosen to exclude that type of residence, that type of place of detention, from the definition under the bill, because—and it is timely that I raise this, because it is in the newspapers today—the actions of the Andrews Labor government in effectively locking up hundreds and hundreds of people in North Melbourne public housing towers without any notice was appalling and was found to be so by the Victorian Ombudsman. It was so appalling that the Ombudsman recommended that the government apologise to those residents who had had their human rights violated by the actions of this government, and it is very much to this government’ s discredit that the Premier and the government have refused to do so. When the independent umpire calls you out and says you got it wrong and says you hurt people and recommends you apologise, a decent government would cop it sweet and apologise, but this government does not do that. This government ignores those recommendations. This government rides roughshod over people and refuses to apologise, and that is very much to its discredit.

Ms Vallence interjected.

Mr M O’BRIEN: I am grateful to my friend the member for Evelyn. More than 3000 residents in nine high-rise towers were affected by those lockdowns, and we saw the very unedifying sight, reported in the newspapers today, of the former Minister for Health, the member for Albert Park, intervening or having consternation—

Mr Walsh: He was being abusive.

Mr M O’BRIEN: or being abusive, as the member for Murray Plains said, to the Ombudsman for her daring to raise this and daring to raise this in a public forum. Well, the Ombudsman has reported it to Parliament. I mean, her views are hardly a secret. They are in a report that has been tabled in this Parliament, but this government believes that anybody who disagrees with it should be shut up, should be silenced, and if the Ombudsman dares to repeat her views in another public forum, then the member for Albert Park thinks he can have a go at her. Well, that is wrong. This government did the wrong thing. I remember when I heard on the news that the state government was moving in to lock down these towers with no notice—no notice, locking them down—the government did not even have the appropriate food. It was giving pork products to Muslim families. There were not enough sanitation supplies for women. There was not enough milk formula for families with babies.

This government just blithely ignores all the concerns, all the human rights abuses, and the government is condemned for that. I will tell you who else is condemned for that: the usual suspects—the usual human rights lawyers, the usual legal services—who often cannot wait to get out there and condemn outrageous conduct by governments. They all lost their voice when this happened. They all went deathly silent. Where were the great defenders of human rights? Where were those who fight for fair? They went very, very quiet, didn’t they? The great human rights warriors from Slater and Gordon and Maurice Blackburn—where were they when 3000 people had their human rights abused? Nowhere to be seen. Too interested in lining up for preselection, I guess—well, to their eternal discredit. The community legal centres—where were they? Silent—to their eternal discredit. Many people turned their backs on their jobs and on their values to suck up to this government during lockdowns, and those people should never be forgotten, or forgiven, for turning their backs on vulnerable people who needed them to speak up. Those 3000 people were locked up in their homes with no notice, not given appropriate food, not given access to exercise and not given appropriate time to be able to make arrangements. And what happened? They were left to fend for themselves. I went out there and spoke to some of the community organisations, particularly the Islamic community, and they did a fantastic job. They did the job the government should have done. A competent government would have made sure that there was culturally appropriate food available from day one for those families. The government did not. The community groups did, and it is to their credit that they stepped up and they stepped in where this Labor government failed. It is very interesting that in this bill the government has specifically excluded places at which a person is detained under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. It says in clause 4(2):

For the purposes of subsection (1)(n), a person is not detained under an order, direction or power referred to in that subsection merely because the person is required or directed to isolate or quarantine under that order, direction or power (as the case requires).

I wonder what the United Nations subcommittee would have thought of what this government did to those 3000 Victorians in the North Melbourne and Kensington housing commission flats. I do not think it would have featured very well. I do not think it would have.

Returning to the other aspects of the bill, under the bill the minister and the detaining authority must ensure that the subcommittee and any accompanying experts or interpreters are permitted to enter and visit a place of detention and have unrestricted access to any part. The minister may object to the subcommittee visiting on a particular day or days if the minister reasonably believes there is an urgent and compelling reason to temporarily prevent the visit. This can only be on certain grounds: grounds of national defence, grounds of public safety, grounds of natural disaster or serious disorder in the place of detention. Given this government’s track record of disorder, particularly in youth justice facilities, it would be a real toss of the coin whether on any given day the subcommittee would be able to access any of our youth justice facilities. It seems to be every other day you have got a disturbance, or in some cases full-blown riots. Who will ever forget the spectre of inmates up on the roofs of the facilities, only being prepared to come down when they got pizza and access to PlayStations? What an absolute mess this government has made of youth detention. One of the things the former coalition government—in which I was proud to be a minister—did was actually introduce access to learning and education for young people in youth detention, because we do think youth detention should be an opportunity for rehabilitation. We do not want people to go to schools of crime.

If they have done something serious enough to warrant detention in a youth detention facility, we want them to come out better people. Let us give them the opportunity. Let us give them the skills, tools and knowledge to be able to make the right choices in their lives when they leave. That is something that I was very proud of that we did as a government, and I just query what this government’s legacy is when it comes to youth detention. What can this government point to after eight years and say, ‘Things are better in youth detention, our young people have got better opportunities and we are seeing less recidivism’? We are not seeing less recidivism. Victoria runs the most expensive corrections facilities in the country with the worst recidivism rates. That is a pretty good daily double—the most expensive correctional facilities in the country with the worst recidivism rates.

Ms Hutchins: I don’t think that’s true.

Mr M O’BRIEN: Well, the Productivity Commission would beg to differ, Minister. I do not know what this government’s legacy is when it comes to youth detention apart from more disturbances. Of course there was the great Cherry Creek facility that was going to be built, and then the Treasurer backflipped when he started feeling some heat in his local area and found a new place for it.

I will be fascinated to see whether the United Nations subcommittee is able to attend our youth justice facilities and see how they are actually operating. If one of the grounds for excluding them from them is that there is ‘serious disorder in the place of detention’, they are really going to have their luck in, because there seems to be a lot of serious disorder on many, many days at our youth justice facilities. The minister may object to the subcommittee visiting. The detaining authority may prohibit or restrict access to a place of detention if it reasonably believes that doing so may prevent the maintenance of security, good order and management of the place of detention or the maintenance of health and safety of any person in the place of detention, including the subcommittee, or the conduct of essential operations by the detaining authority. The bill goes on to say that any prohibition or restriction must be for the shortest time possible.

There has been some concern expressed by some groups that I have consulted with, including the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and the Law Institute of Victoria. They have expressed a few views. One is that the government has been too restrictive in defining places of detention and there should be a more open-ended definition used. I note that for the record, and I suppose it is up to the government to really respond and explain why the government has drafted the legislation the way it has and why it has got specific definitions rather than a more open definition as sought by both the LIV and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service. In terms of restricting access to places of detention, both VALS and the LIV have flagged that they believe that it should not be the place of detention’s option to restrict the subcommittee and it should really only be the minister—that the minister is really the only appropriate person who should be able to make the call to prevent the subcommittee from visiting any place of detention at a given time. Again, I note those concerns that have been expressed by those organisations, and I leave it to the government to respond as to why it believes that those concerns should not be dealt with through amendments to the bill, either here or in the other place.

Under the bill the subcommittee can interview any person who consents to an interview at a place of detention or who it believes can provide information relating to the treatment of a detainee or the conditions. An interpreter may be used, and the interview may be done in person or by means of electronic communication. If the subcommittee agrees, the interviewed person may nominate a support person to be present, and the interviews are to occur in private. I did ask what would prevent a person who wanted to be interviewed from nominating their partner—their spouse—as a support person, and there was not really an answer as to why that would not occur, other than that the government, I believe, would just hope that the subcommittee would not allow that facility to be abused by a person they wanted to interview. I would have thought it might need something a bit stronger than just hoping for the subcommittee to understand when they are having the wool pulled over their eyes.

In terms of interviews occurring in private, this has been an issue that has been raised by both the law institute and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service. VALS says there is a need to strengthen provisions relating to privacy, as does the LIV. Notwithstanding the references to privacy, VALS says that privacy should require no-one being present or within earshot or surveilling in real time by electronic means or later on through recordings. The LIV recommends that the provision be amended to provide that the detaining authority must allow the SPT, the subcommittee, to privately interview any person with appropriate safeguards in place to ensure confidentiality. I would expect that the government would understand the intention in relation to privacy, and I think that any detaining authority which felt that they could find a loophole in it to remotely surveil conversations would understand that this would be completely contrary to the intention and the spirit, and arguably the law, that this bill will represent, but I place those concerns that have been provided to me on the record, for what that is worth.

Under part 3 of the bill the subcommittee may request information relevant to the subcommittee other than excluded information, and the minister and the detaining authority must provide it. Again I think that that all seems fair enough. If the subcommittee is to have the access to the information to be able to do its job, then it is only right that the minister and the place of detention provide that information so they can make the appropriate assessments.

In terms of preventing retribution against people who cooperate with the subcommittee or provide information to the subcommittee, the government has put in place measures in this bill. Under part 4 it is an offence for a person to take detrimental action, which is broadly defined, against another person because that person has given or disclosed information to the subcommittee or is believed to have done so, and there is a maximum penalty of 120 penalty units or one year imprisonment in place for breaching that. The Law Institute of Victoria says it supports the intention of the bill to protect detainees and other persons who give information to the SPT from reprisals. The LIV suggests strengthening protections for detainees and improving the clarity of the provision, particularly regarding the definition of what constitutes a detrimental action, by removing the word ‘onerous’ from section 15(2)(b). The LIV suggests the word ‘onerous’ is unclear and facilitates potential for minor changes to the conditions of someone’s detention on the basis that they have spoken with the subcommittee. Again, I would hope and I would expect that places of detention would understand that the measures against reprisals for those who conduct interviews with the subcommittee are there for a reason, and I think Victorians would look very, very dimly on any action which was seen to be taking reprisals or punishing somebody because they have cooperated with the subcommittee. But I, again, place those suggestions from the LIV and from the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service on the record.

With those comments I again reiterate that the opposition will not be opposing this bill, but when we consider this government’s failure in relation to 3000 public housing commission residents who were detained, who were locked down in their own homes with no notice and being innocent of any crime, the government’s refusal to apologise to those people and in fact the government’s—through the member for Albert Park—decision to intervene with the Ombudsman for daring to repeat her views, I think that this government has a lot to learn when it comes to the appropriate way to treat people. If the UN subcommittee was able to examine those issues, I suspect the government would have a lot of sleepless nights, and it is no coincidence that the government has deliberately excluded those measures from this bill.

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (16:00): I also rise to join in the debate on the Monitoring of Places of Detention by the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (OPCAT) Bill 2022. As was raised by the lead speaker for the opposition, it is a bill to facilitate the visits to places of detention and the access to information by the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in accordance with the subcommittee’s mandate under the optional protocol. I would just like to note at the outset that I was somewhat surprised at the lead speaker’s comments. Suddenly in today’s chamber we had both the opposition and the Greens during question time being the champions for social housing communities, whereas I think on this side of the house we all know how the Labor government is supporting social housing residents and those communities, not just on the floor of Parliament but every single day. The actions that were taken at that time were taken for a very deliberate and specific health purpose. The people who were out there—including the local Labor government members who were out there helping in conjunction with the government services and in conjunction with community services and in conjunction as well with, if I recall correctly, many of our friends in the union movement—were very supportive of the objective of what was trying to be achieved.

In terms of the bill itself, as has been mentioned, the bill will facilitate the visits by the United Nations subcommittee on the prevention of torture in late October, and it will do so by removing the legislative barriers to the UN accessing Victorian places of detention, accessing information and providing clarity to detaining authorities on their obligations to and necessary protections of vulnerable detained persons. I also want to reflect a little bit on the history of the optional protocol. My understanding is that it was adopted initially by the United Nations—that is, enough parties ratified it to come into force—in December 2002. It was signed in Australia in May 2009. It was not ratified until December 2017. My understanding from doing a little bit of research is that that ratification came really in response to the well-publicised incidents in the Northern Territory. I think it was at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. Some terrible incidents occurred at that facility that led, if I am correct, to a royal commission, and that ultimately was one of the triggers for the ratification by the federal government at the time.

The bill, as I said, does provide a whole-of-government framework to facilitate the inspections of places of detention and removes the legislative barrier. It will formalise our obligations. It will formalise the obligations that have already been made by some of the other state governments and it will allow these visits to occur, enabling these periodic visits and establishing and designating or maintaining a national preventive mechanism to coordinate and conduct visits to places of detention and monitor the treatment of persons in detention.

The bill is quite broad in terms of the places of detention that the committee can visit. It includes prisons, youth justice facilities, secure care facilities, police and court cells, designated mental health services areas, parts of residential facilities, residential services accommodation, specialist disability accommodation, quarantine facilities and vehicles that transport detainees. I would also like to just draw attention to the definition in clause 4(1)(n) of the bill, which is:

any place (other than a private residence) at which a person is detained under …

the various orders that are made under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Such elements will be included. It is not intended for when you are in perhaps the normal quarantine process—if it is isolation because you are required to isolate for your seven days or your five days. But other orders, like emergency orders that applied back in 2020, may well fall under the remit of the bill.

One other element that I do want to touch on which will also, I am sure, be the focus of the committee in their attendance is immigration detention. The committee was due to come to Australia in 2020, and that obviously was postponed as a result of COVID. Since that time there have been numerous exposés of what has happened in our immigration detention facilities—not just the offshore immigration detention facilities but immigration detention facilities in Australia, including in Melbourne. I was just having a look at some of the data and statistics in preparation for my contribution today. As of March 2022 the average length of immigration detention was 700 days—that is two years just as an average length—and 35 per cent of people who were in immigration detention had been there for more than two years. These are people who, by and large, had already gone through the process, had already been identified as refugees, could not be sent back to their original homelands from where they had come and could not be placed in or relocated to a safe location. 129 people had been in immigration detention for more than five years.

In looking specifically at the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation, as it is called, as of March 2022 that facility had 258 people, 252 of whom were men. The main issue of concern in relation to the facility relates to health care, especially for people with a disability. In that environment a high-security compound was added to the centre, and it was effectively a harsh, prison-like environment. These are people who have not committed a crime, they have just not been accepted under the immigration laws of the country to stay in this country but who are being treated like criminals.

For others in the detention system—I think this was highlighted in January when Novak Djokovic came into the country and was detained in a hotel which was also housing at the time immigration detainees who had been there for many years. Many people were not even aware that they had been in those facilities until the media was camped outside waiting to try and get a glimpse of Novak Djokovic. These alternative places of detention accommodate some of the most vulnerable groups of detainees. Many of them had been medically transferred from offshore facilities, having been originally transferred to the offshore detention facilities to start with. People who were in those hotel rooms have reported they were often sharing rooms and had very little access to fresh air, and many of them suffered chronic illnesses that were— (Time expired)

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (16:10): I rise to make a contribution on the Monitoring of Places of Detention by the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (OPCAT) Bill 2022. In starting off can I just take up one of the points that the member for Box Hill made in his contribution around the fact that somehow it is the Labor Party that is the champion of public housing, and it is the Liberals, The Nationals and the Greens that do not care about public housing.

Mr Fowles interjected.

Mr WALSH: I actually find his comments offensive. In my office in—

Mr Fowles interjected.

Mr WALSH: If the member for Burwood would mind keeping quiet, I could actually make a contribution on this. The things we get in our office in Echuca are very much about public housing. They are about Aboriginal housing. They are about those people in society that are not dealt a fair deal, and particularly when it comes to young women, single mums, fleeing domestic violence. It is very much about how we help those people get a house, whether it be in the public system or in some cases we have worked very hard and got them houses in the private sector and actually helped them get set up in that home, which they are very grateful for. The member for Box Hill might think his side of politics is the only champion for public housing. Can I inform him that is not the case. In the words of the member for Essendon in question time, I would hope that the member for Box Hill is not a Box Hill class traitor to the people that he represents out there, because I take exception to what he said. I think it is absolutely wrong.

A member interjected.

Mr WALSH: The member for Burwood can scoff and do what he likes. He is an absolute tosser and should just keep quiet.

Mr Fowles: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker—

Mr WALSH: Well, if you keep scoffing—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of The Nationals, please be seated.

Mr Fowles: I take personal offence at that slight, and I ask the member to withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of The Nationals, please withdraw.

Mr WALSH: And I take personal offence at his interjections before.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no—

Mr WALSH: I withdraw, and then I ask the member for Burwood to withdraw his comments.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of The Nationals, you know better. There is a point of order. I am dealing with that at the moment, and I have asked you to withdraw.

Mr WALSH: All right, I withdraw, Deputy Speaker. And now I take a point of order asking the member for Burwood to withdraw his rude comments while I was making my contribution.

Ms Williams: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of The Nationals resorted to name-calling, which is a very different proposition to the interjection that he took up from the member for Burwood, which was a statement of fact. We can be offended, sure, by statements of fact, but they are not in the same vein as a term that is abusive in nature and without doubt unparliamentary.

Mr Battin: On the point of order, the member for Burwood continued to slight directly the member for Murray Plains, basically implying he does not care about the Indigenous community in his electorate, about single mums who are looking for a home and the people he had cared for and done work with to get into public housing. It is only fair and right that the member for Burwood withdraws his remarks, which were offensive directly to the member for Murray Plains.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this point in time there is no point of order. The remarks were not directed directly at the Leader of The Nationals, so I have made that ruling. The Leader of The Nationals can continue with his contribution.

Mr WALSH: I will just reinforce that the Liberal and National parties are very supportive of the people that live in their communities that need public housing. We will continue to do that, despite what the member for Burwood may say or what the member for Box Hill may say as well.

A member interjected.

Mr WALSH: And may I say that those people that live in public housing—I actually encourage them not to kick the doors in on the establishments that they have, not to trash the buildings that they stay in, as some other people might.

Ms Williams: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think the member is straying from the subject of the bill and this debate is descending into something quite unbecoming.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this point it has been a wideranging debate, but I am going to caution the Leader of The Nationals to refrain and stick with his contribution on the bill before the house.

Mr WALSH: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I would expect that anyone that stays in a rental property, public housing or any other building would actually respect that building they stay in and would not deliberately vandalise the building they live in.

On the bill, as the member for Malvern said in his contribution, this legislation is supported by the Victorian opposition, and they support the principles of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. What I find intriguing with this bill is that it actually excludes any relationship to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. We have had a number of examples. When the subcommittee comes to Victoria—I think it is in October—I would hope that they would get a copy of the Ombudsman’s report Investigation into the Detention and Treatment of Public Housing Residents Arising from a COVID-19 ‘Hard Lockdown’ in July 2020. They would find that report very interesting to read. It is a pity that act is excluded under this legislation specifically by the Andrews Labor government so they are not held to account about that, because the Ombudsman was very, very damning in her assessment of how those people in the housing towers of North Melbourne were treated, the fact that they were locked down at such short notice, that effectively the deputy chief health officer was blindsided by a decision of the crisis cabinet that did it much faster than anyone in the bureaucracy had actually anticipated, that they were locked down without necessarily having enough food supply or the appropriate food supply, that they were locked down without access to fresh air or exercise and that there were effectively no alternatives looked at other than that hard lockdown, which was very much an impingement of the rights of those people that lived in those towers.

One of the recommendations, as the member for Malvern mentioned, that the Ombudsman made was that the Victorian government actually apologise to those residents of those towers. As is the case with so many things that the Andrews government does wrong, there has been no apology at all coming from the Andrews government. They seem to believe that they can just walk all over people’s rights in this state, that they do not have to be accountable for anything they do. We saw that with the towers, and we saw that with the way that hotel quarantine was managed in this state, with the employment of private contractors to manage hotel quarantine and the tragic case that over 800 people lost their lives because of the decisions that were made around hotel quarantine. So when the subcommittee does visit here, I would hope that they actually do avail themselves of the Ombudsman’s report and have a read of it, even though the act is specifically excluded under this legislation. What I also found interesting when I read the Ombudsman’s report was—

Ms Williams interjected.

Mr WALSH: I could not quite hear the interjection. I am happy for you to repeat it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Nationals, can you make your contribution through the Chair?

Mr WALSH: Also when the Ombudsman asked the government for a response and she asked the government for a copy of the minutes of the crisis cabinet meeting that actually made that decision, they refused to provide that information to the Ombudsman. Again, that just shows the arrogance of the government and how they just treat everyone in Victoria, including the Ombudsman, with absolute disrespect. We have seen that in the last couple of days when the Ombudsman helped launch a book about the lockdown, and the former Minister for Health, the member for Albert Park, went out of his way to take exception to the Ombudsman and the very good work that she has done to try and hold this government to account. I think it reflects very poorly on the member for Albert Park that in a public setting he would take the Ombudsman to task as he did there. If you look at her report, Victoria Police also declined to comment on the issues that were raised around how those lockdowns were implemented in this state.

Ms Williams interjected.

Mr WALSH: I have been talking about the bill, and what has been excluded from it very deliberately because the Andrews government does not want to be held to account in this state. As the member for Malvern, our lead speaker, said, the opposition will not be opposing this legislation.

Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (16:20): I am delighted to make a contribution on the bill before us. I am very pleased to be able to have the opportunity to speak on the Monitoring of Places of Detention by the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (OPCAT) Bill 2022. This is an opportunity to acknowledge the very important work that is going into our relationship with the commonwealth and the reason why we have this bill here today, and I will be unpacking a little bit of that as part of my contribution. This bill helps the United Nations subcommittee to facilitate inspections. We are going to make sure that the United Nations, a very important organisation that those on this side of the house do not diminish for sport, can access information and places of detention without legislative barriers. This will ensure that these authorities have clarity on their obligations and the necessary protections for vulnerable, detained persons.

This bill keeps Victoria in line with the rest of Australia. This ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is what is before us. By enabling these periodic visits, the bill ensures that Australia’s obligations under the OPCAT no longer conflict with Victoria’s existing legislation. This is a bill that harmonises, in many ways, our relationship with other jurisdictions and makes sure that, for other jurisdictions that are already taking action, we are harmonising with them. That facilitates the United Nations’ very important work in protecting the human rights of citizens and non-citizens. It ensures that there is a clear legislative framework in place to facilitate inspection visits and it replaces the current legislation, which I think could be considered to be nebulous and complex to navigate. It would otherwise be difficult for the United Nations subcommittee to access places of detention and to speak to detainees in a consistent way. It is important to recognise that there is a necessity to have some consistency in the way that these tasks are undertaken and some consistency in the way that Australia fulfils its obligations as a signatory to this important United Nations body.

The bill provides a whole-of-government framework to facilitate inspections of places of detention by the UN subcommittee. It streamlines the process to make sure that the investigators are not hindered by the complexity that exists currently. It will cover places of detention, including prisons, youth justice facilities, secure care facilities, police and court cells, designated mental health service areas, parts of residential facilities, residential service accommodation, specialist disability accommodation, quarantine facilities and vehicles that transport detainees. Throughout the stakeholder engagement, there were questions about some of these very specific visits. I think it is important for us to take a commonsense approach in the way that we respond to perhaps sometimes slightly silly propositions. There can be crazy reasons for people to demand that the United Nations step in. The bill gives access to relevant information concerning the treatment of detained persons, their condition of detention, the number of people in detention and the number of places of detention and their location.

We are getting rid of the red tape and the legislative framework. That means that our jurisdiction will not get in the way of human rights. It makes sure that Victorians can be confident that there are accountability and proper standards for people who are being detained. This is essential for addressing the unwieldy complexity of the current legislative system.

In reflecting on the legislation that we have, and in preparation for today, I was reminded of a long, long time ago when I was at university and having lectures about the Zimbardo Stanford University study that looked at and considered—I think this goes back to 1971—how people would behave in what was to be a mock prison where people were chosen randomly and allocated tasks as prisoners or prison officers. Very famously it is often now considered to be one of the more unethical pieces of research that has been undertaken. It had to be shut down after six days because the effect of what was considered to be an experiment where people were assigned as either prisoners or prison officers was so extraordinary and so damaging that it has now become a lesson in how to make sure that people are treated ethically in research. But it still does have some important lessons for all of us to consider in the way that people are treated. Our government takes that treatment of people in detention very seriously. Also, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge that our workforce in the corrections system does an extraordinary job. It is not an easy task. I have had the opportunity to sit down with constituents who work in the sector to thank them for the work they do and particularly reflect that their aspiration is that people leave the system perhaps with extra skills and certainly with a therapeutic approach to whatever it was that sent them there.

We know poverty and inequality and other social determinants are key drivers of people ending up in the prison system. This legislation is also an opportunity for me to thank Jesuit Social Services. I was reading some of their research and their reflections on the Armytage-Ogloff review. I know that important work was done by this government—the Andrews Labor government—in the previous term to look at the youth justice system and make sure we are undertaking a deep and scientific review of how people, young people specifically who have additional vulnerabilities, respond to time in the corrections system. It is an important role for our corrections system to have this really precious care of people who do need to be detained because we do need to protect the community. In the Labor government we come at crime from really reflecting on the causes of crime. Things like free TAFE and making sure that we intervene early with mental health practitioners in government schools—these are the ways that a Labor government responds to people who find themselves committing crimes. That is at the heart of a scientific analysis of what can be done to reduce recidivism, reduce the number of people getting themselves on the wrong side, with a focus of course on the victims of crime as well and what the consequences are for the victims of crime. This legislation will make sure that we can allow the inspectors to do the work that they need to do.

It has been really interesting and of course heartening for so many of us to reflect on the way that our new commonwealth government is working so collaboratively now with the Victorian government where there is an alignment and a concern for human rights, whether that is as reflected in this legislation and the way that we will be going forward and making sure that we align ourselves with what needs to be done in the commonwealth jurisdiction or if it is our response to the way we treat some of our most vulnerable, including asylum seekers and refugees, and being concerned about their ability to find work and go through the processes that are necessary.

This is really important legislation. I commend this bill. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for her work and to the minister’s office. I look forward to further contributions.

Dr READ (Brunswick) (16:30): The Greens are very pleased to support this bill. We are further pleased that the OPCAT, the UN’s Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is at last being raised in this Parliament, although I note that today the government has not left a lot of time to get this bill through before the visit of the relevant UN subcommittee in October, and it is a shame that some of the other requirements of the OPCAT have not been met by this government, such as the national preventative mechanism. The bill is necessitated by the fact that on 21 December 2017 the Australian government ratified OPCAT, and in order to comply with obligations under that protocol the Victorian government, along with all other Australian jurisdictions, must give a UN subcommittee on prevention of torture, known as SPT, unfettered access to:

… any place under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty …

We do not know where the SPT will look for evidence of conduct and conditions that amount to torture under international law. It could be a prison, a detention centre, an immigration hotel or a secure health facility. We do not know that they will even come to Victoria. But we do know that the SPT will visit Australia in October, so we need to pass this legislation before then.

The SPT itself comprises 25 independent and impartial experts from different backgrounds and various regions of the world, and this independence and separation from the local community and state is really important, because even our own independent oversight and integrity agencies, which do valuable work, are still themselves part of the society and the community over which they have oversight. All of us in this community are somewhat subject to the same self-serving bias—the image of ourselves as Victorians as always being a progressive, fair, equal society that respects human rights and the rule of law.

We also perhaps become so accustomed to problems, no matter how substantial and shocking, that we subconsciously accept them as being almost insurmountable and unavoidable, meaning that they are effectively ignored, and here I talk of course about the issue of First Nations incarceration. I confess, when I took on the justice portfolio for the Greens, I was shocked by my own ignorance of what is going on with First Nations incarceration under this state government. Aboriginal people are now 14 times more likely to be imprisoned than the overall Victorian population, compared to 10.7 times more likely back in 2015. Whatever this government is doing, the problem is getting worse, not better. Why does the response to the Bourke Street tragedy mean we need to hold more women, children and First Nations Victorians in jail without sentence for non-serious offences when most of these notorious crimes are being committed by white men? Where is the outrage and shame in our community and the government impetus to address this issue as a first-line priority?

I am personally hopeful that the SPT will visit Victoria and report on our prisons and places of detention, because I welcome the unique independent insight that they can provide on many issues. For example, I really hope that they inspect the conditions on remand, said to be the poorest and most criminogenic, where Aboriginal deaths in custody continue to occur every year in Victoria. I hope that they look at the reasons why First Nations women and children are over-represented on remand for alleged offences that do not warrant custodial sentences and the long-term effects on them of this unnecessary imprisonment. I hope that they will look at those who continue to find themselves in custody for health issues relating to addiction, alcohol and drug use or mental health and disability, because of the lack of alternative therapeutic treatment services to imprisonment.

The Ombudsman has raised the case of a woman known as Rebecca. Rebecca was a woman with a significant developmental disorder who found herself in prison for 18 months and in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day simply because there was not any other place to look after her. The public advocate says hers is not an isolated case, so I hope we can find out the extent of this use of detention and the increasing use of our prison system as a place to shelve people with complex needs. I hope they look at the issue of solitary confinement, particularly in youth justice centres, following on from the Ombudsman’s report that found it was in breach of UN rules and was disproportionately being used towards First Nations children and had punitive aspects.

I hope that the SPT look at the thousands of lockdowns and isolation episodes that occur in youth detention centres every quarter simply because of the lack of corrections staff. I hope that they look at the continued imprisonment of children under the age of 14 that really only occurs in a remand environment currently in Victoria but nonetheless results in permanent long-term health and developmental damage to these children. I hope they look at the incidents of self-harm of First Nations prisoners, which have increased during the pandemic. I hope that they look at strip-searching in places of detention, which is being overused and is apparently often used for general discipline and order in Victorian prisons. Of course I hope they look further at the corruption and misconduct among Corrections Victoria officers, including sexual harassment, use of excessive force and failure to maintain professional boundaries, outlined in a 2021 IBAC report and now subject to an internal review. I hope they look at the adequacy of the police and corrections monitoring complaint and oversight systems that are at best described as opaque and largely self-regulating. Just this year IBAC found that Victoria Police’s response to complaints by Aboriginal Victorians contained indications of bias or a lack of impartiality. I hope they can shed light on the performance and standards in both our public and our private prison systems as we all learn from the aggregate measures reported in the budget papers. Year on year Victoria’s prisons are never even close to meeting the targeted standards. And I hope they look at access to and the standard of health care that is required under international rules to be equivalent to that in the community but in reality falls far short. I have had multiple people raise concerns to me about the performance and suitability of private health contractors used in prisons. So I hope that the SPT might also look into that.

In short, I hope that the SPT does visit Victoria, because there is so much work that we need to do here that we can no longer simply ignore. The Greens support this bill.

Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (16:37): I also rise to make a contribution on the Monitoring of Places of Detention by the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (OPCAT) Bill 2022. As previous speakers have said, the bill defines places of detention in Victoria which can be inspected by United Nations representatives—for example, youth justice facilities, police cells and privately operated prisons. It also enables access to places of detention and people detained there and authorises detaining authorities to provide the subcommittee with access to relevant information to inform their inspections—for example, information around the actual treatment of people that have been detained as well as their conditions of detention.

The reason that the Victorian Andrews Labor government is introducing this legislation is that we are actually supporting the role of the United Nations in monitoring and having some oversight of places of detention, because we do have a belief in human rights and that all people have a right to certain basic standards of dignity and all those sorts of things—and shelter and certain treatments. The previous speaker from the Greens just mentioned a whole list of things—well, we are not just complaining about what is going on, we are actually doing something about it by introducing this legislation to ensure that there is the oversight, because I think we all know that these places of detention are not ideal. That is why we are looking at signing up to this system, and we look forward to, I am sure, any comments or revelations or proposals that the United Nations subcommittee representatives may wish to provide to the Victorian government following any of their inspections.

OPCAT is the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which is a United Nations human rights treaty. The Commonwealth of Australia ratified OPCAT in December 2017, and it will become operational in Australia on 20 January 2023. OPCAT seeks to assist nations to meet their obligations under the convention and protect people in detention against torture and mistreatment through a regime of regular, independent, prevention-focused inspections.

Australia’s obligations under OPCAT are a two-part inspection system. First of all, there is enabling periodic visits by the United Nations subcommittee on prevention of torture, and then there is also establishing, designating and maintaining a domestic national preventative mechanism to coordinate and conduct visits to places of detention and monitor the treatment of persons in detention. They are the two parts of the ratification of this monitoring in detention. They currently conflict with and create uncertainty about Victoria’s existing laws, which detaining authorities must comply with, so this legislation is to ensure that the treaty that we signed up to regarding the United Nations subcommittee on prevention of torture is in line with and will work in conjunction with Victorian legislation and ensure that detaining authorities, whilst they must comply with Victorian laws, also can comply with this treaty but in a way that does not conflict or cause major difficulties.

The bill provides for a whole-of-Victorian-government framework rather than just in one area. It will also facilitate United Nations visits, which is why we are particularly required to debate this bill now of course. There are going to be visits between 16 and 27 October 2022, and we want to make sure that those visits are genuine ones where the representatives of the United Nations subcommittee can go about their business freely and with all support and cooperation. We do not want to have legislative barriers to the United Nations accessing Victorian places of detention, accessing information and providing clarity to detaining authorities on their obligations and necessary protections to vulnerable and detained persons.

Currently in Victoria there are programs that have a legislative mandate to conduct regular monitoring visits at places of detention. There is the independent prison visitor program, and the Office of the Public Advocate has community visitor programs as well. Also the Victorian Ombudsman and the Commission for Children and Young People conduct semiregular monitoring visits to prisons and youth justice centres. That means that Victoria already has some oversight. However, we welcome opportunities to improve the oversight system, and we welcome further transparency. We also welcome increased accountability at places of detention and accept that this will help to safeguard the integrity and the transparency of our system.

It is not very hard to see that this treaty is very important, because no matter how much you believe in ensuring detention centres are humane and follow certain codes of human rights, we do hear some terrible stories. There have been recent allegations made in respect to some detention centres in Tasmania. We have also in recent years had some horrific revelations come out in the Northern Territory, about mistreatment of individual prisoners. I think that was in the youth justice system. I do not think anyone on this side of the house condones that or believes that that ought to be happening, so really for us we want to cooperate, work and collaborate with and support the United Nations subcommittee in making sure that our system is as good as it can be while acknowledging of course they are detention centres, so not particularly nice environments.

One issue that was raised by the Greens political party representative was around the implementation of Victoria’s national preventative mechanism. As we said, there are two parts to this, the monitoring of places of detention by the United Nations subcommittee on prevention of torture. One is the inspection system by international representatives, and the other is the section on having an internal or an in-country preventative mechanism and system. Of course it is that part that the Victorian government, while supporting it, is concerned about, because it really does need an ongoing and sustained commitment to funding. This additional part of the bureaucracy, if you like, or statutory authority does require money to support it to employ people in order to do the job, and there has been as yet no agreement on that sort of funding. Now, of course we could not get it out of the Morrison federal government. They had no interest in human rights whatsoever, and we welcome that we now have a federal Labor government. Since the election in May, when I have got around to people in the Thomastown electorate, all I can say is there has really been a collective sigh of relief that we have got rid of the Morrison Liberal government and we can now look to the future and have more of a positive vision and hope—a hopeful future that things will get better and we have got things to look forward to. This I guess is another example where the Morrison government dragged its feet. It was not interested in human rights in places of detention. It was not prepared to make a commitment in terms of funding, and so therefore the Victorian government had been unable to really look at this part until there was some sort of arrangement and an agreement on how it is going to be funded and when it will be able to operate.

In all, this is a treaty, with the Victorian government ensuring that Victorian laws and our state fully and wholly support and endorse the monitoring of places of detention by the United Nations subcommittee, and this is the first step in making sure that it can be realised and that we can welcome representatives in October.

Ms HALL (Footscray) (16:47): I am very pleased to make a contribution to this bill, which will facilitate United Nations visits through removing the legislative barriers to the UN accessing Victorian places of detention, accessing information and providing clarity to detaining authorities on their obligations and necessary protections to vulnerable detained persons.

Australia’s obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) conflict with and create uncertainty about Victoria’s existing laws, which is why we are taking this necessary step today. The bill addresses these issues by establishing a clear legislative framework for inspection visits and provides clarity for the UN subcommittee on the prevention of torture and the operators of places of detention. Currently Victoria’s facilities are governed by a series of legislation that would be otherwise too complex to navigate. Without this legislation it would be difficult for the UN subcommittee to access places of detention in a consistent way as well as to speak to detainees. It would also make uncertain for administrators of places of detention their obligations regarding the provision of information and access.

The background to this issue and I suppose the reason for and the purpose of this bill is that in 2017 the former coalition federal government ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which is the OPCAT acronym, and this will become operational in January 2023. So this is a very important thing for us to be proceeding with as we get closer to the end of the 59th Parliament.

The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment seeks to assist nations to meet their obligations under the convention and protect people in detention against torture and mistreatment through a regime of regular, independent and prevention-focused inspections. The ratification created obligations for Australian states and territories, including enabling periodic visits by the UN subcommittee on prevention of torture and establishing, designating or maintaining a domestic national preventive mechanism (NPM) to coordinate and conduct visits to places of detention and monitor the treatment of persons in detention. The UN has announced that it will visit Australia between 16 and 27 October 2022, and Victoria awaits confirmation of the exact dates the UN intends to visit Victoria. Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory have a legislative framework already in place to facilitate visits by the UN subcommittee on prevention of torture.

It is important to note that the bill does not fulfil all requirements of OPCAT, and in particular there is no single agency that undertakes the preventative monitoring function of an NPM. The commonwealth’s ratification imposes the additional obligation on states and territories to create one. Victoria has been consistent in its position that a sufficient and ongoing funding commitment from the commonwealth is essential to establish and maintain this. The absence of proper funding to date has significantly hampered Victoria’s ability to progress the necessary preparations and consultation required to designate an NPM. Victoria is working constructively with the new commonwealth government to facilitate the full implementation of OPCAT in Australia in a way that is effective and sustainable.

The Monitoring of Places of Detention by the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (OPCAT) Bill 2022 provides a whole-of-government framework to facilitate inspections of places of detention by the UN subcommittee. It also removes legislative barriers to access information on places of detention and detainees while clarifying obligations for authorities. It defines places of detention in Victoria that can be inspected. It enables access to places of detention and people detained there and authorises detaining authorities to provide the subcommittee with access to relevant information to inform their inspections. Places of detention include prisons, youth justice facilities, secure care facilities, police and court cells, designated mental health service areas, parts of residential facilities, residential service accommodation, specialist disability accommodation, quarantine facilities and vehicles that transport detainees. The bill does not provide resourcing for or designate a body for the national preventative mechanism to undertake domestic reporting.

The preamble of OPCAT explicitly recognises the link between proactive inspections of places of detention and improving the situation of those detained, stating that:

… the protection of persons deprived of their liberty … can be strengthened by non-judicial means of a preventive nature, based on regular visits to places of detention …

Really what this bill is about is ensuring there is increased accountability and consistency in the inspection of places of detention to help safeguard the integrity and the transparency of our system. There are programs in Victoria that currently have a legislative mandate to conduct regular monitoring visits of places of detention—the independent prison visitor scheme and the Office of the Public Advocate’s community visitors program. The Victorian Ombudsman and the Commission for Children and Young People also conduct semiregular monitoring visits to prisons and youth justice centres. This means that Victoria already has a robust oversight system; however, we welcome opportunities for improvement and further transparency. The implementation of OPCAT in Victoria will provide a specific formalised transparent monitoring program of places of detention. In terms of the consultation and details of the bill, we have included of course safeguards to protect detainees’ right to privacy. During a UN visit their officers will have an obligation not to jeopardise the life, physical and psychological safety and wellbeing of detainees. The bill also provides for access to be denied to the subcommittee due to a major emergency as well as for visits to be temporarily paused if that is required to maintain functions of the detention facility.

The bill has been developed in consultation with the interdepartmental working group comprising representatives from the Department of Justice and Community Safety, the Department of Health, the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, the Department of Education and Training, Victoria Police and Court Services Victoria. External stakeholders have similarly been engaged in the development of the bill, including the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, the office of the Mental Health Complaints Commissioner, the office of the Disability Services Commissioner and the office of the Health Complaints Commissioner. Civil society organisations, including the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Human Rights Law Centre and Youthlaw have also been consulted on the bill.

Victoria has been consistent in our position that sufficient and ongoing funding from the commonwealth is going to be essential to deliver the obligations under OPCAT, and now that we have a Labor government in Canberra I am sure that support will be forthcoming. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (16:57): It is fantastic to rise and speak on this bill. As others have been able to very eloquently describe, essentially it was envisaged in the 1970s that there would be an inspection program based on places of detention which later took the form of an optional protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That became what it is now in 1984, but in 1987 the Council of Europe realised that the original idea on a regional level, with its European convention for the prevention of torture, was going to be a bit of an issue. On this basis the European committee for the prevention of torture demonstrated that with regular visits, reports and recommendations to governments, as well as publication of these reports and the governments’ reactions, there was a viable model that they could go ahead with. This in turn led to a bit of a breakthrough within the United Nations, with the optional protocol to the convention against torture created and open for signatures on 18 December 2002 by the UN General Assembly. After ratification by 20 states, OPCAT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 18 December 2002.

Essentially what this bill in this house does is ensure that the OPCAT subcommittee can do their job in this jurisdiction. We are very pleased today to bring this framework to the house to ensure that inspections will be carried out by the subcommittee when it conducts its inaugural visit to Australia. As we heard from the member for Footscray, there was a planned visit in March 2020. However, COVID got in the way of that visit, and the subcommittee has further confirmed its upcoming visit to Australia in the second half of this year. Of course we look forward to confirmation of that subcommittee’s visit.

The bill provides the framework to ensure the subcommittee visits may proceed in Victoria in accordance with OPCAT in particular places of detention in the scope for inspection by the subcommittee across corrections, youth justice, secure welfare services, mental health and disability sectors, noting that in accordance with article 4 of OPCAT a place of detention requires a person to be detained

… by virtue of … a public authority or at its instigation or with its consent or acquiescence …

It also specifies that a state’s obligation is to facilitate, for the purpose of the subcommittee’s visit or inspection, subcommittee access to a place of detention and relevant information. It creates assistance to support the subcommittee’s access to places, information and people and provides the necessary safeguards to protect the privacy of detained persons and ensures detained and other persons who provide information to the subcommittee are protected from reprisal.

The SPEAKER: Order! The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.