Thursday, 23 February 2023
Bills
Human Source Management Bill 2023
Bills
Human Source Management Bill 2023
Second reading
Debate resumed.
Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (14:44): It is a pleasure to continue my contribution on the Human Source Management Bill 2023, which I commenced just prior to the lunchbreak. As I said prior to the lunchbreak, I have listened to each of the contributions so far on this bill. While I thought that some of the points from those opposite were certainly valid, I do feel, however, that in terms of their commentary around the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants and the royal commission’s findings and recommendations they have gone a step too far. The member for Gippsland South is in the chamber, and I listened to the member’s contribution. While I did not disagree with everything, I did feel that at times the member for Gippsland South and the member for Berwick actually verballed the royal commission when they said that the royal commission’s findings were as simple as this: ‘We know what happened with Lawyer X was bad, but here’s how you make it legal.’
Well, it was a lot more complex than that. And it was a lot more complex than that because what we do know is that the circumstances around Lawyer X occurred in the context of no regulation, of no safeguards, and this is what this bill is seeking to address. I will quote from the royal commission report itself:
The material the Commission examined did not warrant a complete prohibition on Victoria Police’s use of human sources involving legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege … a blanket ban would not eradicate the risk of confidential or privileged information being provided by a human source; nor would it equip officers with the skills to respond appropriately when this occurs. Additionally, the Commission recognises the possibility that, in rare cases, it may be legitimate and necessary to use human sources in occupations subject to legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege.
The Commission does consider, however, that the use of human sources who are reasonably expected to have access to confidential or privileged information should be treated with caution and subject to a clear and comprehensive system of checks and balances.
I really do feel that some on the opposite benches were advocating a blanket ban, but currently – under our current laws – lawyers have the ability under uniform conduct rules to disclose confidential information where they believe on reasonable grounds that there is a risk to any person’s safety, and they can break privilege or confidentiality provisions to advise the police or other appropriate authorities. If lawyers were excluded, there would be ambiguity and conflict with the existing provision. It would be unclear how police and individuals could manage this conflict. Where there is a genuine community safety concern, ambiguity is concerning, and the bill supports the approach to manage the risk.
I think it is also important to try and understand the scale of this issue. The commission’s final report also noted that approximately 1200 human source registration applications were submitted between July 2017 and June 2020, and of those applications only 3.5 per cent were subject to legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege. So I think that gives a bit of an idea as to the scale of this issue.
As I said, what occurred with Lawyer X has been well canvassed in the media and in this royal commission. We are all well aware of it. That occurred in a context where there was no regulation; there were no safeguards. There was also no oversight, and on that I do want to turn to the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment. The member for Malvern said this bill regularises what happens. Well, in fact it provides regulation for this, and that is important. On the member for Malvern’s amendment: firstly, he says we need consultation. Well, we have had a royal commission. We have had a royal commission. That royal commission has made 111 recommendations; 25 of them are being implemented in this bill. As part of that royal commission there were 157 public submissions received. There were 129 days of hearings and 82 witnesses examined. There were six focus groups conducted with 39 Victoria Police officers. Over 155,000 documents were received, 97 organisations and experts were consulted, 43 human source files were reviewed or audited. More than consultation, there has been an entire royal commission. You call a royal commission when you acknowledge that you do not have all the answers and you need that expert inquiry, that expert advice, and that is exactly what has happened here.
Secondly, the member for Malvern in his reasoned amendment has called for proper oversight of the power of the Chief Commissioner of Police to register a human source. In fact what this bill does, a core part of this bill, is it provides that oversight, and I will briefly go through that for the benefit of the member for Malvern. Firstly, this bill requires Victoria Police to notify the Public Interest Monitor of an application to register a high-risk reportable human source before Victoria Police makes a decision to register the person. The bill also requires Victoria Police to provide the Public Interest Monitor with relevant information, including any information that might indicate that the application should not be approved. Victoria Police must consider any recommendations of the Public Interest Monitor before registering a person as a reportable human source. Where a reportable human source is registered in emergency circumstances, the Public Interest Monitor will provide oversight after the person has been registered. This ensures Victoria Police can respond to emergencies quickly and keep the community safe while maintaining an appropriate level of oversight. IBAC will retrospectively monitor Victoria Police’s compliance with the human source management framework, including the bill, any regulations and Victoria Police’s internal human source management policies.
This is a bill that inserts the safeguards and the regulation that is needed in this space, and I commend it to the house.
Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (14:51): I rise to speak on the Human Source Management Bill 2023, and I join the member for Malvern, the member for Berwick, colleagues and many organisations, and as the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Corrections, in raising my concerns about this bill. Going back a number of years, the revelation that former criminal barrister Nicola Gobbo was used by Victoria Police as a human source to provide information about her criminal associates, many of whom had been or were clients, was an unprecedented scandal. In December 2018 the High Court ruled that Victoria Police’s recruitment of Ms Gobbo was debased, reprehensible, atrocious and corrupted.
After hundreds, if not thousands, of news stories, the release of two criminals who had been previously convicted and many others launching appeals, as well as millions of public funds poured into a royal commission, you would expect the Victorian state Labor government to implement measures to prevent such morally reprehensible conduct from occurring ever again. Indeed it is the opposite. On 8 February 2023 the Labor state government introduced into this Parliament the Human Source Management Bill. This bill that I am speaking to today gives Victoria Police sweeping powers to subvert relationships of trust, including between doctors and patients, faith leaders and parishioners and of course lawyers and clients. As a qualified legal practitioner myself and having worked and run in court criminal, commercial and other matters, as well as having worked in a Magistrates Court and a Children’s Court, I too am very concerned about this element of the bill.
Part 3, division 3, of this bill permits a police officer to apply to the Chief Commissioner of Police or his delegate to register a lawyer as an informant even if it is reasonably expected that they will have access to privileged information and that this information will be used against the lawyer’s own client in potential criminal proceedings. This bill is enshrining an appalling practice whereby sacrosanct legal client privilege is subverted. Legal client privilege is imperative to a fair justice system. When the accused is prosecuted for a crime, legal client privilege provides them with a bulwark or a protection against the seemingly endless resources of the state. Legal client privilege allows clients to divulge information to their lawyers in an honest and transparent manner. Most importantly of all it allows clients to trust their lawyers. To subvert legal client privilege is to therefore subvert the justice system by tipping the scales of justice even more in favour of the state against clients who may be unable to trust even their own lawyers. Section 24 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 gives Victorians the right to a fair hearing, and I do not think this bill will achieve that. While ‘fair’ is not defined in the legislation, jurisprudence in Roberts v. The Queen concluded the following:
… non-disclosure of material evidence to the defence, gave rise to a serious departure from proper process affecting the fundamental fairness of the trial.
Non-disclosure of evidence, which this bill enables, denies Victorians the right to a fair trial, and so it overtly contravenes the charter.
I also take issue with part 5, external oversight of human source management. This oversight by the Public Interest Monitor, IBAC and the Victorian Inspectorate is limited to recommendations. There is also no power to prevent the police from registering a source or stopping the use of privileged information. So I strongly support the member for Malvern moving a reasoned amendment to this bill. I will go into this motion a little bit further. The member for Malvern has moved his reasoned amendment, and later today this is what we will be voting on, that:
‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until:
(1) the government consults with organisations representing persons whose interests would be affected by the undermining of privileged communication facilitated by the bill;
(2) the government provides for proper oversight of the power of the Chief Commissioner of Police to register a reportable human source; and
(3) the government satisfies the house that what the High Court of Australia described as “reprehensible conduct” by Victoria Police in using a lawyer as an informer against her own clients in a manner which “debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system” would not be facilitated by this bill’.
As it stands, this bill effectively sanctifies corruption and takes an approach of the ends justifying the means.
I also go back to a number of other organisations and individuals who have given commentary on this bill. I refer in particular to a number of articles that we have seen written across the Age, the Herald Sun and elsewhere. In one particular article from the Herald Sun Victorian Bar president Sam Hay KC said:
The registration of lawyers as informants will lead to precisely the same conduct that gave rise to the Royal Commission in the first place.
The roles of informant and lawyer are fundamentally opposed. One person cannot ethically wear both hats at the same time.
We have also heard from the Law Institute of Victoria’s president Tania Wolff:
The duty of strict confidentiality is there to protect the client …
Encroaching on this undermines community trust and confidence in the administration of justice. Lawyers play a central role in the administration of justice and that does not include being an evidence gathering instrument of Victoria Police.
Further, former Herald Sun editor Damon Johnston has also said:
On face value, these new laws are alarming …
That they could impede the ability of a journalist to expose the next Lawyer X is something that the public needs to be concerned about.
Paul Edbrooke interjected.
Chris CREWTHER: And you should be concerned about that, member for Frankston. They seem to be the exact opposite of the spirit of the royal commission findings. I would hope that the state government actually listens to some of these experts and some of those who have been through and reported on these matters in relation to Lawyer X and other scandals over the last few years, and I would hope that this state Labor government goes back and consults further before just rushing this bill through this Assembly.
Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (14:59): I am delighted to rise today once again to speak on the Human Source Management Bill 2023. Over the last two years I have had the privilege of making contributions on several bills resulting from the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants. There have been justice legislation amendment bills, and notably there was the Special Investigator Bill 2021, which established the Office of the Special Investigator as an independent statutory office and new investigative body.
It was pleasing to see the Honourable Geoffrey Nettle AC KC appointed as the special investigator in 2021. Previous legislation as well as the bill here today show the government’s commitment to delivering on all of the recommendations of the royal commission, recommendations which go to the heart of Victoria’s justice system and how police use informers with confidentiality obligations.
Lawyer–client privilege is a cornerstone of our legal profession and is vital to mending the integrity of our justice system. It allows clients to speak candidly with their lawyers, confident that their communication will be kept confidential, and it ensures that lawyers are able to provide their clients with the best possible legal advice. It is essential to ensuring that clients are able to communicate openly and honestly with their legal representatives and to ensuring trust and confidence in the legal professions and our justice system.
The royal commission uncovered significant historical shortfalls in the criminal justice system. The government has been working to deliver the recommendations of the royal commission to address those shortfalls and to strengthen and restore public confidence in our justice system. With the last progress report we heard from the Attorney-General that the government has delivered so far in full 23 of the 55 recommendations directed to it. We will see that increase significantly here today with another 25 recommendations relating to the development of human source management legislation. The report also cites that work is well progressed to deliver the recommendation to introduce mandatory reporting requirements for lawyers to report suspected misconduct as well as to progress amendments to the Inquiries Act 2014 to ensure documents subject to public interest immunity claims can be produced to royal commissions. Overall, 63 of the 111 recommendations have been delivered by responsible agencies and significant progress has been made on the remaining recommendations.
As mentioned, some of the recent significant achievements include the establishment of the Office of the Special Investigator and an independent implementation monitor as well as delivering reforms to enhance and strengthen disclosure practices. The government’s commitment here is clear: we are committed to delivering each of the recommendations directed to us and to supporting the delivery of all of the commission’s 111 recommendations.
That work continues today with the Human Source Management Bill and its objective to regulate Victoria Police’s registration, use and management of human sources, to provide a clear framework for police to obtain and use information from human sources and to ensure that they are used in an ethical and justifiable manner. The bill sets out the process for the registration, use and management of human sources by providing all necessary powers, responsibilities and decision-making processes to Victoria Police. As we have heard, the bill includes a rigorous registration and oversight framework which is aimed at preventing the events that led to the commission from ever happening again. The commission did not recommend that any person should be prohibited from being a human source but that appropriate protections and external oversight arrangements should be legislated. Accordingly, the bill does not prevent Victoria Police from registering any class of persons as a human source, but high-risk human sources such as lawyers must be put through the most stringent registration process with the greatest number of safeguards in place. We have heard many speakers on this side allude to that.
The bill also establishes an external oversight model for the Public Interest Monitor and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission to monitor human source activities involving Victoria Police. The registration of lawyers would be subject to oversight by and recommendations from the Public Interest Monitor before registration is made and by IBAC after the registration has been made. Under the bill the Public Interest Monitor will oversee all registrations of higher risk reportable human sources and will have the power to make recommendations to Victoria Police about applications to register reportable human sources. Therefore Victoria Police must consider any recommendations of the Public Interest Monitor before registering a person as a reportable human source. So that is what is at the heart of this bill. As emphasised by the commission, the use of police informants plays an important role in policing and community safety that should continue, but the considerable risks that exist need to be mitigated to their strongest and fullest extent.
In terms of royal commissions and consultation, as we heard from the previous speaker before me on this side of the house, there has been significant consultation in developing this bill. It has been developed in consultation with key justice stakeholders, including Victoria Police, IBAC, the Public Interest Monitor, the Victorian Inspectorate, Victoria Legal Aid, the Commission for Children and Young People, the police informants royal commission implementation monitor and the Commonwealth Department of Home Affairs. Consultation was conducted in various forums, including through regular meetings of the implementation task force recommended by the commission, and this bill has broad support among stakeholders.
I would like to finish by thanking all of our hardworking Victorian police for their amazing work in keeping our community safe. The latest crime statistics reflect this hard work, and we have seen those strong decreases in the crime rate – the result of highly visible, proactive policing across our community backed by our government’s record $4.5 billion investment in Victoria Police. I am very proud that that investment is making sure that Victoria Police have the tools and resources they need to keep our community safe, including being able to respond to family violence and deliver a better outcome for those affected by family violence. As we know, the last Victorian budget provided funding for an additional 502 police officers and 50 PSOs, building on the 3135 new police that are already on our streets. This includes a large increase in specialist family violence police officers. The number and the rate of family violence incidents have also decreased. We are prioritising the challenge of family violence, with $2.9 billion to implement every single one of the royal commission’s recommendations to reform family violence systems to support victim-survivors and hold perpetrators to account. So we will deliver on both of those royal commissions, keeping Victorians safe and ensuring the continued trust and confidence in our justice system. This bill is another step in that important journey, and I commend the bill to the house.
Tim READ (Brunswick) (15:09): I rise today to speak for the Greens on the Human Source Management Bill 2023. This is one of the more controversial and technical bills that is likely to enter Parliament in this term of government, and given we have only a couple of weeks to go over it, I am not able today to outline a final Greens position on every issue raised by interest groups and in the media. To this point, I would like to thank the government and departmental staff, the Shadow Attorney-General and stakeholders, including the Law Institute of Victoria, the Victorian Bar, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Centre for Public Integrity, Robinson Gill Lawyers and others for reaching out and engaging with us on this bill. From this early engagement I am reassured that while there are differences of opinion between various groups, there is a common desire to make these laws work. This too is the Greens’ intention, and we will continue engaging in good faith with all parties to this end as the bill moves to the other place.
I will briefly now comment on our position on the bill’s proposed safeguards and limitations in relation to the use of children as human sources. The Greens believe these safeguards and limitations are inadequate, and I will be circulating amendments outlining our proposals to strengthen these protections in the bill shortly. But perhaps I should start on where there is agreement. As the minister outlined in the second-reading speech, the bill delivers on implementing recommendations 8 to 18, 44 to 56 and 58 of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants by establishing a legislative framework to regulate Victoria Police’s use and management of human sources, including some external oversight of these powers. There can be no doubt about that. But what is questionable is whether the proposed legislative framework goes far enough to prevent a recurrence of what the High Court described as ‘reprehensible conduct’ by Victoria Police, which ultimately led to the royal commission.
Although Victoria Police now have finally apologised for allowing lawyer Nicola Gobbo to inform on her clients and have vowed that such conduct will never be allowed to occur again, what is concerning is there appears to be no clear statutory rule here that will prevent it, despite the numerous layers of compliance framework proposed in the bill. Indeed much of the framework appears almost to codify in law the exact historical processes that led to Nicola Gobbo being used as a human source by Victoria Police. While there are formalised independent oversight and reporting requirements in the bill, ultimately, as with the circumstances that led to the registration of Lawyer X, the bill proposes that Victoria Police remains the final decision-maker as to whether or not to register an individual as a human source.
Former Court of Appeal judge Stephen Charles, who is not prone to hyperbole, has gone as far as saying that not only does the bill fail to prevent another Lawyer X episode but it is specifically intended to allow such an event to occur. Legal groups are united on this point and are demanding that the bill be amended to expressly prohibit a lawyer being used as a human source by Victoria Police. Such an amendment is certainly also appealing as a means of simplifying the bill, as it would also provide for the omission of all the subsequent convoluted clauses and questionable definitions surrounding how to determine and manage issues related to legal privilege. Here I am very mindful of the experience of the Bail Act 1997, where we have seen that many layers of administratively onerous legislative requirements that look impressive on paper only serve to make daily practical compliance with these requirements by members of Victoria Police far less likely.
We are also aware that the royal commission did not explicitly recommend an outright prohibition on lawyers being used as human sources, mainly because there may be extremely rare circumstances where this may be necessary. One amendment that the Greens are seriously considering supporting would be to insert a form of independent judicial review above the Chief Commissioner of Police in terms of the final decision to register an individual as a human source. The fact that such an independent review is not included in the bill is not surprising given Victoria Police strenuously opposes any external limitation on its powers on general principle, but I note that the UK’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the gold standard act on human source management that informed the creation of this bill, does require judicial approval before authorisations for the use of a covert human intelligence source can take effect. Such independent oversight would certainly remove some of the more farcical aspects of the bill – for example, where clause 58 provides that the Public Interest Monitor can appeal a delegated decision of the chief commissioner. Who does the Public Interest Monitor appeal to? To the chief commissioner. Other than Victoria Police’s longstanding aversion to independent oversight, I am yet to receive any persuasive reasons why keeping all the final decision-making on human sources in-house is to the overall benefit of the community.
Given all this, I can confirm that after some thought the Greens will be supporting the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Malvern, because we feel it pretty effectively goes to the heart of the issues I have summarised. While the bill will obviously proceed to the other place in a few weeks regardless, we urge the government to attempt to undertake the actions requested by the reasoned amendment if only as a means of acting according to best practice on such an important and complex bill.
I will turn now to the insufficient protections for children used as human sources. Here I wish to advise the house that I have amendments and request that they now be circulated.
Amendments circulated under standing orders.
Tim READ: Part 2 of the bill seeks to impose a number of prohibitions and protections for children acting as human sources. Clause 12 prohibits police requesting, inducing or procuring registration of a child aged 14 years or under as a human source and clause 15 prohibits police tasking – that is, giving assignments to human sources – for this same age group. What is not clear in the bill is why these prohibitions have been restricted to just children aged 14 and under and why this age has been chosen. We would argue that while all potential human sources are in a vulnerable situation, all children under 18 are especially so, particularly those that tend to come into contact with Victoria Police. We would also argue that the issues, potential risks and lifelong future consequences relating to a child being used as a human source are incredibly complex and far reaching. My first set of amendments recognises this by proposing to raise the age for the prohibition on police inducing or procuring a child as a human source or tasking a child so it applies to all children under the age of 18.
The second category of amendments seeks to strengthen the bill’s proposed protections for a child in interactions concerning their registration as a human source and those who are already human sources, outlined in clauses 16 and 17 respectively. The bill proposes that a child is entitled to the presence of a lawyer, parent or guardian or an independent third person during interactions with police when being registered or being used as a human source and that police must advise the child of this entitlement and take reasonable steps to facilitate the presence of these parties if requested. We think that a system that effectively places the onus on the child to request that they receive their own minimum protections and that police only have to endeavour to see these protections put in place is inadequate. As I have mentioned, it is hard to imagine a more fraught and vulnerable situation, both legally and personally, than that of a child who is being registered or used as a human source by police. The power imbalance alone between a child and police officers dictates that it is inappropriate for a child to be left on their own in such circumstances. The bill must ensure that they are always present with either a lawyer or a parent or guardian or independent third party during these interactions. The Greens amendments impose such a mandate. The amendments do, however, insert a new clause to make these protections more flexible where a child is to be registered as an emergency human source. It is our expectation that such a necessity to use a child as a source in an emergency setting would be so exceptionally rare and serious – essentially confined to matters of imminent life or death – that allowing a less onerous procedure for ensuring protections in these circumstances is proportionate.
We have also not ruled out introducing further amendments to the bill to protect children, particularly to strengthen the definitions and requirements in relation to police obtaining informed consent. There is much, much more work be done on this bill as it moves to the other place, and once again I can commit that the Greens will work in earnest with all parties to see that this bill is improved.
Steve McGHIE (Melton) (15:18): I rise today to contribute to the Human Source Management Bill 2023. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Attorney-General – the hard work that she has put into this bill – and of course those in her office that have assisted. I would also like to acknowledge some of the stakeholders and organisations who were consulted with in relation to this bill, and they included Victoria Police, the Public Interest Monitor, IBAC, the Victorian Inspectorate, the Commission for Children and Young People, Victoria Legal Aid and of course the implementation monitor. The need for this bill arose from the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, which delivered its final report in November 2020. The report contained 111 recommendations, 54 of which are directed towards the current Victorian government.
The introduction of the Human Source Management Bill 2023 and consequentially an amendment to the Victoria Police Act 2013 will single-handedly deliver on 25 of the recommendations outlined by the commission, firstly, by providing for the registration, use and management of human sources by Victoria Police and also by providing for the external oversight of Victoria Police’s use of human sources. In doing that, we are going to be delivering on recommendations 8 to 18, 44 to 56 and 58 of the commission’s outcomes. Part of our action is to ensure that the events investigated by the commission will never happen again. Of course none of us in this party – and I think all flavours of politics – want to see a similar episode to what has happened in the Nicola Gobbo matter.
The bill takes a risk-based approach to balancing our community safety needs with the requirements to uphold justice, and the risks that must be considered are the safety risk to the human source, the risk to prosecution and administration of justice and the risk of undermining trust in professional relationships.
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge and thank VicPol and all the members of VicPol for keeping our communities safe and for the great work that they do and in particular in my electorate that takes in Melton, Bacchus Marsh and the surrounding district out in the west there. They do amazing work through all parts of the community, in particular with our young. It is amazing what they try to do to keep some of our younger generation on the straight and narrow and out of trouble, so I commend all of them for all their efforts and I thank them.
The Human Source Management Bill 2023 acknowledges the importance of human sources in our criminal justice system and it ensures that these sources are registered and used in an ethical manner and that informants who are at higher risk – our most vulnerable informants, which are our children, people with serious physical or mental health conditions and those who have access to privileged information as defined by the Evidence Act 2008 – are protected. This bill is just one of the many actions being undertaken by the Andrews Labor government in response to the commission in order to ensure the integrity of our criminal justice system, building on actions already taken by Victoria Police. In addition to this bill we have established the Office of the Special Investigator in accordance with the Special Investigator Act 2021, and of course we will continue to reform Victoria’s disclosure regime in criminal proceedings. These actions directly affirm our party’s core values of fairness and achieving social justice.
The introduction of this bill means that Victoria Police will have to formally register a person prior to using them as a human source, with the exception of information provided to the police in a one-off interaction. Any person providing assistance to VicPol on a criminal matter or who VicPol are using to gather information will need to be registered as a human source. The human source must provide informed consent to their registration prior to being registered, with the reasonable expectation of confidentiality relating to their interactions with Victoria Police. The registration process will require an officer at the rank of senior officer or higher to approve registration of a non-reportable human source, with the approval of an assistant commissioner or higher required to register high-risk informants. By aligning the officer’s seniority with the levels of risk, Victoria Police will be able to ensure that the use of a person as a human source is justified and appropriate and that any risks are managed appropriately.
Of course, appropriate boundaries are to be set for the human source relationship, including establishing the purpose of the registration and any conditions to be placed on that registration. Registered non-reportable sources are those who have an ongoing relationship with police but do not meet the other risk criteria, and registered reportable sources are deemed higher risk. They require registration even if providing one-off information only. This is especially important for protecting our most vulnerable human sources – that is, the young people under 18 years of age. I acknowledge that the Greens have put forward through the member for Brunswick some amendments in regard to people aged 14 years or under, and I am sure that that matter will be dealt with in the appropriate fashion.
To register a young person as a human source, Victoria Police must show that there is a serious threat to national security, the community or the life and welfare of a person or that a serious offence is being investigated, and there must also be no other way of obtaining that information. That is a protection mechanism for the younger people involved in this process. Young people must be treated as a high-risk reportable human source, meaning the Public Interest Monitor and a senior police officer must be involved in the registration decision, so there are a number of steps to work through before they can be registered.
Specialist advice must be considered before the young person can be registered as a human source, such as from a psychologist or a social worker, in regard to that young person’s capacity, I suppose, and welfare in regard to seeking that advice from those medicos. A young person’s best interests and the impact of registration on their wellbeing must be considered prior to registration. We know these types of investigations and involvement in such processes as this can really cause anxiety and stress for people and certainly for someone so young, and that is why, again, there has to be some advice from a psychologist or social worker for that younger person to participate. We know the impact can cause significant trauma to individuals involved in some serious matters that are being investigated by VicPol. So the young person’s best interests and the impact of registration on their wellbeing are considered, again, as I said, and advice is sought from those medicos, such as a psychologist.
Of course the young person is entitled to legal assistance at key stages of the process, and it is only fair that they be represented by a legal representative, as would be normal. In addition to the young person’s own informed consent, police must obtain the informed consent of the young person’s parent or guardian to register them. The bill also entitles all children to have a parent, guardian or independent person present during their key interactions, and Victoria Police are prohibited from using a child aged 14 years or younger as a human source. However, they are still permitted to receive information from a child of this age if the child discloses information to VicPol.
In the short time that I have got left, I know that in regard to this Human Source Management Bill and the issue of VicPol, the contribution and funding provided by the Andrews Labor government over a number of years I think is in excess of about $4 billion, and there is also the recruitment of many more police officers across the state to help them to do their job. As I acknowledged earlier in my contribution, the members of our Victorian police do a wonderful job under trying circumstances. It is not an easy job. They do their best every day. Some things do not always work out as the best outcomes, but I know that they are keeping us safe and working day and night when we are all home resting and enjoying ourselves at times and staying safe. As I say, I acknowledge their efforts, their hard-earned efforts, and I appreciate what they are doing in particular out in my electorate. This is an important bill, and I commend this bill to the house.
Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:28): I shall seek to acquit some of the opposing arguments that have been raised today, noting that my learned colleagues have already addressed many of the opposing arguments that have already come before the chamber. Firstly, I note that the member for Brunswick was seeking to raise some matters concerning a comparison between the system or approach used in the UK versus Australia with regard to the context of this bill and matters of human sources. However, I am of the understanding that one has to take care when making a comparison with the UK system because it is actually a broader system. So we are not dealing with apples and apples, and therefore there may be a risk of an inappropriate – not inappropriate, but perhaps not an accurate – comparison between the two systems. So if that goes some way to acquit some of the concerns in that regard raised by the honourable member, I think that might be helpful under the circumstances.
I note that the member for Malvern – and I am paraphrasing, so I am happy to be corrected – raised the issue that somehow this bill is seeking a repetition of what led to the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants in the first place. I think that we can strongly rebut that contention. I respect his position of having an opposing view to elements of the bill. However, I would suggest that care has to be taken not to oversimplify the incredible complexity of the circumstances under which the various legislative reforms are being brought through and what they are seeking to address.
Now, firstly, if I go some way to addressing the concerns that underpin some of the issues raised by the member for Malvern and others in the opposition, why are we implementing this new legislation – and I emphasise ‘new’? The commission recommended that the Victorian government introduce legislation to regulate Victoria Police’s use of human sources. I believe this point has already been raised in the chamber, but I do wish to reiterate the point because I understand that opposition to this point has been raised a number of times. So forgive me if there is an element of repetition, but perhaps by emphasising this point it will enable clarity within the chamber.
No existing legislation governs the registration or use of human sources, and the bill is an Australian first. Now, I am not suggesting that because it is an Australian first, that is the endpoint but rather simply to suggest that we do have new matter here. We do have reforms which are specifically addressing the concerns and follow from recommendations of the royal commission, and I think it would be injurious to the debate to diminish the significance of those reforms. There is risk of that, so I do wish to put that point before the chamber. Look at that specific point, and I think that is the underlying purpose. That is: how does this bill go to preventing a recurrence of what led to the royal commission in the first place?
The bill includes a rigorous registration and oversight framework which is aimed at preventing the events that led to the commission from ever happening again. The commission did not recommend that any person should be prohibited from being a human source – and I note this is perhaps where some of the conjecture is – but that appropriate protections and external oversight arrangements should be legislated, and that is exactly what we are here to do today.
Zoning in on perhaps where some of the specific conjecture has been regarding the issue of lawyers and registering certain classes of persons as human sources, we note that the bill does not prevent Victoria Police from registering any class of person as a human source, but high-risk human sources such as lawyers – and I am going to, I think, a fairly cogent element of this debate – must be put through the most stringent registration process with the greatest number of safeguards in place. A senior police officer must assess the risks involved and must decide – and note ‘must’ – that the registration is appropriate and justified after considering legal advice, and further, the registration of a lawyer would be subject to oversight by and recommendations from the Public Interest Monitor before the registration is made and by IBAC after the registration has been made.
Why doesn’t the bill prohibit Victoria Police from registering a lawyer as a human source? I think this is also where a lot of the conjecture has been today. The commission considered but made clear that it did not recommend that any person should be prohibited from being a human source, including a lawyer. Why? The commission noted that a blanket ban would not eradicate the risk of privileged information being provided by a human source, nor would it equip police officers with the skills to respond appropriately if this occurred. I think, for the benefit of the chamber, we can see why that is a pretty significant issue with regard to addressing the fundamental tenets of this bill.
Now I am going to play devil’s advocate here. What would happen if the bill banned Victoria Police from registering lawyers as human sources? I think it is really important that we do explore that matter here today. It could prevent lawyers from confidentially providing this critical information to police to allow them to act to prevent threats. What sort of threats am I talking about? Threats to national security, the community or the life or welfare of a person – it is reasonably obvious these they are very, very significant issues that would lead to this circumstance occurring.
It would also risk unsolicited disclosure of this information to Victoria Police without attracting – and this is a really, really important point – any of the oversight measures that currently apply under the bill, including the requirement to obtain legal advice and to notify and receive recommendations from the Public Interest Monitor. I think that is really a fundamental point, and I hope that goes some way to allaying some of the concerns that have been raised in the chamber today.
A further issue that I wish to explore, because it was raised in the chamber, is with regard to vulnerable persons. It is fair enough to raise these questions. What safeguards does the bill include if Victoria Police wishes to register a person with a serious medical or mental health condition as a human source? The bill will require people with a serious medical or mental health condition to be treated as higher risk reportable human sources. This means that the Public Interest Monitor and a senior Victoria Police officer must be involved in decisions to register them as human sources. Victoria Police will also have to consider specialist medical or mental health advice. A registration of a person with a serious medical or mental health condition as a human source must be reviewed at least every month, and registrations can only be made for a maximum period of six months. So you can see that very prudent and very careful consideration has been undertaken to make sure that there are appropriate protections in place for vulnerable persons such as those with a mental health condition.
I note the bill embeds significant checks and balances in those occasions where there may be exceptional and compelling circumstances. I am going to the issue of privilege. It is also important to note that the legal profession already has established obligations to maintain legal privilege and around where it would be appropriate to break privilege for community safety, under the uniform rules. This is widely understood in practice within the legal profession. The systemic failing of the Nicola Gobbo case is that Victoria Police did not have adequate understanding of the risk related to privileged information and further was not equipped to appropriately manage a human source who had access to privileged information. This bill therefore sets up a framework for Victoria Police to receive any privileged information as well as the appropriate safeguards to ensure that it is appropriate to do so. I hope that goes some way to acquitting that matter, because I know that was also raised in the chamber earlier.
Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:38): Acting Speaker Hamer, I can tell the member for Albert Park kept you on the edge of your seat, and I will try to keep you there too, but no guarantees. It is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak on the Human Source Management Bill 2023. We are here after the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, essentially because of an internal police process, which was governed internally, led to the use by Victoria Police of a covert informant. She happened to be a lawyer who represented clients, who in turn thought that she was acting for them and representing their interests solely – which would be appropriate – but instead it seems that people with privileged information, such as the lawyer, were used as informants against the clients’ interests. This of course led to the royal commission.
I will get to some of the points that the opposition have raised a little bit down the track, but basically what the royal commission found was that the use of human sources by Victoria Police was regulated internally by Victoria Police’s internal procedures and policies, but policy alone was insufficient to instil confidence in the Victorian community that the risks inherent with the use of human sources were appropriately managed, and new legislation was required. And here we are. The commission delivered its final report to the Governor on 30 November 2020, which included 111 recommendations, 54 of which related to the state government. This bill will deliver recommendations 8 to 18, 44 to 56, and 58. I will get to number 16 soon, because the opposition have been I think a little bit misinformed, or maybe it has been a bit more malicious, the way they have been speaking about that particular recommendation. The commission also made 21 recommendations to VicPol to update its internal policies related to human source management, all of which have now been delivered.
The royal commission was called essentially because of the deterioration of public confidence in this system. The bill essentially, through those recommendations and the clauses therein, sets out a process for registration, use and management of Victoria Police’s human sources. It provides the necessary powers, responsibilities and decision-making processes to VicPol. It establishes an external oversight model, importantly, where the Public Interest Monitor provides oversight for registration of high-risk reportable human sources. IBAC retrospectively will monitor VicPol’s compliance with the bill. The bill ensures that the Victorian Inspectorate will in turn provide oversight of IBAC and the PIM’s exercise of coercive information-gathering powers. Consultation has ensured that stakeholders have been spoken to, that they have had their opinions heard and that the bill is broadly supported, operationally workable for Victoria Police and consistent with the overall intent of the royal commission recommendations.
The bill in practice identifies risks such as the risk to safety of the human source, the risk to prosecution and administration of justice and the risk of undermining trust in professional relationships. Conceptually there are three categories that the recommendations identified, and these are also in the bill: those offering one-off information to police who do not meet any of the risk criteria and do not need to be registered informants; non-reportable sources who are those that have an ongoing relationship with police and do not meet other criteria; and also registered and reportable sources who are deemed high risk. High-risk human sources include categories of people who might be under the age of 18, have serious medical or mental health conditions or are reasonably expected to have access to privileged information. They require registration even if it is a one-off.
Now we get to where the opposition have been targeting most of their critique of this bill today. I will lay the groundwork for this by saying that we have drawn this piece of legislation up on the recommendations of the commission. Their argument is with the commission. We know they are desperate and their gene pool is pretty shallow when the opposition argument against this bill is solely based on the opinion of a former Herald Sun editor, who as far as I can see is not a legal expert. I will take a royal commission and their recommendations any day over that. It seems very, very, very frustrating to me that that would be something that you think is a foundation of evidence that you should bring to this arena, so to speak. We had the Honourable Margaret McMurdo, the counsel assisting and the solicitors assisting. I am sure that my confidence is not misplaced in the fact that they read all the submissions – I think there were 154. They took their time, and they made sure to make recommendations that could be put into legislation, could be enacted and would make a difference where the rubber meets the road.
We have heard the member for Albert Park, who more succinctly and eloquently than me could put into –
Nina Taylor: You’re very kind.
Paul EDBROOKE: No, you were. She explained how the commission reasoned that there may be exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as the need to respond to significant threats to community safety, where it would be appropriate to register a lawyer as human source. This resulted in the commissioner making recommendation 16, where Victoria Police can register a person who may have access to privileged information, including lawyers. Again, maybe the opposition should have made a submission to the royal commission if that is their opinion. They can pick lots of different people who might have different opinions about legislation, as they have done over the last couple of days, but it does not mean it is right or wrong – it means it is an opinion. We are here now because a royal commission, not a former Herald Sun editor, has made these recommendations, and that is very important.
The commission did actually consider a blanket ban and found it was not warranted, because it would not eradicate the risk of confidential or privileged information being provided by a human source, and they surmised that it would not actually equip VicPol with the skills to respond appropriately when it occurs anyway. The bill embeds significant checks and balances for those rare occasions where there may be exceptional and compelling circumstances. I know colleagues on this side of the house have I guess given an overview of those, and I will not continue doing that.
The opposition has had several positions on this bill. The one that I will go back to, and the main one regarding recommendation 16, is that there are certain stakeholders that have said that this bill will not work. Again, the opposition’s argument is with the commission – maybe they should have made a submission. The opposition’s argument is not with this legislation. This legislation reflects the royal commission’s recommendations. I will say it again: I am much happier and much more confident to actually accept the recommendations from the royal commission than those from the Herald Sun, and I think they should be a lot more comfortable with that as well.
There seems to be this conjecture about ‘Well, this won’t stop it.’ That begs the question: how do we stop someone committing a crime? We are here as legislators, and we draft laws. They make very clear what is illegal and what is not illegal and also the consequences at times. The next question is: how do you stop people doing illegal things? The issue there is, unless you are in someone’s mind, you cannot stop someone who might want to break the law or makes a decision to break the law, knowing it is wrong. Then you have got the question of amoral versus immoral, which we will not get into today. But legislation is not a magic bullet to stop people committing crime. We cannot stop people who might be in privileged positions’ pillow talk. We cannot stop people deciding that they will break the law. But they will know that they have broken the law. It is very clear what is within the bounds of this legislation and what would be wrong. The commission called for tighter checks and balances, which in the end I think is very, very important for this bill.
The amendments that the Greens have put up and the Liberals have put up are not required. Indeed I think they have been drafted on inaccuracies, essentially. They are definitely not required, and we are going to have other members on this side talk about that more thoroughly. In the time I have got left I would like to say that our Victorian police do a great job. I am sure the legal fraternity do a great job too. Thankfully, I have not got much to do with them – no offence to the member for Albert Park – but I do commend this bill to the house.
Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (15:48): I also rise to speak in favour of the Human Source Management Bill 2023. I think all the points of debate on this legislation have well and truly been already flagged and spoken about, so I guess I will continue to reinforce the arguments on this side of the house in terms of why we need this legislation, why it is important and why it is that the opposition’s concerns are really not well thought out or properly considered.
How did this bill come about? The first thing we all need to realise, remember and put in the front of our minds is that this legislation is the result of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, and it was the royal commission, based on many submissions and the airing of alternative views and stakeholders putting their cases, that recommended that the government should legislate to provide oversight of the management of police informants. It was in the wake of the exposure of the appalling police practices in the case of Nicola Gobbo, where as a lawyer or a barrister she was informing on her own clients. This conduct was considered to be unethical and not to warrant natural justice, as well as of course putting in doubt many criminal convictions that are continuing to go through the courts even now.
Now, this bill was introduced to provide transparency and oversight over the police use of human sources, or informants, and to provide a framework of registration for the use and management of such informants. The bill delivers on a number of the recommendations by the royal commission, not just one. There are a number that are included in this legislation, and the Andrews Labor government of course is committed to implementing all of them. This bill, as I understand, will mark the delivery of 48 of the 55 recommendations that were directed at government. There are still some seven or so to be implemented. As I said, our government has committed to implementing them all, but things often take a little bit of time in terms of developing the exact right legislative framework and how it will apply within the legal system.
At the moment the problem is that we do not have a formal legislative framework of registration, oversight and monitoring; we more or less have a bit of an informal system that is not enshrined in law and is overseen by the police themselves. Of course we know that in order to be transparent organisations really need some external body in terms of oversight, especially when it comes to things such as the critical use of informants or human sources in order to investigate criminal activities, to provide intelligence on criminal activities and to investigate crimes in order to catch the perpetrators and get them off the streets or provide the proper punishments.
I am just going to go through some of the key areas. First is the registration of human sources, and this means that the police will be required to register a human source that they are going to use, whether for now or even in the future if they are going to use the information of that source. We have heard a lot from the opposition and others about concerns that there are sources that may have access to privileged information about a particular client. I guess in this case we are talking, for example, lawyers or barristers, as in the case of Nicola Gobbo. There was this concern expressed that if we have human sources, there ought to be certain ones that should be excluded because they have privileged information. But under the registration system that the government is proposing in this legislation, it will be taken very seriously as to who and who should not be registered to be a human source, and the decision can only be made to put such a person on the register by the Chief Commissioner of Police or someone that they delegate, but no less than the rank of assistant commissioner or above.
There are further provisions around that and restrictions, such as that there also has to be a test of whether the need to register that human source is as a result of there being a serious threat to national security, the community or the life and welfare of a person, and that the information cannot be obtained through any other reasonable means. So we have got the transparency of registering an informant and the protections that they will get, as well as the extra qualification that in the case of a person perhaps having access to privileged information, they also have to be registered by someone at the highest level of the police force. Then of course there will be a test as to whether or not that person should stay, based on the seriousness of the threat, and that will be under scrutiny from yet another external agency. Similarly, the bill provides stricter requirements for people under 18 and those with certain vulnerabilities that provide information: that they need to be properly registered, with a very strict requirement to conceal identity.
Now I will go on to the external oversight, which is at many levels. The police must report to IBAC and the Public Interest Monitor, and these bodies would then report to the Victorian Inspectorate in some of those really critical human source cases. There will have to be a preparation of annual reports, and they will be tabled in Parliament – although sensitive material can be removed – again providing that external oversight as to how human sources are being used and ensuring there are proper checks and balances. There are also of course new criminal offences to protect the safety of human sources and the integrity of investigations. There are prohibitions on unauthorised disclosure of human source information and, again, penalties that will result in criminal offences if anything is breached. Again we see in the case as it is now, the regime that is there without the legislation, that really there are no penalties. We all agree that it was wrong and should not happen, but really, what are the punishments or the things to de-incentivise people from doing the wrong thing?
Sure, I know that everyone realises that police investigations very much rely on information from others. In the most public sense we have got Crime Stoppers where members of the public are asked to provide information. Similarly, we see rewards are often advertised to provide a financial incentive to people to provide information that will lead to a conviction. All of these sources are information from human sources or informants. It is so critical to police investigations and also the collection of intelligence around crimes to get this information from the public, from people that know. But of course there need to be strict protections to ensure that those people are protected and that their information is also provided in a way that will guarantee, hopefully, a conviction that cannot then be overturned. It does not apply to anonymous tip-offs, and it only applies to people who have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality and who Victoria Police want to obtain information or assistance from for a criminal investigation or the gathering of criminal intelligence.
Again, as I said, there has been criticism that the bill does not prohibit any person from becoming a human source; however, the royal commission did not recommend that some people or categories of people should be prohibited from being human sources. The government is relying on and is committed to implementing the recommendations of the royal commission – that is why we are doing it – but we are making sure that there are stronger protections and external oversight and safeguards. We know in cases where people have privileged information that it is already a requirement – in fact it is mandatory – for them to provide information, even if privileged. If you look at the cases of child abuse, for example, there are certain requirements of the medical profession and teachers, so this is not new.
Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (15:58): I rise to speak on the Human Source Management Bill 2023. In doing so I would like to begin by acknowledging and thanking all the members, officers and support staff of Victoria Police for all the work they do to keep our communities safe. First established in 1853, Victoria Police and its members have been keeping our community safe for 170 years. Whether it is arriving as the first on the scene of any reportable crime or offence the public may need assistance with across all of our electorates or whether it is through vital community engagement to prevent and deter crime, Victoria Police are there to service and protect our communities 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Undoubtedly one of the most challenging yet rewarding roles that exists, Victorian police officers do make a vital difference every day to help keep Victorians safe.
In this context I would like to acknowledge the work of the Police Association Victoria representing their members interests as well as acknowledge the work of the police officers who service my electorate, many of whom work from Fawkner police Station and the Brunswick police station, and thank them. It was a pleasure to have visited Fawkner police station in late 2022 with the Minister for Police and the member for Broadmeadows to see firsthand the important work they do every day to keep our residents safe, including through their frontline work in supporting our culturally diverse communities as well as in responding to family violence, mental health and many other community safety issues. I am proud to be part of a Victorian Labor government that has continued to provide Victoria Police with the tools and resources they need to keep our communities safe, with more than $4.5 billion invested since 2014, which has delivered over 3600 new police over that period.
However, notwithstanding this overarching good work by police and the overarching goodwill of government to support this work, we must always remain vigilant and responsive to opportunities that exist to improve the way in which our criminal justice and police investigatory systems are administered, including the way in which human sources are utilised by Victoria Police. It is the conduct of Victoria Police and the way in which they engaged and sustained defence barrister Nicola Gobbo as a human source to subsequently convict numerous persons that has impacted the very foundations of our criminal justice system and brought us here today to consider this bill. The Victorian government announced the establishment of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants on 3 December 2018 to determine how many criminal convictions may have been impacted by the use of a lawyer as a police informant and to determine what changes may be needed to the management of informants by Victoria Police to prevent similar conduct in future. This announcement followed the publication of the High Court’s decision in 2018 which revealed that former criminal barrister Nicola Gobbo was a registered police informer. I would like to acknowledge and thank all those who commenced, led and supported the royal commission’s work, including former Attorney-General Jill Hennessy and former police minister Lisa Neville, as well as the Honourable Margaret McMurdo AC, commissioner for the royal commission, and all the other staff and contributors who supported the commission’s work over so long.
The important work of the commission concluded in 2020, with the final report and recommendations being handed to the Governor of Victoria on 30 November 2020. The commission found and emphasised that the use of human sources does play an important role in policing and community safety and in detecting and solving crime. The report noted that approximately 1200 human source registration applications were submitted between July 2017 and June 2020, and the report also noted that human sources are likely to become increasingly important as the effectiveness of other investigative methods is impacted by new technology and the growing sophistication of criminal networks. The commission’s report outlined the use of human sources by Victoria Police and how they should continue but said that considerable risks exist for relevant parties due to the covert nature of human sources.
The commission’s work specifically considered how Victoria Police registered Ms Gobbo as a human source three times between 1993 and 2010 to provide information about her clients and associates and their people, and the commission could not have been any clearer in its findings on the need for formal and legal regulatory processes to be put in place to prevent such situations from occurring in future. In this regard I refer the house to page 6 of the commission’s final report, which states:
The High Court described the conduct of Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police as a corruption of the criminal justice system …
The commission also noted that of the 1200 human sources registered with Victoria Police between 2017 and 2020, only 3.5 per cent at the time resulted in these registrations of a person who was potentially subject to legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege. An incredibly small percentage of sources have fallen into this category previously. The royal commission did find that Victoria Police had made significant improvements to its human source management processes since these events that led to the commission, but it also noted that internal policy alone is not sufficient to instil confidence in the Victorian community that the risks inherent with the use of human sources are being appropriately managed.
The commission recommended that the Victorian government develop legislation by the end of November 2022 to regulate and oversight the registration, use and management of human sources by Victoria Police. The commission’s report included 111 recommendations, 54 of which were directed to the Victorian government. The government is committed to implementing all of the recommendations of the commission, and this bill will deliver on recommendations 8 to 18, 44 to 56 and 58. It is therefore essential for this Parliament to progress consideration of this bill to ensure appropriate legislative reforms are implemented as soon as possible.
This bill will set out the process for the registration, use and management of Victoria Police’s human sources by providing necessary powers, responsibilities and decision-making processes to Victoria Police and establish an external, robust oversight model where the Public Interest Monitor provides oversight for registration of high-risk reportable human sources and IBAC retrospectively monitors Victoria Police’s compliance with the bill, regulations and relevant internal policies. The Victorian Inspectorate will in turn provide oversight of IBAC and the Public Interest Monitor’s exercise of coercive information-gathering powers.
The bill has been developed in very close consultation, despite some of the claims from those opposite, with key stakeholders, including Victoria Police, the Public Interest Monitor, IBAC, the Victorian Inspectorate, the Commission for Children and Young People, Victoria Legal Aid and the police informants royal commission implementation monitor. Consultation has ensured that that the settings in this bill are broadly supported, operationally workable for Victoria Police and consistent with the commission’s recommendations and overall intent.
To provide agencies with time to prepare for implementation the bill has a default commencement date of 30 September 2024. The bill is the first of its kind in Australia and sets out the process for registration, use and management of Victoria Police’s human sources, establishing that external oversight to ensure that sources are used in an ethical and justifiable manner.
The bill ensures significant protections are put in place where risks are greatest: where a person has access to privileged information, is under the age of 18 or has serious physical or mental health conditions. The bill will also make it an offence to disclose information that would reveal a person is or was a human source unless the disclosure is for a permitted purpose, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. It includes an aggravated offence where a person who discloses the information does so either to endanger the health and safety of any person or to interfere with a criminal investigation or prosecution. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.
The bill builds on the steps Victoria Police has already taken to improve its management of human sources, including becoming one of the few law enforcement agencies in Australia to proactively adopt safeguards for the use of human sources involving legal obligations, confidentiality or privilege. The bill does continue the significant work done by the Andrews Labor government to deliver the commission’s recommendations, including reforms to Victoria’s disclosure regime in criminal proceedings and the establishment of the Office of the Special Investigator. We are continuing to work on delivering all of these recommendations. Through this bill Victoria Police will have a clear framework to help manage highly sensitive information and ensure the welfare of police informants. Key to the operation of these laws will be multiple levels of robust oversight, bolstering the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system. A clear case was made for change via the royal commission, and that is exactly what we are getting on to do through this bill.
I would like to take this moment as well just to commend the work of the Attorney-General in the other place as well as the Minister for Police for their efforts in developing and progressing the detail of this bill. I commend this bill to the house.
That the debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.