Thursday, 20 June 2024

Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (10:11): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. This is another justice omnibus bill where a whole lot of different matters get sewn together in a legislative quilt to try and deal with a number of different issues. In terms of this bill, it deals with crime statistics, the use of electronic signatures in criminal proceedings, allowing the ongoing use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief in family violence proceedings, changes to defamation in relation to reporting offences, changes to defamation in relation to defences available to digital intermediaries, amending the power of the Public Interest Monitor under two statutes and a large variety of amendments to integrity agencies operating in Victoria. I will try to make the best use of my allotted 30 minutes to go through the key features of each of these changes.

In terms of the changes to crime statistics, the bill provides the chief statistician of crime statistics in this state with greater access to certain court data for statistical and for research purposes. I think it is actually quite important that the Crime Statistics Agency has got better access to better data so it can better paint a picture of the true state of crime in this state. Crime statistics released just this morning, as I understand, do paint a pretty bleak picture of the state of crime in the state of Victoria. This is an issue on which as Shadow Attorney-General I have had a lot to say, as have my colleague the Shadow Minister for Police, the member for Berwick, and the Leader of the Opposition. We are very concerned about crime.

In fact I attended a public meeting on community safety with the member for Sandringham, which he hosted in his electorate last week. Over 300 people packed out the Beaumaris Bowls Club; it was literally standing room only. It was quite an extraordinary turnout. We had the local acting inspector of police on the panel along with the president of the local Neighbourhood Watch, and people are genuinely concerned about their safety when they see their police stations closed at night, as has happened to mine in Malvern; Malvern police station on Glenferrie Road used to be open 24 hours a day for many, many decades until this year when under this Labor government the opening hours to the public were reduced to just 8 hours a day. Unfortunately, I do not think the aggravated burglars who come into Malvern work business hours. I do not think they are actually that careful with their timing. So we are very concerned that a lack of police resources has seen not just my police station in Malvern close 16 hours a day to the public but I think 43 stations across Victoria reduce opening hours this year. Cutting police station opening hours does nothing to keep Victorians safe. The government can talk all it likes about putting resources into Victoria Police, but if you cannot fill the roles, if police command do not have the troops on the ground, that is why police stations are closing, and that is not keeping the community safe.

I do think it is important that the Crime Statistics Agency have better access to data. I will resist the temptation to go into the detail of how the Crime Statistics Agency came to be set up other than by saying that prior to the 2010 election we saw an outrageous abuse of crime statistics by the government of the day and indeed by the chief commissioner at the time in seeking to portray a false picture of the state of crime in Victoria just ahead of an election. That led to a complete collapse in public confidence in the use of crime statistics in this state, and I would say it led to a lack of confidence in Victoria Police command at the time. It was because of that that the newly elected Baillieu Liberal–Nationals government sought to establish a crime statistics agency – independent, with integrity – to report on the true state of crime in Victoria. I think it is important that we have additional access to data.

In terms of this bill, it will allow the chief statistician to seek applicable court data held in electronic form relating to applicable proceedings, and the chief statistician can seek that from the chief executives of the Magistrates’ Court, the County Court, the Supreme Court and the Children’s Court. Applicable proceedings include criminal proceedings, bail proceedings and family violence and personal safety intervention order proceedings as well as some other matters. There are some safeguards to try and make sure that information provided is de-identified. It is not appropriate that personal information be provided to the chief statistician, but I believe the bill provides safeguards to deal with that.

I do note that in my consultation on this bill I contacted many stakeholders, including the Law Institute of Victoria, and the LIV advised me:

… the LIV has some concerns relating both to the breadth of the category of ‘applicable court data’ and to the limited nature of the grounds on which the Chief Executive Officer of an applicable court can refuse to grant access to such data.

I do understand the concerns that have been raised by the Law Institute of Victoria in these matters, but if you look at the grounds on which a court chief executive can refuse to provide information, that can occur if the CEO considers that it would be likely or reasonably likely to prejudice the trial of a person or the impartial adjudication of an applicable case. I think that is not an unreasonable safeguard to put in place. So acknowledging the concerns of the law institute – and I thank them for taking the time, as they always do, to respond to my requests for their views on justice portfolio matters – I do not believe that their concerns are sufficient reason to amend the bill at this point.

The bill also clarifies the admissibility of electronic signatures in criminal proceedings. It does so by inserting a new section into the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to permit electronic signing on all documents under the Criminal Procedure Act regardless of whether any other person does or does not consent. I do not think that this is a particularly controversial change, and I think it is one that acknowledges that we are in 2024. We sign all sorts of things electronically these days, and there is no reason why the criminal justice system should be immune from moving on from the sort of stagecoach, Cobb and Co format, which I know some lawyers are very wedded to. We do need to move into the 21st century, and I think that change to permit the use of electronic signatures in criminal proceedings is a sensible one.

The bill also, importantly, repeals section 387P of the Criminal Procedure Act. In doing so it removes the sunset provision in the act, which would otherwise operate this year. The effect of this is to enable the ongoing use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief of the complainant in family violence proceedings. I think we are all very conscious of how difficult the justice system can be for victim-survivors of family violence. We understand that having to relate what has occurred for a victim-survivor is challenging. It is challenging from an emotional point of view; it is challenging sometimes from a physical point of view and certainly in terms of mental health. So I do not think it is unreasonable for criminal justice legislation to try to provide sensible accommodations to make that process as least burdensome as possible for victim-survivors of family violence.

Removing the sunset provision will ensure that digitally recorded evidence-in-chief in family violence proceedings can continue to be used. There are safeguards contained within the Criminal Procedure Act which must be observed before a digitally recorded statement can be admitted as evidence-in-chief, and those safeguards will remain. And importantly for anybody who might be watching or reading this contribution, one of the safeguards is obviously that even if a complainant can make a digitally recorded statement which can be used in evidence-in-chief, that person must still be available to be cross-examined. It is important in any serious matter – and family violence matters are very serious matters – that anybody’s claim can be tested by the person against whom it is made. That is a fundamental part of our justice system. I just want to assure Victorians that notwithstanding the continuation of the use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief statements, there will still be guaranteed opportunities for that evidence to be tested through cross-examination in the normal process.

Moving on to defamation law, there are two significant changes made in relation to defamation law in this bill. The first is to extend the defence of absolute privilege to matters published to officials of Australian police forces or services who are acting in their official capacity. That means that the defence of absolute privilege will protect any means of communicating with state, territory or Commonwealth police, including informal reports, email inquiries or using online reporting tools. At the moment somebody who makes an allegation against another person in reporting a matter to police can arguably use the defence of qualified privilege. I say this as somebody who used to dabble a little bit in defamation law when I was practising: qualified privilege effectively operates where somebody has a duty or an obligation to provide information to another party. For example, if somebody was a member of a bowls club and they were of the view that somebody, let us say the treasurer, had misappropriated some funds, there might be an obligation to report that to the committee. In those sorts of circumstances there may be a defence of qualified privilege available.

The difference between qualified privilege and absolute privilege is that we in this place enjoy absolute privilege. Anything we say in this place is incapable of founding an action against us. Obviously after taking the 10 steps to courage, as they say, and walking out of the chamber, it is a different matter, but while we are in here we have the benefit of absolute privilege for everything we say. Obviously we have a concomitant obligation to not abuse that absolute privilege, and that is why we have rules and standing orders and procedures to ensure that happens, as well as the firm but fair guidance of you, Deputy Speaker.

When it comes to reporting allegations, particularly allegations that can be of a personal nature, such as allegations of sexual offence or family violence, you do not want to see a victim – or an alleged victim, depending on your terminology – concerned about making a complaint to police, worried that they might get sued for defamation by the person against whom they have complained. That chilling effect is not something that we want to see. It is important that people have the ability to freely communicate with police when they have suffered a crime, so I think on that basis that this can and should be supported.

In my consultation on the defamation-related matters in this bill I thought, ‘Well, if you want to get good advice on defamation, there are probably only two people in this state you really want to go to.’ One of them is Peter Bartlett from MinterEllison – I would say a legendary partner of MinterEllison and a legend in relation to defamation law in this state. The other is Dr Matt Collins AM KC, who literally wrote the book on defamation law in this country. Collins on Defamation is still, I think, regarded as the most authoritative text on the subject. Of course Dr Collins was most recently in the news for acting for Network Ten in relation to the Lehrmann defamation case, and I understand that the YouTube count was over a hundred thousand people or something – extraordinary numbers – watching that defamation trial on a daily basis. I think between Matt Collins and Peter Bartlett I have gone to the two rockstars of defamation in Victoria, if not Australia, to get advice, so I will defer to their expert knowledge on these subjects. I am very grateful; they did provide me with their feedback on the bill.

If I may, I will quote some comments provided to me by Peter Bartlett on this matter, because I think he can sum up this change far better than can I. He says:

Whilst the defence of qualified privilege will apply in most, if not all, cases of police reports being subject to a claim of defamation, the introduction of absolute privilege is a significant improvement.

Specifically, the defence of qualified privilege will often require time, money and court resources as a court will be required to consider all of the circumstances of the matter and whether qualified privilege would apply. Such proceedings can also be traumatising and harmful for the accused, where it is in relation to a police complaint they have made. In contrast, absolute privilege provides a full and final defence, such that the claim would not progress in the first instance …

I think on that basis Peter Bartlett sets out the good sense in this provision. And for those who might express concerns about the potential for this to be abused, I would perhaps also, if I may, quote Dr Matt Collins, who says:

The risk of abuse seems to me to be modest and acceptable. A knowingly false statement to police is a criminal offence, so the risk is already attenuated …

Dr Collins makes the point that while under this change you may not be sued for making a claim against a person in a report to police, if you knowingly make a false statement to police, that is still a criminal offence. So there is still a safeguard against people making false reports to police with the intent to damage another person because that will remain a criminal offence.

In terms of the defamation changes relating to digital intermediaries, these are changes which have been agreed to a large extent at a national level, although there has been very patchy implementation of those nationally agreed changes. The bill seeks to clarify the liability of digital intermediaries in defamation law, and the term ‘digital intermediary’ describes a person other than an author, originator or poster of the matter who provides or administers the online service connected to the publication. It includes a broad range of online functions, including internet service providers, content hosts, search engines and social media platforms.

In America the situation in relation to digital intermediaries is very different. In America they effectively have complete immunity. So the Americans take the view that if you are Twitter/X or Instagram or Facebook you are effectively like Australia Post and you are effectively like Telstra. You are simply a carrier of a message, but you are not responsible for the content of that message any more than you would sue Telstra if someone made a libellous phone call or in the same way you would not sue Australia Post if somebody sent a defamatory letter in the mail. That is the American position. It is fairly absolutist. I think it is influenced by their first amendment in terms of freedom of speech.

In countries like Australia and the UK it has not been quite so clear cut. Australian courts have not tended to treat internet platforms in the same way as our American colleagues do. Because there have been different views of different courts and different jurisdictions, there was a push through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General to try and have some uniformity apply in relation to these matters. That does make sense, given that we are talking about internet platforms which reach not just across Australia but globally as well. What the bill seeks to do in relation to these matters is six key reforms to the Defamation Act 2005. The first is to provide statutory exemptions for digital caching, conduit and storage services. Effectively where you are providing those sorts of services, if you can meet a number of criteria – so you did not initiate steps to publish the matter, you did not select any of the recipients of the matter, you did not encourage the poster of the matter to publish it, you did not edit the content of the matter and you did not promote the matter – and if you simply operate effectively a storage service or a conduit service or a caching service, then that provides you with an immunity from defamation, or a defence at least.

It also provides statutory exemptions for search engine providers. A search engine provider – Google, for example – will not be liable for defamation where it is limited to providing an automated process for the user of the search engine to generate the results or providing a hyperlink. Importantly – and I think this is an important qualification to that defence – the defence is not available where the search results are promoted or prioritised because of a payment or other benefit given to the provider by or on behalf of a third party. So if you are Google and you want to make money out of effectively running ads by promoting particular search results and those search results are defamatory, then the Googles of the world will not be able to avail themselves of the defence, and I think that that is appropriate.

The bill would also amend laws applicable to preliminary discovery. One of the challenges we face in the digital world in the defamation sphere is that sometimes somebody can post something absolutely horrible and defamatory, but they do it under an anonymous handle and you do not know who to sue. In Victoria we have procedures for what is called preliminary discovery, which is the ability to go to a court, for example, and to seek an order from an internet platform – from a Facebook or an Instagram or a Twitter – to identify the account holder who made that defamatory post so that the offended party then knows who to serve proceedings on. The bill requires a court considering an application for preliminary discovery in relation to digital matters to take into account the objects of the Defamation Act as well as privacy, safety or other public interest considerations that may arise if the order is made.

The bill gives the example of evidence suggesting that the poster of the digital matter is in fear of domestic violence in relation to any order to seek to obtain the poster’s address. I would just say at that point: anonymous trolls can say horrible, horrible things about people that are completely untrue, and it is important and it is in the interests of justice for the people who do that to be exposed to the justice system. Obviously if there are genuine – and I emphasise genuine – issues relating to family violence and somebody genuinely makes anonymous posts then that is a matter that the court can and should consider. But the starting principle should be that anonymous internet trolls should not be able to hide behind that anonymity where they have smeared somebody, defamed somebody. They should be forced to answer for it in court should proceedings be issued.

One of the key issues in the bill is that it provides statutory exemptions for digital intermediaries – your Twitter account, for example. It will enable those social media accounts to have a defence against defamatory material posted by their subscribers, posted by the people who operate on that platform, but that defence comes with conditions that must be met. First of all, the defendant has to be a digital intermediary; second, the defendant has to have had at the time of the publication an accessible complaints mechanism for the defendant to use. This is really important because people have had trouble not necessarily with defamation but just trouble with their accounts – getting locked out or getting hacked – or difficulty trying to organise ads. Trying to find somebody at Facebook or Instagram or Twitter you can actually speak to or correspond with can be very, very difficult. They do not go out of their way to make themselves accessible. It is only fair that if this Parliament is to provide these platforms with a safe harbour from defamation, their obligation is to have a publicly facing, publicly available complaints mechanism that somebody who is aggrieved by a post on that platform can access. That is a very important part of the obligations on those intermediaries.

The other condition – and this is where we can argue about whether this goes far enough or goes too far – is that if the plaintiff gave the defendant a written complaint under the section about the publication, the platform needs to take reasonable access prevention steps within seven days after the complaint is given. What is a reasonable access prevention step? It means removing the matter or blocking, disabling or otherwise preventing access, whether by some or all persons, to the matter. Effectively this means that from the time you lodge a complaint through the publicly available complaints mechanism that the platform is required to provide, the platform then gets seven days to take down that matter or to otherwise restrict it in a way provided for under the act.

If somebody has said something absolutely disgraceful, something massively damaging to your reputation and completely untrue – they would not say it about you, Deputy Speaker, but perhaps some other members of the house – having something up there for seven days is a really long time to have your reputation trashed. In this day and age, when we have got a media cycle that operates in minutes, not hours or days, for something terribly defamatory to be in the public sphere for seven days is a very long period of time. I think that reasonable minds can argue that seven days is too long, because if you looked at it from the perspective of a person who has been defamed, you would want and expect quicker action than seven days. But this is where, nationally, the agreement has effectively landed. Seven days is the right balance, and when you consider there may be potentially dozens or hundreds or thousands of complaints made, depending on what is happening at the time, there is a need to give the platforms a reasonable time to consider complaints and to respond.

We also do not want to see a situation where anybody can complain about anything and platforms have to take down every single criticism. We are all public figures; we have all got platforms. We all get criticised from time to time, sometimes fairly and sometimes it might feel unfair, but we do not want to see a situation where members of the public are too scared to make an adverse comment about an elected representative. I think most of us have got pretty thick skin; you sort of have to to do this job. We need to get a balance between overreactions, chilling free speech, and not having any protection for people whose reputations are absolutely slandered and defamed on digital online platforms. On this basis, while you can argue about whether or not seven days is the appropriate period of time, we are prepared to accept that that is not an unreasonable place for us to land.

In the very brief time left available to me, there are a number of changes made to integrity agencies legislation in this bill. One of the key ones is to change the name of the Victorian Inspectorate to Integrity Oversight Victoria, and as the CEO of the VI wrote to me:

… it perfectly sums up the purpose and role of the Victorian Inspectorate in overseeing integrity, accountability and investigatory bodies and officers.

We will not be moving any amendments to this point, but potentially in the other place there may be a need to look at amendments to proposed new section 97AA(4) and the question of whether there should be an additional exemption for the purpose of making a complaint or a public interest disclosure to the Integrity and Oversight Committee. I just place that on the record as something that we will be pondering over the winter break and the government may want to ponder as well.

I also note that the bill provides that the Premier will get advance notice of basically all reports to Parliament made by integrity agencies. I just wonder whether it is really necessary for the Premier to get advance notice about every single integrity agency report being made to Parliament. It does look like a mechanism to allow for governmental spin to be prioritised over everything else. Having said that, it is a large bill – a complex bill. It does contain we think some important improvements to laws, and on that basis the Liberals and Nationals will not be opposing this bill.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (10:41): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. I want to pay respect to the member for Malvern for very thoroughly transacting the bill at hand. Respect where respect is due, of course. I am just doing the overview first. I have only got 10 minutes, so I have got to be pretty swift. The improvements that this bill will deliver include improving access to court data, improving accessibility of evidence in court proceedings, improving national defamation law and implementing minor and technical but long-awaited changes to integrity legislation.

First and foremost, I would like to zone in on the women’s safety elements, noting that, whilst we have of course implemented all 227 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and dedicated arguably more money and effort than any other Australian government ever, we are continually examining and probing and advancing reforms to make sure we are doing everything possible to tackle and to end, essentially, the scourge of family violence. When it comes to the women’s safety reforms within this bill, the first one – which has been spoken to, but I will also allude to it because it is very important – is a complete defence to defamation over reports made to police. The defence does apply to all reports made to police, and that should be noted. But the reforms were developed to address the chilling effect that a threat of defamation can have on reporting of sexual assault or harassment. Of course what we are trying to do is encourage victim-survivors of family violence to come forth and make those critical reports – getting that evidence in there early is essential; it is really, really important – and also seek the requisite help that they need, whether it be counselling or otherwise. But they do have a fully informed process should they wish to proceed with taking action against perpetrators.

Second, the bill extends the use of digitally recorded evidence by police-worn cameras as evidence-in-chief in family violence proceedings. This will continue to provide greater options to victim-survivors, noting that there was a trial and it has been deemed that that trial has provided a satisfactory response. With ‘satisfactory’ I may be understating the benefit, but for the sake of not embellishing or otherwise in this context it is deemed an appropriate mechanism that can be availed by victim-survivors. Particularly it allows them the opportunity to give a report to police in their own words. I have not had to give evidence as such in a court proceeding, in a criminal matter or otherwise, but having seen that, I know and we know that with our memory, the closer to the moment that you are able to give that evidence, the better. So being able to give that evidence in situ certainly has got to be helpful. But it is certainly not compulsory for the particular victim-survivor; they do have the alternative of a written statement as well. It does not resile, as has been noted, from the appropriateness of cross-examination of evidence, because it is important, when we are looking at evidence, that it is appropriately transacted and checked, for want of a better word, or verified by the court to ascertain the case at hand and the validity of the case and the various matters being brought before the court.

We are proud certainly as a government – and I say that very carefully and in a prudent manner – to continue delivering our strong community and women’s safety agenda, because it is the right thing to do. No-one likes to see anyone be a victim of family violence, so progressing these kinds of reforms that one would hope would encourage victim-survivors to have the confidence to come forward is a good thing. It was just a few weeks ago that we announced further measures to build on the ambitious agenda, which will change laws, change culture and deliver new support for victim-survivors as well. Really it is about being able to better respond to victims when violence occurs, deliver a stronger justice response that holds offenders to account and continue our world-leading prevention response, stopping violence before it starts.

I think it must be acknowledged that our justice system has come a long way in responding to family violence and violence against women. But of course there is more that we can do. I am pleased to see that we are inching forward with these kinds of very important reforms when it comes to providing mechanisms that better support victim-survivors in providing evidence to court and making sure that they do not fear what has already been mentioned in the chamber: defamation for bringing forward a police report against a perpetrator. The recent package highlights some of the upcoming justice reforms around family violence intervention orders, stalking and personal safety as well. But even the reforms in this bill illustrate that women’s safety is always on our justice reform agenda, and our government takes any opportunity to improve how our laws and system can better respond to violence against women. So this is continuing work; this is not an end point of course.

We have already been speaking about amending the Crime Statistics Act 2014 to permit the chief statistician to require courts to provide certain data on request, and what is at the heart of this is actually a very pragmatic element, because it will provide government with much more detailed information as to the impact of legislative reforms on the criminal justice system. Obviously we are always working hard to continually improve outcomes with the criminal justice system, and this provides another mechanism to be able to critically examine legislative reforms and to help inform future policy as well, with appropriate caveats – on the one hand, how that particular data is accessed, and protections around the data as well so it does not fall into inappropriate hands. On that note, the amendments provide that the courts can refuse to share data in narrow circumstances, such as in the unlikely event that the data sharing would affect the fair trial of a person. One has to say that fairness has to underpin the justice system and the processes that go through the justice system, so having that important caveat seems to be good common sense. Identified data held by the chief statistician is subject to rigorous security measures, making it very unlikely that such circumstances would arise, and I just say that because obviously this kind of data can be very sensitive but at the same time be very helpful in informing policy and the continual improvement of our justice system.

On a further note, I did just want to speak briefly to extending digitally recorded evidence. The bill will enable the ongoing use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief in family violence offence or family violence intervention order proceedings. I did state that from the outset, but I am just emphasising a further point. It can facilitate the early resolution of cases, reduce the burden on frontline police and help to hold perpetrators to account. I meant to mention that from the outset. These are further advantages that we can see from availing this form of providing evidence for evidence-in-chief in the chamber. The sunset date was included in the division because it was originally on a trial basis, but of course those matters have been duly acquitted.

I have only got 25 seconds. The bill will amend the model defamation provisions in the Defamation Act 2005 to clarify the liability of digital intermediaries when third parties use their online services to publish defamatory matter and extend the defence of absolute privilege to matter published to police. So I am just circling back to my original premise, and that is to ensure that we encourage victims of family violence to come forward.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:51): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. I want to flag early that I may not need my entire time on this, because the member for Malvern made a very clear and concise contribution on this bill. Without just putting ‘ditto’ and saying, ‘Read the member for Malvern in Hansard,’ I want to make a brief contribution on some of the parts of this bill.

We do know that the bill does look at crime statistics – which were released today, and not that well either; I did not think they were going to – electronic signatures, digitally recorded evidence in some cases, and I believe that is in regard to police-worn cameras, and various defamation offences. It will also amend the Public Interest Monitor Act 2011 and many, many other matters. It does cover off on a lot of housekeeping, for want of a better word. I think the most important part is that it will extend the defence of absolute privilege to reports made to police. As has been explained earlier, this protects in the event that an alleged perpetrator tries to bring a defamation suit against someone who reported an offence, therefore granting them complete immunity. I think this goes to our attitude not just in the government but in the whole state of Victoria of ‘If you see something, say something’. I know there are cultures around the world where if you see something, you shut up and keep walking, and we do not want to be in that situation. Without turning us into any more of a nanny state, I am certainly a supporter of any notion or any laws that give people the courage or the confidence to speak up.

Under Victorian Labor we have seen a massive increase in violence and violence against women, as was mentioned by the member for Albert Park. Not a day goes past that we do not see something on the news, whether it is in metropolitan Melbourne or regional Victoria. This bill supports all of our endeavours to make sure that violence against women – this cowardly behaviour, this gutless behaviour – is prevented. We want to do all we can to stop this occurring in our communities. It will probably never stop. We would like to think it could stop one day, but I think we just have to continue to improve how we keep our processes going forward to reduce the amount of violence against women and all people in our community.

I will touch on the digital intermediary – Twitter, Facebook, social media. We know that the current laws are very broad and the common-law test for publication is also very broad. Currently anyone who contributes to the publication of defamatory work is seen as a publisher, and that means a digital intermediary can also be liable. We have heard about cases in America and how this bill will certainly strike that balance. Digital platforms will only be able to avoid defamation where they have an accessible complaints mechanism – that is the seven days that we heard the member for Malvern talking about. If they receive that complaint and put in place access prevention steps, that can certainly resolve that issue. Of course if they do not, then obviously defamation may still have occurred. At the end of the day, as the member for Malvern said, is seven days too long or is it too short? Maybe that is something that could be revisited somewhere down the track – who knows. But certainly you do have to pick a number, and today’s number is seven days, so we will stick with that for the time being. We all know about Facebook trolls. We all see those keyboard cowards in our communities and on our Facebook, those people wanting to comment. But it is not about us; I think it is more about young people. We see that younger children are getting access to social media at a much younger age – whether that is the parents’ fault or whoever’s fault does not matter. These children are getting access to social media, and again we need to do all we can to protect these young people from being bullied and harassed, because we see some terrible outcomes that have come because of social media. I think there is a lot more work we can do in this space as we go forward, but I think that is more of a national discussion than necessarily a state discussion.

We know that it also amends the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011. Clause 105 expands whether the Premier will get an advance copy of certain integrity reports. Previously that was limited to the Attorney-General and the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety; clause 105 will now include the Premier and the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Again, I do not have a problem with that advance copy, provided the public know that that is the case. We cannot continue to have this secretive government with people not knowing what is being advanced to the Premier. If that is the case, that is fine; as long as everybody does know about it, I am okay with that. Clauses 70 through 72 amend the Racing Act 1958 to amend the racing integrity commissioner’s power to issue a confidentiality notice. Racing is a massive industry in our state. In fact they are racing in Wangaratta today. There is a tip in race 9. You may need to speak to the Shadow Minister for Racing. There is a horse in race 7 that he fancies, so it might be worth having a chat to him. It might be an omen bet, I think – it has got something to do with nuclear. But obviously Sean Barrett and Bill Carlisle’s integrity is absolutely the utmost in Wangaratta. Anyway, in this bill anything we can do that puts steps in place to improve any corruption or impropriety in the racing industry is always very much welcome. Clause 106 amends section 88 of the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011 and will expand circumstances where the Victorian Inspectorate may give advice of the outcome of an investigation or inquiry.

The amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 clarifies that a person is not entitled to obtain access to documents under part III which contain information that is open to public access, whether or not that access is free. I think that is a good step forward. It also clarifies that an agency must comply with notification requirements if reasonably practical to do so. It will enable the information commissioner to make preliminary inquiries and consult parties to determine whether a matter can be informally resolved but more importantly will require the information commissioner to assist individuals to make a complaint in writing if they are unable to do so. This will amend the process by which the information commissioner can issue confidentiality notices during an investigation into a public interest complaint.

The bill will also clarify that the Victorian Inspectorate rather than the IBAC has responsibility for monitoring compliance and procedural fairness requirements in the issuing of a confidentiality notice, and of course it will require the information commissioner to give a written report to the Victorian Inspectorate, specifying the details of a variation or revocation as it relates to notices to produce or attend that have been issued. It also amends the existing requirements to be met by the information commissioner after inspecting a document claimed by an agency or a minister to be exempt.

It does cover off on many other amendments and many other acts: the Freedom of Information Act ‍1982, the Judicial Commission of Victoria Act 2016, the Local Government Act 2020 and the Ombudsman Act 1973. As I said, it tidies up lots of acts, and I did commit to the fact that I was not going to go my full time. But I want to flag that I will finish a little early, that I do support the comments by the member for Malvern and that we will not be opposing this bill.

Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (10:59): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. This is a bill which proposes a variety of small but important improvements for our justice system and our integrity agencies. As always, I would like to thank the Attorney-General for the work that she is doing in the justice space as well as her very hardworking ministerial office and the department for the work they did on the reforms in this bill, which has included consultation with a vast number of relevant government bodies and stakeholders.

Among amendments proposed in the bill today are those impacting particularly on women’s safety, an issue that it is very, very important to me, including the removal of a potential deterrent to making reports to police and making permanent the option to use digitally recorded body camera evidence as statements in family violence proceedings. I am proud that the Allan Labor government is continuing to deliver our strong community and women’s safety agenda. Victoria is leading the nation in the prevention of family violence and the focus on women’s safety. We have implemented all 227 ‍recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and dedicated more money and more effort than any other Australian government, but we know there is more work to do. I would like to acknowledge that we have got the Minister for Consumer Affairs in the Parliament and the role that she has played as the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, a really, really important role in terms of the implementation of those recommendations from the royal commission.

Just a few weeks ago, the Allan Labor government announced further measures to build on our ambitious agenda, which will change laws, change culture and deliver new support for victim-survivors, with upcoming justice reforms around family violence, intervention orders, stalking and personal safety. These reforms will enable a better response for victims when violence occurs, and further, these reforms will deliver a stronger justice response that holds offenders to account and continues Victoria’s world-leading prevention response, stopping violence before it starts. Significantly we are rolling out the saturation model in my community of Ballarat, a first for Victoria and Australia, following the murders of Samantha Murphy, Rebecca Young and Hannah McGuire earlier this year in my community, a model that will support new and existing programs and activities to change attitudes and behaviours and that will drive down violence against women and girls.

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024 proposes a variety of improvements, including to the use of evidence in family violence proceedings, to defamation law in relation to online content as well as reports to police, to the use of electronic signatures in criminal matters, to the provision of court data for statistical analysis and to the operation of several Victorian integrity agencies. In order to achieve this, amendments are made to more than a dozen pieces of Victorian legislation, including the Defamation Act 2005, the Criminal Procedure Act ‍2009 and the Crime Statistics Act 2014.

One minor amendment with important implications is the repeal of section 387P of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, which will permanently expand the statement options for proceedings related to family violence offences and family violence intervention orders. It will do so through allowing the use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief, a statement recorded by police as soon as practicable after a family violence incident, using a body-worn camera. Allowing victim-survivors the option of using recorded evidence in family violence proceedings means that they are not required to relive their experience later on in order to produce a statement in writing or in a police interview. Instead these recordings can be used in court in the place of a written statement. This is very important – not re-traumatising victims who have already suffered so much. This can be a vastly improved process for victim-survivors. The resulting digital evidence can also be more powerful, as well as less easily minimalised, than a written statement read aloud by a judge. Other benefits may include the earlier resolution of cases and a reduced burden on police. In Victoria the use of digitally recorded evidence in family violence proceedings was introduced on a trial basis starting from 2018 following recommendations from the 2015 Royal Commission into Family Violence. However, as it stands, this trial is set to conclude in October. The bill removes that sunset provision from the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 so that digitally recorded evidence will remain an ongoing option for family violence proceedings.

This bill will also amend defamation law to remove a potential barrier to reporting crimes to police. Concerns regarding the potential for defamation action and in some cases the outright use of this possibility as a threat have the potential to dissuade victim-survivors from seeking police assistance. This is addressed through amendments to the Defamation Act 2005, which will extend the defence of absolute privilege to all reports made to police. The defence of absolute privilege currently applies to certain proceedings from courts, tribunals and parliaments, meaning that statements in these contexts are completely immune to defamation suits. When applicable this can lead to the summary dismissal of defamation proceedings or discourage them from commencing at all. Without absolute privilege the alternative defence of qualified privilege would require proving that several criteria have been met through time-consuming, stressful and potentially retraumatising court hearings. Victim-survivors should be able to report to police and be absolutely secure in the knowledge that they will not be subject to defamation proceedings as a result. There should be no doubt for anyone that reporting to police is not defamatory, and these amendments will ensure that.

Other amendments to the Defamation Act relate to digital intermediaries, being third parties that provide or administer online services where content is published. This could cover a search engine or a social media platform, for example, or even a person who sets up a page on a social media platform. A digital intermediary is not the original author or poster of potentially defamatory content but rather someone who has provided the means for that content to be disseminated. Our current defamation laws are ill equipped when it comes to the liability of digital intermediaries, and greater clarity is needed. To this end this bill proposes reforms that will exempt a certain class of automatically generated search results from defamation claims; allow materials of amends made in response to defamation claims to include offers to block content; require that courts consider certain matters, including privacy and safety, before granting discovery orders in defamation proceedings; provide a defence for digital intermediaries if they have sufficiently effective mechanisms to receive and action complaints; empower courts to order that digital intermediaries remove access to defamatory material from their platforms; and facilitate the electronic provision of defamation-related documents when indicated. Together these reforms will better equip our justice system to deal with defamatory content in the digital age.

The bill will also clarify some current uncertainty surrounding the use of electronic signatures in criminal proceedings. With the proposed changes electronic signatures will be valid for all documents under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 without requiring any specific consent from the receiving party. This will reduce the administrative burden on police and courts as well as improve processes for all involved, as witnesses will have the choice of signing electronic documents out in the community rather than attending a police station to sign hard copies.

Another area that I will quickly talk about is court data, and it is a key aspect of this bill in statistical analysis and policy creation. Currently the chief statistician can require the provision of police law enforcement data for use in research and reporting, yet the same does not apply to data from our courts. The result – a lack of consistent data – hampers their ability to analyse trends and journeys across the justice system and use this analysis to better shape policy. We all want good policy and we want evidence-based policy to make our justice system better and fairer and safer, and that is why it is so important that we resolve issues regarding access to court data. With the time I have left I commend the bill to the house.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (11:09): I too rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. Can I from the outset thank the member for Malvern for his comprehensive speech this morning on this piece of legislation and his huge amount of work over the past couple of weeks diving into the detail not only of this but of other legislation before the house this week. This is a comprehensive bill that covers a range of changes to justice legislation, including the collection of crime statistics, the use of electronic signatures in criminal proceedings, the use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief in family violence proceedings, defamation changes in relation to reporting offences, defamation changes in relation to defences available to internet platforms, amending the powers of the Public Interest Monitor and a range of other minor amendments to integrity agencies.

Can I start on the minor and technical changes that are made to crime statistics and particularly permitting greater access to court data for the chief statistician. Improving the chief statistician’s capacity to analyse how individuals interact with the justice system will help us make more informed decisions on future justice reform opportunities. These reforms are badly needed because the justice system here in Victoria is failing to keep Victorians safe. It is timely that we are debating this bill today, when we saw the latest crime statistics for Victoria released this morning for the year ending March 2024. I would have thought maybe the manager of government business might have wanted to schedule this debate for yesterday, before these crime statistics were released this morning, because what we can see in the statistics that were released today is that crime in Victoria is up again. It has increased by 10 per cent over the year ending March 2024. At the same time that we are seeing crime rates increasing in Victoria, we are seeing police numbers down, with nearly 1000 vacancies across the state. As the member for Malvern spoke about, the lack of police resources and the vacancies when it comes to cops on the beat mean that police stations are having to close. They are having to reduce their hours, and Victorians are not feeling safe here in Victoria in their homes, in the streets or in their businesses.

When we look into the statistics this morning – and we are just diving into the detail now – what is clear is that youth crime is once again rising, with a 20.1 per cent increase. That is a huge increase year on year on top of the overall 10 per cent increase. In the City of Boroondara, where the electorate of Kew falls, we have seen a 6.9 per cent increase in crime across the board. If we look at the data from the previous release, the year ending December 2023, the statistics are incredibly concerning for my local community: a 69 per cent increase in aggravated burglary, a 54 per cent increase in motor vehicle theft and a 58 per cent increase in retail theft year on year. I do not go a day when I do not hear from a local resident or a local business owner that is concerned about their own safety or, in the case of small businesses, about theft attempts and people coming into their premises and into their places of work and attempting to commit a crime.

Aggravated burglaries in particular are keeping local residents up at night. People are breaking into their homes while they are trying to sleep, and they do not feel safe. We have situations where children are scared to be home. They do not feel safe in their own homes, and their parents come to me and say that the terror of having your home broken into at night, in the case of an aggravated burglary, is something that stays with you forever. There are many wonderful things about our local community, and I am sure we are at the top of the leaderboard in many different cases, but one issue that I am not proud to be at the top of the leaderboard in is in relation to aggravated burglaries. Eighty-three offences in the year to December 2023 in Balwyn and Balwyn North places those suburbs fifth on the aggravated burglary leaderboard in this state. People in Balwyn North and of course in Kew, Mont Albert and Canterbury are very, very concerned that there is nothing being done by this government to reduce the rate of aggravated burglary, and in many cases this is related to youth crime.

Can I also point to the increase of retail theft and aggravated theft on small businesses. Just a couple of months ago a local IGA in Willsmere Village in Kew was robbed by a group of young people wielding an axe and knives. The footage of this robbery is chilling. To see someone come into the village with an axe and hold that axe to the shop attendant’s throat while the other three offenders rob the store is simply shocking, and it is something that left that shop attendant absolutely fearful for his life. And this is not the first time that this has occurred for this local small business owner, Danny Kashyap, who actually also owns an IGA in the member for Malvern’s electorate. His Armadale IGA was also robbed at the same time. Danny has been very, very clear. He said, ‘I feel very, very let down by the government.’

This is not an issue that is being addressed by this government. I heard the member for Albert Park say before that community safety is doing what it is right to do. Well, I would say it is actually a core responsibility of government to ensure that we have the resources so that our criminal justice system is working and to ensure that we see our crime statistics decrease rather than increase, as they have over the past 12 months. If you look across the board, whether it is car theft or car break-ins – we heard just last week that the member for Sandringham had a local community safety forum where it was advised to leave your keys on the front bench and put an AirTag in your car – this is simply not acceptable in the state of Victoria.

Can I take a moment, though, to thank the local Neighbourhood Watch groups in my area. Boroondara Neighbourhood Watch, run by Suzanne Dunlop and George Offord, do an enormous amount of work not only to shine a light on the local crime issues in our area but to make sure the community are well aware of the steps they can take to help keep themselves safe. On that note, can I also thank our local Boroondara police, led by Inspector Sandy McIver. They do an incredible job under Inspector McIver’s leadership of responding to crime in our area. Victoria Police are doing their job but they are under-resourced, and time and time again right across the board here in this state they will say to us that they are able to catch offenders but by the time they finish their shift in the morning they are out on bail. We know in March this year the Allan government weakened bail laws in this state, abolishing the offences of breaching bail conditions and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. This has resulted in what we are seeing today in the crime statistics and the increase in particular when it comes to youth crime. We are seeing more and more offenders committing crimes, getting released on bail and committing those crimes time and time again, terrifying our local communities and ensuring that Victorians do not feel safe at night.

We also see that the Labor Party intends to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 this year, further weakening laws to tackle youth offending. This is at a time when we know that the current system is not working, is not keeping Victorians safe, and we need to make sure that at the very core of what we do as elected representatives here in the Parliament is put community safety first and foremost. It is a non-negotiable for government to prioritise the community safety of Victorians and of our local communities. What we have seen today is an increase in crime rates right across the board and a 10 per cent increase here in Victoria. We are seeing a thousand vacancies when it comes to Victoria Police, and unfortunately Victorians do not feel safe in this state.

Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (11:19): I am very happy to rise to make my contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. It is a very big bill with many facets and nuances, and I would like to thank the member for Malvern for his contribution. It was great to hear your inside voice for a change; I appreciate that. But I certainly did ‍–

Michael O’Brien interjected.

Paul MERCURIO: Like the member for Ovens Valley, I feel like you have covered it pretty well and I might just sit down, but my community did give me a seat at the table and I will take the opportunity to continue. From memory – and I have only been here for a year and a half – this bill is so big that the second-reading speech, which is normally about two pages, is 14 pages long, so there is a heck of a lot of information in this bill, and I thank everyone who worked on it.

Just so the people at home get an idea of the amount of changes in this bill, I will outline that this bill is for an act to amend the Crime Statistics Act 2014, the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the Defamation Act 2005, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, the Judicial Commission of Victoria Act 2016, the Local Government Act ‍2020, the Ombudsman Act 1973, the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014, the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012, the Public Interest Monitor Act 2011, the Racing Act 1958, the Spent Convictions Act 2021, the Surveillance Devices Act 1999, the Telecommunications (Interception) (State Provisions) Act 1988, the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011 and more – and I am exhausted, but I will keep going with a little more detail.

This bill will make changes to the Crime Statistics Act 2014 so that the chief statistician can access court data, will amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 so that electronically signed documents are admissible in criminal proceedings and will allow the continued use of digitally recorded statements. It will make technical and procedural amendments to various integrity and justice acts to improve how they operate. It will also amend an act that the Leader of the Opposition would be well aware of, the Defamation Act 2005, so that nationally developed reforms can be enacted. Essentially this bill is bringing our justice system up to speed in 2024 by allowing things we all do in everyday life, like electronically signing documents, and by extending the use of digitally recorded evidence so there are more options for our victim-survivors so they are not burdened any more than they need to be as they go through the justice system.

We also know that a good number of people within our communities want to see our justice system perform the best it can, and this bill provides the chance for our justice system to improve. Allowing the chief statistician to access court data helps them understand how people interact with our justice system from the first time they talk with police up until the very final outcome in the courts. They use this data to make linkages with other data so they can develop better policies, identify what may be causes of concern in the future and bolster the delivery of justice services.

Some might be listening to this and thinking, ‘Doesn’t this open it up to people accessing data that they shouldn’t be seeing?’ Well, this bill ensures that only authorised people will be able to access court data and also makes sure that unauthorised access or disclosure of data is an offence and can land a perpetrator in prison for up to five years. The chief statistician will work within the framework of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014, and this bill also provides protection to ensure that the chief statistician can only access data that is needed for statistical analysis. Just that measure alone for the use of digitally recorded evidence will help protect victim-survivors, who are predominantly women. This government will always do what it can to protect the safety of women in our community.

This bill also makes very pragmatic changes, like allowing the use of electronic signatures, bringing parts of our justice system into the year 2024, as electronic signatures are used by a variety of different organisations and systems these days. This reform will resolve any ambiguity, enable justice agencies to confidently use existing technology to capture signatures electronically and increase agency efficiencies and reduce system delays. If you do still want to sign physically, that is an option that will remain available. It is just about making things more accessible and efficient.

The bill also makes important changes to provisions in the Defamation Act 2005, and one of these crucial changes is to extend the defence of absolute privilege to matters published to police. These are reforms led by Victoria and are aimed at addressing what effect the threat of defamation can have on sexual violence and harassment reporting. It amends section 27 of the Defamation Act to extend the defence of absolute privilege to reports published to officials of Australian police forces or services acting in their official capacity, providing a complete immunity and defence to a defamation claim. This provides vitally crucial certainty to those who are reporting matters to police, knowing they will be protected against a defamation suit for that report. This just removes another barrier that people sometimes face when making the decision to go to the police or not. Victims should absolutely feel confident and comfortable making reports to police and not be scared under a cloud of a potentially long and costly defamation suit.

When it comes to sexual harassment and violence, victims should absolutely feel like they are protected in sharing what has happened to them with police. For too long have we seen massive amounts of under-reporting based on many different factors, but one we all hear about way too often is that they are fearful to come forward. They are fearful to report because it may come back to the perpetrator, who could then use many avenues to inflict more pain, stress and anxiety. This could be done through a defamation suit, which is not only a long process but a massive financial burden to someone going through an awful time. This bill will bring down that barrier, and if it only helps one person to have the confidence within themselves to report, then that is a win in my eyes.

One of the other wins in my eyes is the ongoing use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief in family violence proceedings. One of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence was recommendation 58, which encouraged and supported a trial of digitally recorded evidence, primarily from body-worn cameras on police officers. The first trial was started in 2018 and was subsequently extended through to June 2023. But there was a sunset clause put in for the trial, and that is now due to be repealed in October 2024.

Allowing the use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief means that victim-survivors of a family violence incident can continue to have a choice to make a statement either via a police-issued body-worn camera or in writing. The strength of this means it allows the victim-survivor to provide their statement in their own words at the time of the incident, which can obviously be a far more powerful tool than a statement which was written down at a later date. It is also considered that providing a statement in this way may eliminate or minimise the need for a victim to relive their experiences when giving an interview at a later date. Additionally, there is some anecdotal evidence and there are reports that recorded evidence can lead to the accused entering a guilty plea earlier to proceedings thanks to them being able to physically see the video evidence from the scene of an alleged domestic violence incident, and I think that is an absolutely fantastic thing.

As mentioned previously, this bill is also making various technical and procedural amendments to a variety of integrity and justice acts to improve the operation and effectiveness of our integrity agencies, such as changing the name of the Victorian Inspectorate to Integrity Oversight Victoria and the Inspector to the Chief Integrity Inspector. These are very simple changes but will make the public better understand what their roles are, and I certainly agree with that. It provides greater protection of information about a person’s sexual orientation under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014, enables search warrants to be issued to allow an IBAC-authorised officer or a police officer to execute a search warrant and delivers on procedural amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to support better administration processes.

To summarise this debate, the passing of this bill will provide more avenues for victim-survivors of sexual harassment and violence to report to police and allow greater access to court data for the chief statistician so they can find ways of improving our justice system from top to bottom. Also, this bill makes some minor but needed amendments to a few justice and integrity acts so those agencies can run more effectively. I see this bill as improving justice and integrity and, crucially, providing protections for those dealing with the awful scourge that is sexual harassment and violence. I commend this bill to the house.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (11:29): I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024, and a very big shout-out to the member for Malvern for the absolutely comprehensive contribution that he made. I dare say after the work he has had to do in the last couple of weeks he is looking forward to the winter break – very much so.

A member interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Well, it is cold, Minister. I had a beanie on this morning myself. I would wear one in the chamber if I could. The bill is an omnibus bill covering a variety of different matters involving crime statistics; the use of electronic signatures in criminal proceedings; allowing the ongoing use of digitally recorded evidence in family violence proceedings; defamation changes in relation to reporting offences; defamation changes relating to defences available to internet platforms; the amendment of the powers of the Public Interest Monitor, or the PIM, under two statutes; and a variety of amendments to integrity agencies operating in Victoria.

I will start on the crime statistics. I was disappointed today on the release of the crime statistics to see that for my electorate of Narracan the crime statistics have gone up 12 per cent. That is very disappointing. At the moment in my electorate we are struggling for police numbers. I actually do need a new police station in Drouin. I need a 24/7 police station in Drouin because of the influx of population into Drouin, and that has not been forthcoming. The police station they are currently working in was built in 1974 and is pretty well not fit for purpose – not to mention Trafalgar, which also needs a police station 24/7 and also my community of Rawson, which is right up in the very north of my electorate. That has a one-man station. We will now lose that station and the closest police response to there will be 40 minutes away. I think in the year 2024 any community deserves to be safe.

We can see that by the rise in aggravated burglaries in homes across Victoria it is not just isolated to the electorate of Narracan. We see them on the news every night. We can see our communities now are fearful at night. Once upon a time – and I have been guilty of this many times – I used to leave my doors unlocked and my garage door open with my keys in the car. I might have got home a little late and forgot to lock everything up, but I was never worried about an aggravated burglary. Well, I do not do that today, especially in the position I am in now, because unfortunately people do know where I live. I keep my house well and truly locked up. I think our communities deserve to feel safe. The only way we can do that is through policing, and at the moment we are about 1000 officers short in the state, which is obviously making our community feel on edge.

It was interesting to note when the statistics came out that retail theft has increased quite considerably. There is some narrative around that that the increase in retail theft is to do with cost-of-living pressures. People cannot afford to eat, so they are stealing. I think it is beholden on this government to really get cost of living under control to help in that retail theft space.

But what I really do want to touch on today in particular is the social media aspect of the bill and the defamation section of the bill around social media. I have some fairly strong views on social media. Today in the space around social media I am actually really pleased to see this defamation section come into it, but I do not think we go far enough on social media and in social media safety, especially for younger adults in our community. What is concerning me more and more on social media is the trolls we get. I do not think anyone in this chamber is immune to a social media troll. They can post some pretty average stuff about MPs or whatever, but this is not about us. What I would like to see in the social media space is all accounts having to be verified, because if all of a sudden all accounts on social media are verified accounts, it is easier to track the person that is committing the gross content or the defamatory content or the violent content. I think that would be a good step forward in society and also to protect our young people.

It is unfortunate now with social media. When I was kid and I came home from school, I was safe. Once I got through my doors no-one could bully me anymore. I was at home with Mum and Dad. It was a safe space. I do feel really sorry for our youth today that when they get home they are not safe through cyberbullying, and we have seen time and time again young adults and teenagers committing suicide because of cyberbullying. I think we need to focus in on the social media side of things. I really do think every account should be verified so you can backtrack to the moron that is putting the posts up. I think it is really important. I think our youth deserve to grow up feeling safe at home, feeling safe when they open their phone. I think at the moment – and I am not going to aim this at the state government, because I think it is probably more a federal issue – we need to do this Australia-wide. I think we need to take a step in the right direction on that, and I think that will go a long way, especially for youth to have better mental health, if they know they are protected when they open their phone.

My other point to this, and I have mentioned it in this chamber previously, is the people that video violence for clicks or likes. I have said this before in the chamber: I think it is gutless. It really annoys me, it really does, that you see people videoing something going on rather than helping. I can appreciate not everyone can jump in and help. Not everybody has that physical ability to prevent someone getting bashed; I get that. I do not have a problem with people videoing, let us say, an assault, for example, to give to the police to say, ‘Hey, here’s the mongrel that did this.’ I do not have a problem with that, but I do have a really big problem with people videoing stuff like the incident – and I am happy for anyone to correct me on this – down on Beach Road or somewhere where these young blokes were driving in a car and videoed themselves hitting a cyclist, and he went sprawling across the road, just for social media. I think we should really bring in laws to say: if you video violence for social media content, you will be convicted. There is the law there, but if we had the verification of the social media accounts it would make the policing of that very easy, because they would link it straightaway. It is something I am actually quite passionate about. I cannot wait to see a federal approach to verification of social media accounts to actually stop this side of it.

This bill, with the defamation side of it, is a good step in the right direction, and also with the reporting of family violence and domestic violence. We know those statistics are up as well. I will take on board what the government said – that they have agreed to all 227 recommendations – but it is still up and we are still on the rise, so anything we can do to protect the most vulnerable in our community I will always support. The coalition – and obviously the Shadow Attorney-General stated it earlier – do not oppose this bill. I think it is a good step in the right direction, but I would like to see little bit more done especially around the social media aspect so our youth can feel safe when they come home.

Jackson TAYLOR (Bayswater) (11:39): It is a great pleasure to rise today and speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. Can I first just say a big thankyou to the Attorney-General and her team for all of her work and their work in preparing what is a really crucial bill and what is an important bill that will make some very important reforms. Thank you of course to all of the stakeholders who were part of the lengthy consultation and all of the detail that went into this bill, which is really important when we are making amendments around our criminal justice system and a range of matters which are discussed in this bill. Can I also say a big thanks to the department and to the minister’s office. It has been really great to listen to some of the speakers that I have just been listening to in this place. The member for Wendouree spoke very eloquently about the detail of this bill and why it is a critical piece of legislation.

Steve Dimopoulos interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: Probably more eloquent than me, Minister, I have no doubt. But it is wonderful that you are here listening. I am not sure if it is by choice, but either way.

It was also great to hear the member for Hastings’ contribution – very thoughtful and considered, as always. I never expect any less. I did tune in to the member for Malvern’s contribution from my office earlier, and it was a very decent contribution on his part as well. I do not usually touch on the contributions of members of the opposition, but I will say that having had a little baby recently and hearing the member for Narracan and talking about some of the conversations that are occurring now around social media and some of the harm that can be caused, it does worry me – having a seven-year-old and the world he will grow up in on social media. So it is important to keep having those conversations. I appreciate the member for Narracan talking about that. Obviously he is very passionate about it.

It is really great to be part of the Allan Labor government. We are constantly looking at ways that we can reform and improve the justice system to ensure it reflects the community’s expectations. We have a number of justice legislation amendment bills on police and other matters which we continually bring into this place to do exactly that – to make sure we have a modern justice system that updates over time. In 2024, in the 21st century, with people’s expectations of what is expected and how technology relates to the justice system, it is important to keep bringing this type of legislation to the house. It also makes sure that we support victim-survivors. It is critically important that we continue to do that and look at ways to reform the system. I know that there is always more work to do in that space, and I am really proud be part to a government that is doing that really important work and, as we know, making sure we give our police and our emergency services the powers and the tools that they need to keep people safe.

I can understand members wanting to talk on behalf of their communities and raise issues and advocate and all these sorts of things, but one thing I will never do in this place is try and divide. I will never try and scare or fearmonger. For me it is about talking my community up, advocating within government and making sure we are giving the police the tools and powers that they need. I hope the conversation can remain that way in this place today – that we are talking about this legislation, talking our communities up and supporting them, not trying to scare and divide, like some have in the past and some may do in this debate.

I know that this Allan Labor government has a very proud and strong track record when it comes to supporting our police and making our communities safe, whether it is the record investment into police ‍– billions of dollars, with thousands more police officers on the streets, keeping our communities safe. We are investing not just in their numbers but in their resources and the police academy, where I had the great privilege of being back in 2013. Was it 2013? It was 2013 – it feels like a lifetime ago now. Every time I go back there is always new investment and new training. The family violence training centre – that is probably not the exact wording for it – that is now there is absolutely state of the art, making sure we are giving our new constables and new recruits the tools and the training they need to be able to get out there and respond from day one. I know they go out in their first placements in their third month and then in subsequent months of their training at the academy. Then of course after graduating from the academy, we are making sure they have the skills and tools to support victims of family violence.

When we talk about the training and we talk about the tools, one of the things that is covered in this bill is of course making sure that police are able to take evidence via body-worn cameras and present it in court. That is now going to be a fixed thing, which is crucially important. I just missed the body-worn cameras coming in, but I know from talking to police officers, to the frontline members who are out there, it has been a fantastic tool in making sure victims are able to tell their story; although, to be quite frank, when I went to family violence incidents 99 per cent of the time I took a statement at the time. But the power of hearing someone’s story on a body-worn camera is a great thing. It is an important tool, and it is something that I know that victims have valued and has aided in the prosecution of people in the criminal justice system, making sure that their stories are correctly captured and provided in evidence. That is something that I am really proud that this bill is doing. Capturing body-worn camera evidence for family violence offences is really a critically important tool.

Of course I talked about the police numbers. We also know that we have now rolled out tasers across the state. This is critically important. I remember when I was there, we were going through trials and the regions were getting access to them, but that has now been rolled out across the state. It is an important tool for police officers to keep them safe, to keep the community safe but also to keep offenders safe. It is something that I know has been welcomed by the Police Association Victoria and by police members and another thing that this government has done to give our police the tools and powers that they need.

When we talk about family violence, a really important step this government took was making sure Victoria Police could make permanent family violence detective positions. Now there are so many family violence detectives in those positions permanently – properly recognised – and I know they are doing an incredible job. I know people that I used to work with who are detectives in the prevention of family violence space. It is incredibly challenging work, but it is indeed very, very rewarding. I was very pleased to see that and of course more prosecutors as well. That was something that the government obviously delivered in the last term as well – more prosecutors – making sure the criminal justice system can function as efficiently as possible.

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: What is that, member for Point Cook? An extension of time? No, I have 2 ‍minutes left. Thank you, member for Point Cook. We have provided new digital technology – new iPads, new phones – making sure police have the resources when they are out on the streets to be able to communicate effectively, whether that is with D24 – the central police communications centre, for those of you who do not know what D24 is –

Mathew Hilakari: So much better than what you had.

Jackson TAYLOR: It is. I used to have what was called an MDT, mobile data terminal, a clunky thing connected to a keyboard. The driver used to tell the passenger ‘bumps’ when they were going over speed humps so they did not type anything in incorrectly. I would have loved the phones and the iPads, make no mistake about that, but that is something that is supporting our police officers to do their important work.

I also want to say a big thankyou to police out in my community. Indeed all Victorian police officers do a wonderful job. They did an incredible job during COVID, a very difficult job. They deserve every ounce of our respect and thanks when we see them out there. Thanks to the Knox police station, the Boronia police station and of course all the police force across the Knox area. They do an incredible job. It was wonderful to catch up with Inspector Pam Hawker and Senior Sergeant Ben Oakley from Boronia police station recently to talk about some of the trends we are seeing and to talk about some of the important work they are doing not just in the reactive space but also in the prevention space, working with communities. I know they recently held a community safety forum which was extremely well attended. It was an opportunity for people in the Knox area to hear from police about the work they are doing and to build awareness about how they can look after themselves and how they can be a part of helping your community to stay safe. I commend this bill to the house, and I thank our wonderful frontline police for doing the work they do.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (11:49): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

I do so because here in Victoria we have come to a crisis with our crime statistics. Today the crime statistics have been released across our state, and we have seen a 10 per cent increase across the state in all crimes. That is something that is putting more and more victims at risk across the whole of Victoria. We know that we need to see a debate in this place around the crime statistics, and we have already put on the notice paper six or seven notices to ensure that we have got something here to debate. Those debates include moving that the house notes that crime rates in Victoria continue to increase and there is a continuous move to violent crime.

Violent crime in Victoria is so out of control under Labor that this year alone we have seen an 18.4 ‍per cent increase in aggravated burglaries. This is where someone is breaking into a person’s home, generally with a weapon, and terrorising them in their own house. This government is doing nothing about it. We had a report into youth justice in 2017 that has collected dust until such time as two days before we had the crime stats come out highlighting a 20 per cent increase in youth crime. That is a 20 ‍per cent increase – extra. We have had a 25 per cent increase plus since 2018. Why? Because this government has done nothing when it comes to dealing with the crime crisis here in Victoria.

It is not hard: if you reduce police numbers and you close police stations, you will increase crime. That is the thing that is absolutely guaranteed. It is not hard to work that out. In Victoria we have got 43 ‍stations that are temporarily closed or unavailable to the public because this government do not give the police the resources they need. The Labor government promised they would deliver 502 extra police here in our state. At the time they announced that there were 16,159 frontline police. To achieve that they would have to go to 16,661 police. But, you know what, they are at 15,842. That is 317 less police to respond to incidents here in our state, so it is no wonder youth crime is up. It is no wonder that during a cost-of-living crisis theft from shops has increased, and we do not have the police to solve it. But it has got so bad. I have met with shop owners down in Geelong, and they have said they do not even report any crime under $100 anymore, because it is not worth the time for them and they do not get the police response they need, because they do not have the resources down there. Yet there was still a 34 per cent increase in shop stealing across our state. This is all impacting all victims, who deserve that protection across our state, and again we have got a government that is doing nothing.

We have theft of motor vehicles up 23 per cent and theft from motor vehicles up 18.6 per cent, and the scariest part of all this is that more than 40 per cent of crimes in the state are not being solved. So for every crime that does not get solved, you have got an offender who thinks they can get away with it and will continue to commit those crimes. Worse are those that are getting caught, particularly our young violent offenders in this state who commit the armed hold-ups in retail stores, which we saw just recently in Bayside, where victims were terrorised at work. They need protection. Teens were terrorised with people with knives coming into their stores. What the government are not telling you is that these kids were on bail. They had already committed violent offences. Ash Gordon died in this state because this government failed to fix the bail system and keep a violent offender locked up. Let me assure you it is going to happen again.

That is why the opposition today are moving this adjournment, because this should be and must be the absolute priority in this state. Crime is out of control. The growth corridors are seeing more crimes than they have ever seen in the past. In areas like Cardinia it is up 13 per cent. In Mildura it is up 10 ‍per cent. It does not matter where you go, crime continues to increase, and the government’s answer to this is to bring out a document that does nothing to address the crisis we have in youth crime in this state.

The biggest challenge we have is the minister is so useless he actually cannot go out and say we have a crime crisis and youth crime issue here in Victoria. The youth justice system that he oversees is effectively run by the 14- to 18-year-olds who are inside that system, because this government will not give it the resources it needs. They have cut funding when it comes to crime prevention here in our state, and until they reverse these issues, until they reverse that funding cut, until they start to listen to the experts out there and we take the worst criminals off our streets, nothing will change. Crime will increase and people will be less safe under Labor.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (11:54): I rise to oppose the member for Berwick’s motion, and I hope that we can get back swiftly to government business. In talking about the words of the member for Berwick in bringing the motion, I would rebut them pretty simply by saying that, as Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell put it, this is a government that is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The member for Berwick talked about some of the multifaceted dimensions that lead to higher incidence of crime, and they are complex and myriad. That is why the fantastic Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Corrections, the Minister for Police, the Premier and others have spoken to the media this week about this government’s landmark reforms to improve the system of youth justice, to ensure that we have earlier intervention that wraps around young people who are at risk and to lower the incidence of crime – of violent crime and of crime that has an impact upon our communities.

There is both the need to intercede early to reduce the incidence of crime, which the bills that have been talked about and will be introduced and debated in this place will do, but also then the need to respond where crime does occur, much as the fantastic Victoria Police in my community at Broadmeadows and Craigieburn do every day. I am very fortunate to have a good relationship with the police in my area. They have been incredibly responsive to concerns that I have raised on behalf of the community and that I know community members raise with them on a daily basis.

The incidence of crime is not necessarily driven by any single factor, but the police are there irrespective of that every single day working hard to keep our community safe, both in Greenvale but also I know across Victoria. The Minister for Police – the outstanding Minister for Police – has spoken with me recently about the double intakes that the Victoria Police Academy have had out in, I believe, the member for Glen Waverley’s electorate. It is rolling through constantly, ensuring that we have a new cohort of police coming into service on a very regular basis filling vacancies across the state, working in rural and indeed metropolitan areas of our state. As I said, there is a need to intervene early to ensure that young people who are at risk of getting into a spiral of crime are supported, are intervened with, if that is the correct way of putting it, to make sure that there is really effective early intervention that keeps communities safer, that those who are perpetrating crime are dealt with by the justice system so that they are not able to further threaten the community but also so that those who are at risk of getting into that spiral are intervened with much earlier in a much more effective way so that communities can be kept safer.

I do note on the government business program that if indeed we were to take the member for Berwick’s advice and adopt his motion, we would be moving to a nuclear power motion in the next step of the government business program today. The member for Berwick may very well wish to discuss the benefits of nuclear power generation in the Latrobe Valley, or maybe there is a push on to get one in Beaconsfield Upper – I am not entirely sure. But I suggest that the legislation that was being considered by the Parliament just before, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024, which contains very significant provisions around court data and also speaks to some of the need to improve the evidence base around crime, punishment and justice in our state, is a worthy piece of legislation. A number of members from across the chamber, including the member for Narracan and the member for Bayswater, spoke very eloquently about the role that Victoria Police play in their communities responding to crime but also about the way in which Victoria Police proactively work with community to lower the incidence of crime. That I think could have been a useful forum to ventilate some of the issues that the member for Berwick sought to cover in his speech on the motion. I think we should be getting back to the consideration of that bill. I think it is an important bill that many in the Parliament wish to add the voice of their community to before the guillotine comes later on today.

I also think that the work that the Minister for Police and the Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Corrections have done in this space is very worthy. It is important work. It is going to be nation-leading work. It is going to be keeping communities safer. My community wants that work to be done and for this government to continue being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, so I oppose the motion and I hope we can get back to the government business program.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:59): We must urgently debate the crime crisis in Victoria, and that is why the member has moved to adjourn debate. We must do it now; we must do it urgently. The time for action is now. The government have spoken today, trying to explain away why this Parliament should not be debating this urgent issue, and they have said, ‘Well, the Premier and the minister have talked to the people this week.’ So what? The Premier and the minister have done talking – well, frankly, have done nothing – for far too long. And what has happened as a result? We have seen a massive spike in crime over recent years. But in this last year, in the data released today, we have seen a 10 per cent increase across the board and a 20 per cent increase in youth crime. What is the government proposing to do? Nothing. They have brought a bill into this place which does nothing except soften the law further. It is absolutely outrageous. We have seen bail laws softened at a time when we need tougher laws. We need tougher laws on punishments, and we need tougher laws on bail.

In my community in Bayside over the weekend we saw that young teens working in local grocers were attacked by a gang of thugs, one of whom has so far been arrested – only one. These thugs have come in with knives. The profound impact that has had on those workers has been extraordinary, and they should not have to put up with this in their workplace. Why should they? But this is what is happening in the community because the Premier is ignoring these crimes. Do you hear the Premier ever talk about this crime crisis that is happening in Victoria? Absolutely not. All you hear the Premier do is try and talk down the importance of them. Talk about gaslighting victims – how outrageous. Every time you see a crime, a knife crime especially, you hear a minister or the Premier walk out and talk down the crime that has occurred, and it has happened now for years. But we have got to the point where the data that is being released is showing what the community already knows, so the government cannot keep hiding from it. You see it with aggravated burglaries, up 18 per cent this year ‍– up 18 per cent in one year. I know about these crimes because they have happened proportionately more in the Bayside community. They are almost 150 cent up over the life of this government.

Ten years ago home invasion was a concept you did not even know about. Now it is regular in Bayside in many of our streets. In some streets in my community there have been multiple cases over time of home invasion. But it is not just those crimes; there has been a nearly 23 per cent increase in motor vehicle theft and an almost 35 per cent increase in theft from retail. And you hear that from traders. Traders talk about this. That is one in three. I mean, these numbers are huge, and you hear that from traders. You would think the government would actually care about business at a time that business is doing it tough, but of course the government is just ignoring these crimes. We have seen 43 police station closures. Over the last year there has been a 3 per cent reduction in police and over the last two years a 5 per cent reduction in police. How can you allow this, if you are a government, at a time that these crimes are getting more vicious and more violent?

When you talk to the police privately, they are calling it out. On Saturday after these crimes occurring, the police were contacting me and saying, ‘Please, please tell this left-wing government to do something about the law, to do something about bail.’ And you feel for these hardworking police men and women, because they are trying to look after their community. They are putting themselves at risk for all of us, and they are saying they want action from this government, not a Premier who is ignoring these crimes. That is what this government does – ignores these crimes. It is absolutely outrageous. We must urgently stop debate. We must debate these issues, the issues of this crime crisis in Victoria, because we need action now. We need tougher laws. We need to toughen bail. We need action now.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (12:04): I am rising to say that I am not surprised. We are getting quite used to these sorts of stunts in Parliament, and I wonder if after life in politics the member for Brighton might not get a job as a stuntman.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is an important procedural motion, not an opportunity for the Labor Party to sledge other members. It is an important question before the house, and I would ask the member to be brought back to that procedural question.

The SPEAKER: Member for Yan Yean, this is a procedural debate. I ask you to stick to the procedural debate.

Lauren KATHAGE: Thank you for your guidance, Speaker. The reason that I do not wish to adjourn the current debate is because the bill that we are debating, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024, is important. The reason that this bill is important is because it continues the important work of supporting victim-survivors of family violence to have the appropriate support when they are reporting crimes, and it also enables police to act and support them in those reports in a way that is efficient for the police, because this side of the house will always support police in what they need to do. We know that the work we are doing to reduce the admin burden on police is important. It is important for their job satisfaction and important for them to get through their work. That is why I do not wish to adjourn debate, because I want to talk about the justice legislation amendment bill.

These are important changes that we are bringing in. This is all in line with the work that we have been doing in response to the Royal Commission into Family Violence. The work around defamation protections in the bill that we want to discuss and we are meant to be debating includes also supporting women who have experienced perhaps sexual harassment or aggression in workplaces and the like so that they are empowered to speak up and to seek justice for bad things happening to them. We are trying to overcome those barriers, and your stunt is simply stopping us or delaying us from giving those added protections and assurances to victim-survivors. To me that is repugnant, because our work of supporting victim-survivors of family violence should not be stopped by men yelling in the chamber who want to have their own way and talk about what they want to talk about. Let us get on with the important work of government of supporting victim-survivors through these policy changes.

As I touched on before, it is important because it is also supporting Victoria Police, who I want to say do a fantastic job, and these changes mean that their work, which we value so greatly, is made easier. We know that the work that we are doing to ensure that people in our community are safe goes on. I know the member for Berwick made an outrageous claim about crime prevention funding which is simply not true. But again I am not surprised, because those opposite seek stunts, seek headlines. I thank the member for Berwick for his offer of a briefing, but having gone through the budget papers myself and having had the opportunity to question the relevant minister as a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, I would be happy to refer the member for Berwick to the transcripts of the PAEC sessions, where it is very clearly set out.

I would ask those opposite not to seek to inflame community concern by this stunt and this faux outrage. I would ask them to allow us to get on with the business of the day, and the business of the day and the business of every day of this government is to provide support for victim-survivors of family violence. It is to provide support to women who have been made voiceless by yelling and aggressive men. We in this chamber will not take it from those opposite, and women in our community should not have to take it either.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (12:09): I rise to support the call by the member for Berwick, the Shadow Minister for Police, to adjourn this debate to talk about the issue that absolutely matters to each and every Victorian, and that is community safety. There is nothing more important right now than to address the issue of ensuring that Victorians can feel safe in their own home, in their workplace and on the streets, and at every single measure the Allan Labor government is failing to deliver when it comes to community safety – absolutely failing. If you want an example of that, you only have to look at the crime statistics today. That is why we should be debating this today, because the crime statistics show a 10 per cent increase in crime right across the board and a 20 per cent increase in youth crime. This has not happened overnight. This is through a decade of a tired Labor government that has not done the work to keep the community safe. It is appalling to think that this government want to bury their heads in the sand and not deal with reality.

There is no question that each and every member in this Parliament would have had constituents come to them and talk about crime issues. For family violence, dealing with car theft and home invasions, in every single measure there has been a failure. For youth crime the government only now are looking at really touching the edges of the very issues that are activating young people to a life of crime. It is horrific to think you have got people as young as 10 years of age that are being courted into a life of crime. There is no ability to rehabilitate them and no ability to get them off the street. The only focus is to get them graduated to a life of crime – not in a school or in an area where they can actually benefit themselves and the community but unfortunately to a life of crime.

It is an absolute disgrace that this government has done nothing, absolutely nothing, when it comes to that. We know it in a number of the figures that we see: theft of motor vehicles up 23 per cent. I hear it each and every day. It is so bold and brazen to think that whether it be motor vehicles, whether it be people’s homes, home invasions, we are seeing these figures increase 20, 30 per cent, up year on year on year on year. What does the government say? ‘Well, you know what, we’ll just forget about it. We’ll talk about something else.’ Well, I tell you what, when someone is coming into your house in the middle of the night – I have had my daughter talk about this because she has many friends who have experienced this. Imagine a 20-year-old young person having to deal with someone coming into their home in the middle of the night while they are sleeping and ransack their home and threaten them and their safety. That is a failure. That is an absolute failure.

I hear the government talk up Victoria Police, and no-one will talk up Victoria Police more than our Shadow Minister for Police, who is a former member of Victoria Police. He knows what it is like, and we know what it is like because we talk to Victoria Police. Georgie Crozier, a member for Southern Metropolitan, and I have visited a number of stations in the last few weeks in our electorate to talk to frontline Victoria Police, and do you know what they tell us? They tell us they are exhausted. They are exhausted because they are under-resourced; they do not have enough staff. People say that you can do a double shift. They do not want to do double shifts. They do not want more money. They just want to rest, but because they do not have enough police, they are forced to get out there and do this every single day. They are absolutely exhausted. If you look at what has been happening locally in terms of some of these protests, these police have to babysit these protesters each and every day.

The government has failed in providing more police and the government has failed in providing more police powers, and ultimately this has kept our frontline police vulnerable. It has made them vulnerable. You have an exhausted police officer having to go out on the beat because they do not have enough staff; you have a police officer that does not have enough powers to do things, so they have to nurse people because this government has watered down their powers each and every time. Police are literally doing their job with one arm tied behind their back. Enough is enough. Give police the powers, give police the resources and give police the support. Do not just talk about this. This is a complete failure of an Allan Labor government that has done nothing. Statistics talk; the numbers talk today. It is an absolute failure. It is a disgrace that our Victorian community cannot feel safe because this government has failed to provide police with the resources and the powers to do their job.

Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (12:14): I do note the adjournment debate that the member for Berwick has brought on, and I guess the thing that I note about the opposition is that they have got a lot of stunts to do every week. We expect these stunts just to roll through week by week, but –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate, not a sledge motion.

The SPEAKER: Member for Point Cook, I ask you to speak to the motion before the house.

Mathew HILAKARI: Of course. There is an adjournment motion in front of us, and it is important that we do have this debate at this point in time. There is some relevance with where we might go next, but I might come back to that in a moment. Just to finish the point there, there is a set procedure in this house that occurs all the time from the opposition, but the only thing that they have got more of than stunts is new candidates for Leader of the Opposition. We have heard from the member for Berwick, the member for Brighton and the member for Caulfield. I did not realise you were putting your hand up as well; it is great to see. I see the member for Bulleen enter the chamber. I will get back to the importance of why we should –

Members interjecting.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is an insult to the victims, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the important motion that is before the house.

The SPEAKER: Member for Point Cook, this is a procedural debate. I ask you to stick to the procedural debate.

Mathew HILAKARI: I see that we get to these adjournment debates often, because I think there is probably not a lot left to say from those in the opposition. What we are talking about is an important bill. An important bill is in front of us at the moment in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024, and it goes to the matters of court data and improving the accessibility to the evidence in court proceedings – and around defamation law. It always does make the opposition a little bit nervous when we start to talk about defamation law. It raises the temperature just that little bit for everybody there. Defamation is a little bit of a touchy word, I see, for those opposite. We do have important matters that we do want to discuss in this place, but it is not for lack of having more matters on the agenda. I do go to the next item of business in the orders of the day, which is about nuclear power. I am glad to see that the opposition is in a rush to talk more about nuclear power in this place, because it is in an interesting debate that the Nationals leader has brought up. When I have invited those members opposite –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member has now twice defied your ruling.

The SPEAKER: Member for Point Cook, come back to the motion before the house.

Mathew HILAKARI: Of course. I do enjoy talking about the adjourning of this debate and what we might be thinking about next in terms of the debate, and that is of course nuclear power, which is on the notice paper. That is why I just think that maybe this is a good point in time that the member for Berwick has brought up that maybe it is something that we should be adjourning, and maybe we should be thinking about that next set of debates. The nuclear power plant that is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition federally in –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, three times you have advised the member to return to the question as to whether or not the house adjourn – the issue being debated. The member is not doing that, defying your ruling repeatedly.

The SPEAKER: Member for Point Cook, I remind you again this is a procedural debate.

Mathew HILAKARI: We do have a lot to say on this bill, even if those opposite do not, but we do have a lot to say on the next order of business as well. I might finish up my words there, and I look forward to –

Members interjecting.

Mathew HILAKARI: I am happy to talk about the seismic activity down in the Loy Yang area and the earthquakes that we are going to experience where we put the nuclear power plant. I look forward to you threading that needle. But having said that, I look –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, 12,000 victims in the last year in the member’s electorate –

The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until later this day.