Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (11:20): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025.

In my opinion, the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill seeks to improve the operation of the Victorian legal and justice systems by implementing the following reforms:

• allowing the lower courts and VCAT to vary or revoke a ‘legacy suppression order’ made by that court or tribunal (to give effect to Recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court Report)

• supporting the Coroners Court of Victoria to streamline investigation finalisation and reopening procedures

• enabling more doctors to register deaths and clarifying their death reporting obligations

• amend fines and tolling legislation, and make minor fines-related amendments to other Acts

• clarifying the delegation powers and acting arrangements of the Public Advocate in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019

• amending the Crimes Act 1958 to broaden the definition of ‘bestiality’ and prohibit the possession, production, distribution and accessing of bestiality or animal abuse material

• extending the operation of provisions supporting the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, and

• enabling the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to carry out certain administrative functions under the Road Safety Act 1986 more efficiently.

Human Rights Issues

Some of the Bill’s reforms involve technical amendments that do not impact Charter rights. The following rights are relevant to the Bill:

• recognition and equality before the law (section 8)

• the right to life (section 9)

• freedom of movement (section 12)

• privacy and reputation (section 13)

• freedom of expression (section 15)

• freedom of association (section 16(2))

• protection of families and children (section 17)

• property (section 20)

• liberty and security of person (section 21)

• humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 22)

• the right to a fair hearing (section 24)

• rights in criminal proceedings (section 25).

For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and, to the extent that any rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and justified.

Amendments to the Open Courts Act 2013 to implement Recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court Report

The Bill amends the Open Courts Act 2013 to improve access to justice for victim-survivors of sexual and family violence offences, and other interested persons. It promotes open justice by allowing persons to apply to the lower courts or the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to vary or revoke a ‘legacy suppression order’ made prior to the commencement of the Open Courts Act on 1 December 2013. The Bill refers to these orders as ‘pre-existing orders’.

Right to privacy and reputation

Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, and not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. This right does not encompass lawful and non-arbitrary interference with a person’s privacy.

The Bill will empower the lower courts and VCAT to review a pre-existing order. Applications of this type are currently only able to be made to the Supreme Court under its inherent jurisdiction. This is costly for applicants. The Bill will mirror existing Open Courts Act provisions to allow applicants to apply to the lower courts or VCAT to vary or revoke a pre-existing order. This will uphold the principle of open justice, a main purpose of the Open Courts Act and a fundamental aspect of Victoria’s legal system.

A decision to revoke a pre-existing order would have the effect of removing the prohibition on the publication of specific information from a proceeding, including, for example, the names of parties or witnesses. This engages but does not limit privacy rights. The reforms also recognise that in certain situations, a person’s right to privacy outweighs the open justice principle.

Right to freedom of expression

Section 15 of the Charter provides that all persons have the right to freedom of expression. This includes the right of the media to attend and report on court proceedings. Open justice is a key purpose of the Open Courts Act and helps to maintain the integrity and impartiality of Victorian courts and tribunals, and strengthen public confidence in our justice system.

The making of a suppression order engages the right to freedom of expression, but is recognised as an appropriate limitation of that right. The Bill does not expand powers to make suppression orders under the Open Courts Act, but instead provides clarity on powers to review pre-existing orders. The reforms will enhance the freedom of expression of victim- survivors, their families, the media, and other interested parties, by providing an accessible avenue to apply to vary or revoke pre-existing orders that may otherwise continue indefinitely.

Protection of families and children

Section 17 of the Charter provides that families are entitled to be protected by society and the State, and that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in the child’s best interests and is needed by the child by reason of being a child. The Charter and Open Courts Act define a ‘child’ as a person under 18 years of age.

The Bill promotes the rights of children by ensuring that, in circumstances set out in new section 37(4), a pre-existing order is not revoked where the person the subject of that order is a child who was the victim or alleged victim of a sexual offence or family violence offence. This recognises children’s special vulnerability and protects them from harm, including the risk of undue distress or embarrassment associated with revealing their identity. The Bill will not affect the operation of important restrictions on publication of proceedings that relate to children, including section 534(1) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.

Right to a fair hearing

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to a fair and public hearing.

Pre-existing orders are suppression orders made prior to the commencement of the Open Courts Act on 1 December 2013. These proceedings have likely concluded, yet many pre- existing orders made as part of those proceedings continue to operate. The reforms are limited to the operation of pre-existing orders and do not engage rights associated with the conduct of a substantive criminal or civil hearing. The Bill nevertheless includes a provision akin to section 15(1A) of the Open Courts Act to allow a court hearing an appeal from a proceeding in which a pre-existing order was made and continues to operate, to review that order.

In Knight v Wise [2014] VSC 76, the Supreme Court held that the right to a fair hearing includes the common law right of unimpeded access to courts. The Bill promotes access to justice for victim-survivors and other persons by enabling the lower courts and VCAT to hear applications to review pre-existing orders made in those courts or tribunal. Currently, a person must apply to the Supreme Court under its inherent jurisdiction to review these orders. This attracts higher costs and may therefore limit access to justice. The Bill provides that relevant persons (those listed in section 15(2) of the Open Courts Act), are entitled to appear and be heard on a review of a pre-existing order. This ensures that all persons with a sufficient interest in whether a pre-existing order should be confirmed, varied or revoked are afforded procedural fairness.

The Bill does not introduce new powers to prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure of information in connection with a proceeding. To the contrary, it promotes the right to a public hearing by empowering persons to apply to the lower courts or VCAT to vary or revoke a pre-existing suppression order that may otherwise operate indefinitely.

Enabling the Coroners Court to streamline investigation finalisation and reopening

The Bill amends the Coroners Act 2008 to:

• enable Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) pathologists to register certain natural cause deaths with Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM) at the direction of a coroner

• limit standing to apply for coronial findings to be set aside to applicants with a connection to the deceased or the investigation

• allow the Coroners Court to set aside coronial findings on its own motion where new facts and circumstances make it appropriate to do so.

Section 9 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to life. The positive duty to protect life carries a ‘procedural obligation to undertake effective coronial investigations where required’, as found in international jurisprudence and outlined by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Charter. To be effective an investigation must be prompt, accessible to the deceased’s family, and the investigation process should enable a determination about the death to be made.

The Coroners Act amendment to allow VIFM pathologists to register certain natural cause deaths with BDM may promote the right to life by facilitating the finalisation of eligible death investigations as soon as possible by streamlining administrative processes.

The amendment to allow the Coroners Court to set aside findings on its own motion may promote the right to life by ensuring that the Court can further investigate deaths where required, regardless of whether an eligible person applies for findings to be set aside.

I do not consider that these rights are limited, and, if they are, I consider any limitations are reasonable and justified. These amendments will generate efficiencies for the Coroners Court and VIFM, improving outcomes and reducing distress for families within the coronial system. Resulting efficiencies may also enable the Coroners Court and VIFM to direct resources to complex investigations where there may be opportunities to prevent further deaths.

Amendments to the Infringements Act 2006, the Fines Reform Act 2014, the Road Safety Act 1986, the Marine Safety Act 2010, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and tolling legislation will strengthen fines enforcement

The Bill will make relatively minor and technical fines-related amendments that do not directly engage any rights protected under the Charter. These include changes to allow more than one infringement notice to be withdrawn using a single notice of withdrawal, removing the requirement for applicants for an extension of time to deal with their traffic or toll fine to produce a statutory declaration or sworn or affirmed statement in support of their application, and clarifying that the first payment under a payment arrangement must be made before a driver and vehicle sanction that has been imposed on a fine defaulter will be removed.

The following amendments made by the Bill might appear to have the potential to engage rights relating to criminal proceedings:

• the changes to facilitate the service of certain fines-related documents through an online portal

• the changes to deem fines-related notices sent electronically to have been served in certain circumstances even if they have been returned undelivered

• the minor amendment to reinforce that infringement notices can be sent electronically

• the changes to clarify that enforcement warrants issued electronically do not need to be issued in the (hard copy) prescribed form, and

• the changes to clarify that the Director, Fines Victoria can apply for an enforcement warrant against a fine defaulter the subject of an existing outstanding warrant even if a notice of final demand has been served but not expired.

In particular, these amendments may appear to engage the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and reason for a criminal charge, and the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence and communicate with a lawyer or advisor that are protected under section 25(2)(a) and (b) of the Charter, respectively.

These changes do not, in fact, engage the rights in section 25 of the Charter, however, because these rights only apply to persons charged with a criminal offence. Neither an infringement fine, nor a court fine, is a formal criminal charge. For this reason, I consider that these amendments are compatible with the rights contained in section 25(2)(a) and (b) of the Charter.

In any event, I note that the amendments will not result in fine recipients being treated unfairly or adversely impact on their ability to pay or otherwise deal with their fine.

In relation to the amendments to facilitate the service of fines-related notices through an online portal, this portal is only intended for use by enforcement agencies and other third- parties who agree to this form of information exchange – the portal will not be used to send notices to fine recipients themselves.

The amendment relating to the electronic service of infringement notices is minor and technical only. The change inserts a Note in the Infringements Act 2006 to clearly state that infringement notices may be served electronically under the existing electronic service provisions of that Act. Those provisions support the electronic service of fines-related notices (including infringement notices) where the fine recipient consents to receiving the notice electronically, is of or over the age of 16, and has provided an electronic address for service.

These safeguards apply to any fines-related notices sent electronically, and notices will only be deemed to have been received if returned undelivered in these circumstances. Both the Infringements Act and the Fines Reform Act 2014 already deem notices sent by post to have been received even if they are returned undelivered, in certain circumstances. For notices served under the Fines Reform Act, these circumstances include where the notice has been sent to an address supplied by the intended recipient themselves in a fines-related application. The proposed change will apply the same rule to notices sent electronically to an address supplied by the intended recipient themselves. The Department of Justice and Community Safety will continue to develop appropriate policies to guide the use of electronic service.

The amendments relating to electronic enforcement warrants do not impact adversely on a fine defaulter’s ability to obtain relevant information about the warrant. Section 14 of the Sheriff Act 2009 provides for the requirements for executing electronic warrants, including a requirement that the person the subject of the warrant be provided with specified details about the warrant and a copy of the warrant powers summary. The legislative provisions relating to the issue and execution of electronic enforcement warrants are well established, and the changes simply address an anomaly that appears to require even electronic warrants to be issued in the form prescribed under regulation 23 of the Fines Reform Regulations 2017.

The changes to clarify the circumstances in which an enforcement warrant may be issued against a fine defaulter will allow effective and timely enforcement action against individuals who have demonstrated a failure to pay their fines despite having had many opportunities to do so. Where an enforcement warrant has already been issued to the person, they will have already had the benefit of the service and expiry of a notice of final demand to pay or otherwise deal with their fine.

Clarifying delegation powers and acting arrangements in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019

The Bill includes amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019. The Bill inserts an example at the end of section 19(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act to clarify that a delegation under that section includes the Public Advocate delegating to a specified class of Public Advocate employee all of the Public Advocate’s powers and duties under VCAT orders made under Part 3 of the Act. This includes guardianship orders and other related orders. The Bill also enables a person to be appointed as an Acting Public Advocate under the Act during a vacancy in the office of the Public Advocate.

The operation of the Guardianship and Administration Act and the role of the Public Advocate has the effect of restricting the autonomy and limiting the rights of people with disability, including the right to equality (section 8), freedom of movement (section 12), privacy (section 13(a)), freedom of expression (section 15), freedom of association (section 16(2)), liberty (section 21), and to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 22). For example, a guardianship order may confer on a guardian a range of powers in relation to a ‘personal matter’ of a represented person, including powers to determine where the represented person lives and with whom the represented person associates. The exercise of guardianship powers conferred by a VCAT order may involve decisions that restrict the movement and liberty of the represented person for reasons such as health, safety or protection. These limitations are addressed in the Statement of Compatibility to the Guardianship and Administration Act.

The amendments in this Bill are technical and administrative in nature. They do not provide new powers to the Public Advocate that limit a person’s rights, but may instead promote these rights by:

• ensuring guardianship powers conferred by VCAT orders can be appropriately delegated and exercised in a timely manner, particularly during an emergency or crises, and

• promoting consistency in the appointment of an Acting Public Advocate through a robust, independent and unambiguous process.

The Bill will improve the Office of the Public Advocate’s service delivery and efficiency, improving outcomes for people who have the Public Advocate appointed as a guardian. The amendments will reduce the risk of delays and inaction where urgent guardianship assistance is required, promoting the human rights of people with a disability. All guardians are required to act within the rights-based principles in the Guardianship and Administration Act to ensure the promotion of the will and preferences and wellbeing of the represented person.

The Bill will also ensure that an Acting Public Advocate appointed during a vacancy is made independent of government and subject to the rigorous appointment processes of the Act, including a requirement for the Acting Public Advocate to take an oath or make an affirmation that they will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of office. These amendments will help safeguard the rights of individuals who are unable to make decisions for themselves due to disability by providing the most suitable persons to make those decisions on their behalf.

Amendments to the Crimes Act 1958 will amend the definition of ‘bestiality’ and create new indictable offences to prohibit the possession, production, distribution and accessing of bestiality or animal crush material

The Bill amends the Crimes Act 1958 to expand the offence of bestiality and criminalise the production, distribution, possession and accessing of animal abuse material. The reforms will introduce new offences intended to disrupt and deter the supply of bestiality and animal abuse material (including ‘animal crush’ material) in, and connected to, Victoria by ensuring that targeted laws apply to those who create, share and consume such content. The new provisions engage the right to freedom of expression (section 15) and the right to property (section 20).

Right to freedom of expression

The Bill defines ‘animal abuse material’ and contains new animal abuse material offences that criminalise the production, distribution, possession and accessing of animal abuse material, and exceptions and defences applicable to those offences. These amendments engage the right to freedom of expression under section 15 of the Charter as they impose lawful restrictions on the freedom of expression.

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. However, section 15(3) provides that special duties and responsibilities attach to this right, which may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

In criminalising the production, distribution, possession and accessing of animal abuse material, the Bill does limit freedom of expression. However, the construction of the provisions ensures that freedom of expression is only subject to such limits under the new provisions as are lawfully necessary – in particular, for the protection of public morality. The definition of ‘animal abuse material’ inserted by the Bill incorporates an objective standard of the view of ‘reasonable persons’ and allows for the surrounding circumstances to be considered in determining the intent of the relevant material.

Additionally, the Bill provides for exceptions and defences that promote freedom of expression within acceptable lawful restrictions. These include an exception for classified material (e.g. film and video games) and a defence of public benefit or fair and accurate report. The latter provides a defence where the material has a genuine artistic, agricultural, educational, legal, medical, scientific or veterinary purpose.

The purpose of the new animal abuse offences, in addition to protecting animals, is to protect the public from being exposed to violent and shocking material by criminalising and punishing such conduct. I consider that this falls within the internal qualification of section 15(3) of the

Charter, including the protection of the rights and reputations of others, public order and public morality, such that the right to freedom of expression is not limited.

Right to property

New sections 61D to 61H allow for the court, on application of the Director of Public Prosecutions or a police officer, to make an animal abuse material disposal order in respect of a seized thing, or of electronic material contained in a seized thing. Such an order may provide that the seized thing or electronic material be forfeited and either destroyed or otherwise disposed of in a manner determined by the court. In addition, the Bill amends the Confiscation Act 1977 in relation to the disposal of animal abuse material if a person is convicted of an offence set out in Schedule 1 to that Act. These reforms engage the right to property under section 20 of the Charter.

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that the powers authorising the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law; formulated precisely; confined, clear and structured; and accessible to the public. To the extent that the provisions in the Bill may result in the deprivation of property, I am of the view that they do not limit the right to property as the deprivation will be in accordance with clear, accessible and precise legislated criteria, and subject to the oversight of a judicial officer.

Extending the operation of the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court

The Bill amends the County Court Act 1958 and Sentencing Act 1991 to extend provisions supporting the operation of the Drug Court which are due to sunset on 26 April 2026. The Bill will promote the right to a fair hearing under section 24 of the Charter.

Section 24 of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to have the charge decided by a competent, independent and impartial court after a fair and public hearing.

The Drug Court is a specialised court that targets the complex needs of offenders with a drug or alcohol dependency. To access the Drug Court, participants must plead guilty to drug and alcohol-related offences and engage in activities aimed to treat drug and alcohol dependence, such as detox and rehabilitation programs.

Some participants may not have pleaded guilty if the program was not available to them. If the Drug Court provisions were to lapse, participants may lose the benefit of a guilty plea made with expectation of access to the Drug Court, if the drug and alcohol treatment order were no longer an available sentencing option following their plea of guilty.

Enabling the Magistrates’ Court to carry out administrative functions more efficiently

The Bill amends the Road Safety Act 1986 to enable the Magistrates’ Court to automate certain administrative functions by use of automated systems, such as its Case Management System (CMS). The amendments will allow the Magistrates’ Court to receive certain documents via the CMS, without requiring such documents to be received by a registrar. These documents include reports on the execution of search warrants under the Road Safety Act, notices of applications relating to interlock conditions and notices of appeals against immediate licence suspension or disqualification.

Right to recognition and equality before the law

Section 8 of the Charter provides that every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination.

The Bill will promote the right to equality before the law by increasing access to justice for Victorians. Currently, court users may be required to travel significant distances to physically file documents with a registrar, or may have difficulty determining how documents must be provided to a registrar. The amendments will enable the Magistrates’ Court to offer less complex and more convenient ways for court users to file documents, which may be particularly beneficial for court users with disabilities or from regional areas.

Right to privacy and reputation

Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have that person’s privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

The amendments relating to search warrants executed under section 84ZO of the Road Safety Act are confined to allowing reports on the execution of such warrants to be submitted to the Magistrates’ Court, including via the CMS, without requiring such reports to be submitted to a registrar. The amendments do not alter or extend police powers in relation to the execution of search warrants under the Road Safety Act, and do not allow for arbitrary or unlawful interference of a person’s privacy, family, home or correspondence.

The Hon Sonya Kilkenny MP

Attorney-General

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning) (11:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025 amends various Acts to improve the operation of the courts and justice system. The Bill will:

•   implement Recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court Report

•   amend the Coroners Act 2008 to streamline investigation finalisation and reopening procedures

•   amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to enable more doctors to register deaths and clarify their death reporting obligations

•   amend fines and tolling legislation, and make minor fines-related amendments to other Acts

•   clarify the delegation powers and acting arrangements of the Public Advocate in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019

•   amend the Crimes Act 1958 to broaden the definition of ‘bestiality’ and prohibit the possession, production, distribution and accessing of bestiality or animal abuse material

•   amend the County Court Act 1958 and Sentencing Act 1991 to extend provisions supporting the operation of the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, and

•   amend the Road Safety Act 1986 to enable the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to carry out certain administrative functions under this Act more efficiently.

Implementing Recommendation 133 of the 2020 Contempt of Court Report to promote open justice

The Bill will implement Recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s (VLRC’s) 2020 Contempt of Court Report (Report) to enable applications to lower courts and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to vary or revoke ‘legacy suppression orders’ made by those courts or tribunal.

Suppression orders are an important function of court proceedings that prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure of specific information. The VLRC’s Report uses the term ‘legacy suppression orders’ to describe suppression orders made under the common law or repealed provisions in court Acts, prior to the commencement of the Open Courts Act 2013 on 1 December 2013. The Open Courts Act consolidated the general powers of the Supreme Court, County Court, Magistrates’ Court, VCAT and the Coroners Court to make suppression orders and closed-court orders, however it does not address legacy suppression orders.

Legacy suppression orders generally do not have an end date, unlike suppression orders made under the Open Courts Act, which operate for a maximum of 5 years. This means that legacy suppression orders still in force today will operate indefinitely or ‘until further order’, contrary to the principle of open justice. Open justice is a fundamental legal and democratic principle. Victim-survivors of sexual or family violence offences, the media, and other interested parties should not be unduly silenced, particularly where an adult victim is able and willing to share their lived experience. Upholding the principle of open justice also promotes personal responsibility by holding perpetrators accountable to the community, whilst simultaneously raising public awareness of these significant issues.

The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision of Chairperson of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants v Director of Public Prosecutions Victoria and Others (2020) 61 VR 490, handed down after the VLRC’s Report was tabled, casts doubt on the power of the lower courts and VCAT to review legacy suppression orders. Therefore, currently, only the Supreme Court can review legacy suppression orders under its inherent jurisdiction in the Constitution Act 1975. Applying to the Supreme Court is a costly process that can restrict access to justice for applicants, including victim-survivors, and unnecessarily strain the resources of the Supreme Court.

The Bill will allow the lower courts and VCAT to review legacy suppression orders made by that court or tribunal. These are referred to as ‘pre-existing orders’ in the Bill. Further, where there is an appeal of a substantive proceeding, the appellate court will be able to review the pre-existing order made in the lower court or tribunal and make any order that that court or tribunal could have made under the Open Courts Act.

The amendments largely mirror existing suppression order review provisions in the Open Courts Act. This ensures consistent treatment of pre-existing orders and post-commencement suppression orders made under the Act. The Bill will allow a court or VCAT to review a pre- existing order on its own motion or on application by:

•   the applicant for the order

•   a party to the proceedings concerned, including the victim or alleged victim in a sexual offence or family violence offence criminal proceeding

•   the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General of another State or Territory or the Commonwealth

•   a news media organisation, or

•   any other person who the court or tribunal considers has a sufficient interest in the review of the order.

The Bill empowers victim-survivors of sexual and family violence offences to take control of their story, by requiring the court or VCAT to revoke a pre-existing order if the victim-survivor gives permission for the revocation, is 18 years of age or over, and it is otherwise appropriate in all the circumstances for the pre-existing order to be revoked. The Bill will also allow the court or VCAT to confirm a pre-existing order, where appropriate. Where a pre-existing order is confirmed or varied, from that time it will be treated as a suppression order under the Open Courts Act unless otherwise ordered. This will futureproof these orders.

It is important to acknowledge that open justice is not absolute, and that competing considerations may necessitate the continuation of an order to suppress or restrict the publication of certain information, including, for example, the identity of a party or witness. Where a victim or alleged victim of a sexual or family violence offence applies to revoke a pre- existing order, the Bill would prevent that order being revoked if doing so would result in the disclosure of the identity of another victim or alleged victim in the same proceeding who does not consent to the disclosure, is under the age of 18 years, or where it is not appropriate in all the circumstances for the order to be revoked. The provisions will not interfere with publication prohibitions in other Acts, such as the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, as is the case for suppression orders made under the Open Courts Act.

These important reforms will improve access to justice for victim-survivors, promote freedom of the media, and assist in holding perpetrators publicly accountable.

Enabling the Coroners Court to streamline investigation finalisation and reopening

The Bill amends the Coroners Act 2008 to establish a new finalisation pathway for certain natural cause death investigations. Where a coroner exercises a discretion to use the pathway, a pathologist or medical practitioner under the supervision of a pathologist will register the cause of death and other prescribed particulars with the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages. This will promote administrative efficiencies, enabling eligible investigations to be finalised sooner. This amendment gives effect to Recommendation 4 of the Coronial Council of Victoria’s Review of Reportable Deaths in Victora report.

The Bill also amends the Coroners Act to limit standing to apply for coronial findings to be set aside to certain classes of applicant with a connection to the investigation, and to allow the Coroners Court to set aside coronial findings on its own motion where new facts and circumstances make it appropriate to do so.

Enabling more doctors to register deaths and clarify their death reporting obligations

The Bill amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to clarify that doctors can notify the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages of a person’s cause of death, if they

are able to form an opinion as to the probable cause of death. The reference to ‘probable’ reflects the fact that a cause of death cannot always be definitively identified. This amendment aims to clarify doctors’ existing cause of death notification obligations, rather than vary them.

The Bill also amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to enable doctors who have reviewed a person’s medical history and circumstances of their death and satisfied themselves of the person’s probable cause of death to notify the Registrar of the cause of death.

Strengthening fines enforcement in Victoria

The Bill introduces several reforms to the fines system to strengthen fines enforcement, further facilitate the electronic service of fines-related notices, address inconsistencies and streamline administrative processes.

The amendments will enhance existing provisions for the electronic service of fines-related notices under the Infringements Act 2006 and the Fines Reform Act 2014 by providing certainty as to when electronic service of a fines-related notice will be deemed to have occurred, including where the communication is returned undelivered. This will place the electronic service of fines-related notices on an equal footing with notices sent by post. The existing requirements for electronic service, such as a requirement for the recipient to be of or above the age of 16, have provided an electronic address for service, and to have consented to receiving the notice electronically, will continue to apply.

It will also make changes to support the giving of certain fines-related notifications and directions to fines system stakeholders via an online portal. Stakeholders, including enforcement agencies that issue infringement fines, and authorised third party representatives who manage fines on behalf of multiple fine recipients, will be able to choose to receive information regarding the status of the fines they manage through an online portal. The changes are intended to ensure that, where this method of communication is used, it is effective and that the time of the dispatch and receipt of any communication is clear.

The Bill makes changes to improve the current rules relating to the service of fines-related notices by post under the Infringements Act and the Fines Reform Act. The changes expand the list of addresses to which a notice may be posted and be deemed to have been received even if it is returned undelivered. For enforcement agencies, being able to rely on the ‘deemed served if returned undelivered’ provisions is important because it ensures that enforcement of the fine can proceed. Currently, however, if a fine recipient has provided their address in a statement nominating another person as the person driving a vehicle involved in an ‘operator onus’ offence, notices sent to that address will not receive the benefit of the deemed service provisions. The changes will address this gap, enabling notices sent by post to be sent to the most up-to-date address provided by the intended recipient themselves. These changes will extend to the service of notice provisions in the Marine Safety Act 2010, which also contains an infringement notice operator onus scheme.

The reforms will also remove the requirement for traffic or toll fine recipients to meet strict evidential requirements when applying to the Director, Fines Victoria for an ‘extension of time’ to deal with their fine on the ground that they were unaware that it had been issued. The integrity of the process will be maintained through the retention of the requirement that the Director be satisfied that the person was not in fact aware, more than 14 days before making the application, that the fine had been issued. The changes will enable more flexibility in the sort of evidence that can be accepted in support of an application. The Bill will also make it an offence to provide intentionally false or misleading information in an application.

Lastly, the Bill will make a range of minor, technical, and procedural type changes. These include:

•   clarifying that enforcement warrants issued to fine defaulters electronically do not need to be issued in the prescribed form

•   ensuring that the Director, Fines Victoria can take effective enforcement action against a fine defaulter who is subject of an existing unsatisfied enforcement warrant and has a history of failing to deal with their fines by clarifying that the Director may apply for an enforcement warrant in respect of their other fines before the expiry of a notice of final demand served on those fines

•   clarifying that more than one infringement fine may be withdrawn by the enforcement agency that issued the fine using a single notice of withdrawal

•   ensuring the adequacy of the delegation powers of the Director, Fines Victoria

•   addressing the inconsistent treatment of court fines and infringement fines when enforcing company fines against a company director by making the date of service of a court fine collection statement as the relevant point from which the Magistrates’ Court should assess whether the person took adequate steps to deal with the fine, and

•   clarifying that if a fine defaulter on whom a driver and vehicle sanction has been imposed for failing to pay their fine enters into a payment arrangement, the sanction is not lifted until the person has made the first payment under that arrangement.

Clarifying delegation powers and acting arrangements in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019

The Bill amends the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 to enable the Public Advocate to delegate their guardianship powers to a class of employees in a general instrument of delegation rather than creating a new instrument every time VCAT makes a guardianship order or related order. This will significantly reduce the administrative burden involved in delegating these powers and improve service delivery and efficiency of the Office of the Public Advocate. The Public Advocate is generally appointed as a guardian for a person who lacks decision-making capacity to make relevant decisions themselves, as a last resort in circumstances where there is no other person eligible to appoint. The appointment can involve an emergency or crises that requires an urgent decision, such as facilitating housing. The reforms will ensure that these important powers can be delegated and exercised in a timely manner, including during short periods of absence of the Public Advocate. This will reduce risks to people in urgent need of care.

The Bill also amends the Guardianship and Administration Act to clarify the process for appointing an Acting Public Advocate when the office is vacant. The Act, as currently in force, provides for the appointment of an Acting Public Advocate during the temporary absence or suspension of the Public Advocate. This does not include a situation where the Public Advocate role is vacant, such as the period between appointments, where the process for the appointment of an Acting Public Advocate is unclear. One alternative avenue for appointment in these circumstances is appointment by the Minister under provisions of the Public Administration Act 2004. This process bypasses the stringent requirements of the Guardianship and Administration Act, including appointment by the Governor-in-Council and the appointee taking an oath or making an affirmation that they will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of office. The amendments will provide consistency for Acting Public Advocate appointments under the Guardianship and Administration Act and promote a comprehensive appointment process that is independent of government. It will also streamline future appointments of an Acting Public Advocate appointed during a vacancy in the office who has previously held that position. The Bill will set a maximum acting appointment period of 12 months to encourage the timely appointment of a new Public Advocate.

Amending the definition of ‘bestiality’ and creating new indictable offences to prohibit the possession, production, distribution and accessing of bestiality or animal crush material

The Bill will amend the Crimes Act 1958 to better protect animals from exploitative behaviours.

Currently in Victoria, acts of bestiality and animal abuse are illegal. However, the possession, production, distribution and accessing of content depicting these acts is not prohibited. This gap needs to be addressed. That is why this Bill introduces new offences that are intended to disrupt and deter the supply of bestiality and animal abuse material in, and connected to, Victoria by ensuring that targeted laws apply to those who create such content, as well as those who consume it.

The new offences will apply to material that relates to acts of bestiality, or an animal being crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled or otherwise killed, tortured or subjected to serious injury. To qualify as animal abuse material, the content must objectively appear to be intended to excite or gratify a sexual interest or sadistic interest in violence or cruelty.

The offences will be indictable offences, with the production and distribution offences attracting a 5-year maximum term of imprisonment, and the possession and access offences attracting a 3-year maximum term. These significant penalties reflect the harm this kind of conduct causes to animals, and send a clear and strong message that making, sharing and consuming material that depicts actual or realistic simulations of animal abuse is not acceptable.

Limited exceptions and defences to the new offences will be available. This includes an exception for material that is, or would be, classified other than ‘RC’ under the Commonwealth classification regime – such as films and video games – to ensure that Victorians’ access to lawful publications are not inadvertently impeded by the reforms. There will also be a defence of fair and accurate report or public benefit. This defence is necessary to ensure that the reforms do not inadvertently criminalise people in the course of legitimate conduct – for example, people producing material with a genuine educational, medical or agricultural purpose.

The Bill will also amend section 54A of the Crimes Act to expand the offence of bestiality to prohibit sexual touching between a human and an animal, in addition to the penetrative acts to which the offence currently applies. This amendment addresses a gap in our legislation to criminalise non-penetrative forms of sexual engagement between humans and animals. The existing exceptions relating to veterinary, agricultural or scientific research purposes will continue to apply to the expanded bestiality offence.

Extending the operation of the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court

The Bill amends the County Court Act 1958 and Sentencing Act 1991 to enable the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court (Drug Court) to continue operating after 26 April 2026. Provisions which enable the Drug Court to operate are currently scheduled to sunset on 26 April 2026. The amendments ensure that offenders pleading guilty to drug and alcohol related offences in the County Court will have access to the therapeutic pathway provided by the Drug Court.

Enabling the Magistrates’ Court to carry out administrative functions more efficiently

The Bill amends the Road Safety Act 1986 to allow the Magistrates’ Court to expand use of its Case Management System to perform certain administrative functions more efficiently. These reforms will modernise registry services and improve the efficiency of court operations by enabling certain documents to be received electronically.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:20): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 3 December.