Wednesday, 4 February 2026

 Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (18:01): I rise to speak this evening on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. As the house is aware after much debate on this bill today, it is an omnibus bill reaching across a wide sweep of the justice system, responding to court decisions, operational pressures, administrative inefficiencies and other areas, including emerging criminal law issues. It has been stated by members on this side that the opposition does not oppose this bill. Much of it is sensible, technical and long overdue, one would argue. There are many provisions that restore judicial balance to our courts following unintended consequences of earlier decisions. There are reforms intended to ease pressure on the Coroners Court, which are positive changes. In isolation, many of these reforms are logical.

However, there is one issue that I did want to concentrate on this evening, and that is the danger that is always in these omnibus bills that something may not be intended but is swept along in the process. That brings me to an area of the bill which has generated some genuine concern from the agricultural sector. You are well aware at this point that the ag sector is something I am incredibly passionate about. It is something I know a lot about. I grew up on a farm, being involved, and despite my better judgement and swearing as an adolescent that I would never marry a farmer, I did – I know – because they are some of the best people you will ever meet: salt of the earth, grounded, honest people, just producing food and fibre for you and for me. In fact, member for Hawthorn, you might want to pop around to my office. Deputy Speaker, you are also welcome of course. You know what, anyone is welcome to come round to my office if you can find it. I was asked to bring a couple of tomatoes in. Member for Hawthorn, being of Italian descent, you will know that a couple of tomatoes in my book means 10 kilos. So I have got 10 kilos of tomatoes to get rid of and 10 kilos of grapes to get rid of from the grape house. They are exceptional – export quality.

But this particular part of the ag sector that it concerns is particularly the animal agriculture sector. This is the expansion of the bestiality offence and the creation of new offences related to animal abuse material in the Crimes Act 1958. Let me be clear: no-one in this house defends cruelty to animals, and no-one suggests that abhorrent conduct should go unpunished – quite the opposite.

These offences exist for a good reason. But agriculture does operate in a world that is often poorly understood by those that are far removed from it – like those drafting these bills, perhaps, on Spring Street. Animal agriculture and farming involve husbandry, involve breeding practices and involve veterinary intervention, research and biosecurity practices, and at times some of these procedures may look confronting when stripped of context. That is why precision in criminal law actually matters, and that is why concern has been raised by the ag sector. It is not that the intent of these provisions is wrong, it is that the concern is that the breadth of drafting, coupled with evolving community standards, may create uncertainty for people who are lawfully and responsibly carrying out practices in animal agriculture in good faith, as has been done for a long time. It is always evolving; best practice is always evolving.

Those that are involved in the animal agriculture game love their animals. They really do. I am not one to get offended, but I do get quite offended when some take these practices out of context and try to demonise those farmers for making a living. I have had it posed to me that they are not scientists. Well, a lot of them actually are. A lot of them have applied science degrees or agronomy degrees. A lot of them are scientists, and they love their animals. I get phone calls literally every week, particularly from around the Patchewollock area and the Hopetoun area, concerning their sheep, and sheep farmers in particular love their animals. They really do. But of course they are put at risk every single day by wild dogs at the moment, since the lifting of the non-protection order and the wild dog program in the north-west of the state. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see farmers having to go out and euthanise their animals – because wild dogs do not hunt for food, they hunt as sport, and they do not kill the sheep a lot of the time; they maim them. I have had some horrific photos sent to me of sheep that have been attacked. Then the farmer needs to go out and put them down, which is not good for anybody. I always like to say it does not matter how flat you make a pancake, there are always two sides, but often there are three sides: the A side and the B side, and the truth will end up somewhere in the middle ‍– unless we are talking about CFA funding and the Labor government of course.

I do want to place on the record, though, that there have been some concerns around exemptions and defences. Exemptions and defences are not the same as clarity. A defence is something that happens after the fact; it involves a person needing to be investigated, needing to be charged and needing to be placed in a position where they have to justify their conduct. For farmers and workers, many of whom already feel like they are under siege from this government – I have spoken about this many times in this place – they feel like they are being driven out of business by the red tape, by the auditing process and by all sorts of things. This adds yet another pressure to that, which may mean they have to defend themselves after all that. Let us not forget farming communities are often very small communities. So there is the reputational damage not just for the farmer but for anyone that the farmer then supplies to. If that farmer suffers horrific reputational damage because an investigation is launched because of the unintended consequences of this bill, it could put their entire livelihood at risk, because those suppliers may then have to end contracts and it may be hard for them to find a market. Like I said, food and fibre producers in this state already feel like they are under siege, and they are. They are buckling under the pressure. Then to have parts of their farms affected by fires and to not be able to seek any disaster relief assistance from the government is just another nail in the coffin for the Victorian agriculture industry, quite frankly.

What the sector is asking for in this bill and what the consultation has shown is that they are looking for certainty – certainty that lawful agricultural practices will not be criminalised inadvertently, certainty that material created for legitimate farming, breeding, training and research purposes will not then later be judged through that urbanised lens which is divorced from agricultural reality, because that is what happens a lot of the time. The perception can be confronting when stripped of all context, like I said. It can be very, very divorced from reality. They want the law to be interpreted consistently, not emotionally.

As the member for Lowan stated earlier today, it could then open up a can of worms with regard to the group of animal activists that we have seen invading farms over the past years, which is also a biosecurity risk. Not only is it a crime to trespass on a farm, it is also a huge biosecurity risk. And with foot-and-mouth disease a very real threat, we just have to be very, very careful that there are no consequences following this bill.

 Danny PEARSON (Essendon – Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs, Minister for Finance, Minister for Government Services) (18:11): Under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated in substitution of those circulated earlier.

 Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (18:13): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, a bill that encompasses amendments to many pieces of legislation on various justice topics. However, the most prominent is the house amendment, introduced by the Attorney-General, to amend the Crimes Act 1958 at section 195N. This goes to legislation that we introduced last year in respect of hate speech, incitement and vilification. This amendment removes the requirement for police to refer charges and obtain consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions unless the person is under 18 years of age. However, any charges and determinations of course still require the proper evidence and the usual applications of the law.

This bill, as I mentioned, goes to a number of justice matters, including the legacy suppression orders that previous speakers have spoken extensively on. It also extends the provisions of the operation of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court. Of course all these matters are very important and are amendments to very progressive legislation that in most cases, if not all, have been introduced by Labor governments. I will, however, confine my remarks to the house amendment and amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 and how those sorts of health matters draw into the Thomastown electorate.

First, it is so important that our laws are constantly reviewed to ensure they reflect community standards, they reflect technology advancement and they respond to changing times and the new challenges of the day. On the changes to the Crimes Act, our Allan Labor government have responded to the growing concerns and challenges of the day, which are the growing divisions in society with the rise of the far right, the constant pressure on our democracy in terms of the hatred of others in our society and the extensive spread of misinformation. We know that reports of inciting hate, vilification and abuse and the threatening of individuals because of their faith or because of their race and other attributes are growing. Thus there is the need for this sort of legislation and of course these amendments to ensure that any charges laid by police really have a quicker resolution so that the perpetrators are not left to be able to continue to spew out their hate and division against others.

I want to talk about the Thomastown electorate, which really is one of the most diverse electorates in the state in terms of the practices of different religions. Whether it is race or cultural background, there are many, many people in the electorate of Thomastown, and every day they work, they live and they celebrate together. I know that the electorate of Thomastown and the community there of course are not immune to what is going on in the rest of the general society. I know that while people still continue to celebrate and share culture, faith and beliefs there is division that is becoming ever more present and impossible to ignore.

I would like to take some time to reflect on some of the troubling feelings in the streets which we find ourselves with and the fact that we are sitting here having to have conversations about hate crimes and vilification and how we also have to have bills such as this in the first place. In fact earlier today I was just looking at some of the local suburban Facebook posts, and one family, shockingly, reported that their front yard had been littered with notes of racial and other abuse directed at them. Of course they were all anonymous, and it has been reported to the police. But these are actions that really have been unheard of in the past. Of course there are a whole lot of organisations and individuals just stoking this fear and hatred of others in order to promote their own causes. The rise of the far right, as we have all spoken about, is happening around the world. It makes me so frustrated and angry to see these ideologies being pandered to by, for example, the latest Leader of the Opposition by attempting to attend events with people who are the ones that are inciting this hatred and attacking other Australians that live in harmony in the state of Victoria.

Communities like mine no longer feel as safe as they did. We have seen a number of incidents where women have been violently assaulted because of the way they look and what their faith is. These are the things that legislation like this is here to protect against, because everyone in Victoria deserves to have the right to practise their faith and culture openly, proudly and without fear or prejudice. The far right is attempting to deceive Victorians into believing that our thriving multicultural community is a problem. But I can tell you it certainly is not, and this bill helps us continue to protect our community and to stand up and say loudly that we will not accept attempts to do so.

The amendment, as I have mentioned earlier, will make it easier and quicker to prosecute incidents of hate by not requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and allowing the police to commence proceedings. However, in doing so, I again stress that that does not mean that all the other legislative and legal processes do not continue. The bill also builds on the issue of anonymity through social media, with the requirement for authors of vilifying statements to be generally identifiable, and of course this is most important as well.

Now I would like to talk a little bit about the other piece of legislation in the short time I have got left, and that is what we are looking to amend in terms of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996. What this amendment is designed to do is really bring the legislation and requirements up to date around the post-death registration. Of course it is awful when a loved one passes away, but it is then up to the doctor to issue a death certificate and that death certificate must include the cause of death. In the health system we have today, with super health clinics with multiple doctors working in them and people with complex health co-morbidities, these issues make it more and more difficult to register or to identify the exact cause of death. If the doctor maybe has not seen a lot of that person in the past or maybe because there are multiple health issues, it can make it difficult for a doctor to really determine the exact cause of death. It may be due to a number of causes or it may be uncomfortable for them to make that decision. In that case it is required to go to the Coroners Court, and this really lengthens the delay. It is not about saying that there is something odd or strange about what has happened to that person, it is really just because of the changes in the way we do things and the way we operate health care. We need to make sure that our legislation is up to date. Of course this also has an element of compassion. Families do not want to be waiting around for a coroner’s decision. They want to know what happened, and they want to be able to grieve and implement the things that are required for the passing of that person, such as funerals and so on. Again, this is a change to the act that is very important when it comes to people.

I cannot talk about health without talking about some of the incredible investments in the electorate of Thomastown. The new emergency department is almost underway; we are just having to build the buildings for all the special clinics at the place where the emergency department will be. We can see the urgent care clinics. One is based in Epping. That is really doing a lot of great work and moving people out of the emergency department to get good care much quicker and to do things that often their GPs either cannot do, when it is something like a broken limb, or even if they cannot get to a place if their doctor’s hours are too short.

 John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (18:23): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, and I just want to make a few comments. There is a lot that has been said about this bill. It is an omnibus bill, so it covers a range of subjects. But there are a few issues I just want to focus on. In particular, I would like to begin with the amendments to the Open Courts Act 2013 in light of the decision in DPP and police informants. The issue of open courts and open justice is a vexed one, and there are competing policy objectives. Obviously there is the interest in ensuring that the public can always have visibility into the operation of our courts and the reasons for decisions and the circumstances in which parties appear before courts and matters are resolved. That is a perfectly legitimate interest, and in fact, I would argue, an overriding one. There is a countervailing consideration about protecting the identity of victims and even parties to litigation when there are certain sensitive matters, but I would air in this chamber the concern that I think in Victoria we have gone too far in the interests of suppression.

It has its place, but its footprint across Victorian justice is in my view far too excessive. Just a couple of years ago, if you compared the number of suppression orders in Victoria to other key states, you could see a marked difference. In 2023 there were 524 suppression orders in Victoria. The next highest state was South Australia, which had 308 suppression orders, followed by Australia’s largest state, New South Wales, which had 121 suppression orders. It has long been an issue in Victoria. It has been debated in here. It has been debated in the media. There was a review which the then Andrews government commissioned in 2017 with the Honourable Frank Vincent, who made a number of recommendations in regard to that. There was the Open Courts Act, which the Baillieu government introduced in 2013, which had as one of its stated objectives the idea of promoting open justice, but the objectives have not been realised in relation to that.

Whilst the bill makes some changes in relation to that, as I said, the case of Police Informants v DPP allows the lower courts far greater powers to vary, revoke and review suppression orders made before the operation of certain provisions. I do think we still need the opportunity to review the operation of suppression orders in Victoria. Nary a year goes past when there are not one or more cases of great controversy where the debate about suppression orders is not aired, and I think there is a legitimate concern that courts in Victoria are not open, as they need to be, and that suppression orders are given too easily in this state.

While we are on the matter of courts, I do want to take this opportunity to talk about the report on government services in relation to the justice portfolio which was released by the Productivity Commission just last night. Of great concern in my view is the Productivity Commission’s data, which confirms a longstanding trend in Victoria and Victoria’s justice system and in particular the delays in court finalisations across the civil and criminal jurisdictions but also the costs of case finalisations in the civil and criminal jurisdictions. It is still the case that in Victoria we are either the highest or among the highest jurisdictions in the country for costs of case finalisations. One of the interesting reflections on that is that in Victoria we have more judicial officers than other jurisdictions. So it is not through a shortage of judicial officers and judicial staff, but for some reason or another it continues to be the case in Victoria, as confirmed by the report on government services data, that it costs more to have your case determined, either in the criminal or civil jurisdiction, and it takes longer. Given that that is a circumstance which has been retained now for many years, there is I think occasion to review why it is so that we rank among the highest jurisdictions in terms of case finalisations.

The other thing that I would say is that, despite those high relative costs of case finalisations and despite the delays that attend those case finalisations, it is also important to know that that is happening in circumstances where, rather than this government investing in reforms that will see better data outcomes in the Victorian justice system, what we are seeing is the reverse. We see in this year’s budget, in budget paper 3, a $30 million cut to the operation of our courts from $864 million to $834 million. That is a metafigure that I am citing there, but that is drawn from the budget papers. So we have a situation where the government should be concerned and the Attorney-General should be concerned that Victorians are not getting the justice system they deserve. It is costing them more and it is taking them longer to secure justice or the outcomes of decisions they seek from our courts, but their own government, the Allan Labor government, is significantly cutting the budget to our courts.

How do we propose to improve outcomes and enhance access to justice in this state in those circumstances? I do not think it is acceptable, and the government has been warned. There has been a review which it itself commissioned some years ago, nearly a decade ago, and yet we are in no better position, it seems, when it comes to the operation of our courts.

Finally, I just want to reflect on the anti-vilification aspects of the bill and in particular the change to the requirement for DPP approval, with the exemption of people under 18. I fail to see the justification in that. We want the responses to hate crimes or allegations of hate crimes to be prompt and for action to be taken without any unnecessary delays that might come from this requirement, so I think it is disappointing that the government has had to do a partial about-turn on this issue. We did warn the government that this was an unnecessary change, and that it should not truck with the Greens political party on this particular aspect of those changes. It is unfortunate, but we hope that it does not result in outcomes that see delays to justice.

More generally, in terms of social cohesion, it is hard to see how this change will improve the ability of law enforcement authorities and those agencies of government and in the community that are dedicated and mandated to look at how we promote social cohesion, but that cannot be achieved without – in cases of serious instances of hate crimes – the ability of law enforcement authorities to take prompt action. If we want that culture change, which we desperately need – and as others have said, which I will echo, it is in the worst state we have seen it in many years – there has to be, as a starting point, a pillar of justice that tells particularly those people in our community who may speak with abandon – and with such abandon, I should say, that they do not care for the impact of their statements on the welfare of others – that there will be an immediate and strong response. So carving out the exemptions that the government has in relation to those under 18 I do not think is helpful, and I think that is a great disappointment; the government was warned on that. With those comments, I will conclude my remarks and echo that we will not be opposing this bill.

 John MULLAHY (Glen Waverley) (18:33): I rise to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, a bill that may be described as miscellaneous in title but which in substance delivers a series of important, targeted and long-overdue reforms across Victoria’s justice system. This is not headline-grabbing legislation; it is not about slogans or sound bites. Instead, it is about the steady, serious work of governing, fixing inefficiencies, closing gaps in the law, modernising court processes and ensuring that our justice system works fairly, transparently and efficiently for the people that it serves. That work matters, because justice delayed is justice denied, and justice made inaccessible through cost, complexity or outdated processes is justice denied as well.

One of the most significant reforms in this bill relates to the so-called legacy suppression orders, orders made before the commencement of the Open Courts Act 2013. These suppression orders were often made indefinitely, with no clear expiry date and under a patchwork of old powers. As a result, many remain in force today without review, even where the original justification no longer applies. Currently, if someone wishes to vary or revoke one of these orders, their only avenue is the Supreme Court, relying on its inherent jurisdiction. That process is expensive, slow and out of reach for many, particularly victim-survivors of sexual or family violence, who may wish to tell their story on their own terms. This bill fixes that imbalance. It allows the court or tribunal that made the original order or an appellate court to review it, confirm it, vary it or revoke it. Importantly, it allows victim-survivors themselves to apply and in certain circumstances requires revocation where an adult victim gives informed consent and it is otherwise appropriate. This reform restores agency to victim-survivors. It strengthens open justice and ensures suppression orders do not operate indefinitely simply because the law has not kept up. It recognises that transparency and accountability are fundamental to public confidence in our justice system while still preserving safeguards where ongoing protection is genuinely required.

Another important element of this bill concerns the Coroners Court, a jurisdiction that sits at the intersection of law, medicine and grief. For too many families, coronial processes can feel slow, complex and deeply distressing, even where there is no suspicion surrounding a death. This bill introduces a new pathway allowing coroners to discontinue investigations into certain naturally caused deaths, once the cause has been identified, without the need for formal findings. This is not about cutting corners, it is about recognising when further investigation serves no public health or justice purpose and when it simply prolongs uncertainty for grieving families. By allowing eligible medical practitioners to notify the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages directly, this reform reduces finalisation times and provides families with closure sooner. That is compassion in practice. The bill also improves the process for setting aside findings and reopening investigations, limiting standing to appropriate parties while allowing the court to act on its own motion when new facts emerge. This promotes efficiency while preserving the Coroners Court’s critical public health and safety role.

Closely related are the reforms to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996. In today’s health system people are less likely to have a single long-term treating doctor. They may be cared for by multiple practitioners across hospitals, aged care and general practice. The current rules have left many doctors uncertain about whether they are certain enough to certify a death, resulting in unnecessary referrals to the Coroners Court, with people often handballing and not wanting to actually make a decision there. This bill sensibly clarifies that a doctor may notify the registrar where they can form an opinion as to the probable cause of death. It also expands eligibility so that doctors who have reviewed a person’s medical history and circumstances can complete the notification. This does not change how deaths are recorded, it simply reflects medical reality, supports clinicians and reduces unnecessary coronial involvement, freeing up the system to focus on deaths that genuinely require investigation.

Fines enforcement is another area where small procedural barriers can have disproportionate consequences. The reforms in this bill strengthen the framework for the electronic service of fines, expand the use of online portals for stakeholders and correct inconsistencies across the legislation. These changes are not punitive, they are about clarity, certainty and administrative fairness. For example, the bill removes the requirement for rigid affidavits when someone applies for an extension of time because they were unaware of the fine. It also clarifies when service is deemed to occur, ensuring enforcement agencies can act consistently while still requiring consent for electronic service. Importantly, these reforms also close loopholes that allow serial fine-defaulters to delay accountability, ensuring the system is fair both to individuals and to the broader community that relies on compliance.

The amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 may appear technical, but they are deeply important for vulnerable Victorians with decision-making impairments. The bill clarifies the Public Advocate’s delegation powers and acting arrangements, ensuring that urgent guardianship decisions – often involving housing, health or safety – can be made without delay, even during periods of absence or vacancy. These reforms reduce administrative burdens while strengthening continuity and independence in guardianship decision-making. For people who rely on the Public Advocate as a last resort, this could mean the difference between timely support and unacceptable risk.

One of the most confronting aspects of this bill is in response to bestiality and animal abuse material. While Victoria already criminalises acts of bestiality, there have been glaring gaps. The possession, production and distribution of material depicting these acts have not been expressly prohibited. That gap has allowed harmful content to circulate, fuelling demand and normalising cruelty. This bill closes that gap decisively. It expands the definition of ‘bestiality’ to include non-penetrative sexual touching and introduces new indictable offences targeting the production, distribution, possession and access of bestiality and animal abuse materials. The offences are carefully drafted, with appropriate exceptions and defences to protect legitimate journalism, research and creative work, but they send a clear message: extreme cruelty, whether directed at people or animals, has no place in Victoria.

The bill also extends the operation of the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, ensuring that eligible offenders continue to have access to therapeutic alternatives that address addiction as a driver of that offending. This is evidence-based justice, reducing reoffending, improving outcomes and making our community safer.

Similarly, amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986 allow the Magistrates’ Court to use its case management system more efficiently for administrative functions. This modernisation reduces manual processing, improves timeliness and allows court staff to focus on matters requiring human judgement.

Finally, the bill includes an important house amendment addressing criminal vilification. Following the passage of the anti-vilification and social cohesion reforms last year, it has become clear that requiring Director of Public Prosecutions consent in every police-led prosecution risks creating unacceptable delays. In the context of rising antisemitism and other forms of hate, delay means harm. This bill removes that requirement, except where the alleged offender is under 18, ensuring that serious hate crimes can be brought before the courts swiftly and decisively. It is a measured response that balances due process with the urgent need to protect communities from intimidation and violence. This bill is about making the justice system work fairer, faster and clearer and be more humane. It empowers victim-survivors. It supports grieving families. It protects vulnerable people. It modernises the courts. It strengthens accountability. It does not do this through sweeping rhetoric, but through careful, practical reform. This is what responsible governments look like, this is what fairness in action looks like, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (18:42): I rise to make a contribution to the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. As we know, this is the second bill of its kind in this place for this year, rectifying some of the mistakes that have been made in the past. Whilst there are some important changes in this bill, there is still a lot more to be done to address the issues of crime and justice that are impacting on people’s lives every single day.

I might start my contribution by just perhaps sharing some of my experiences. As we know, crime in this state is escalating and it is having a direct impact on all parts of the state, including my electorate. Crime across the state is increasing, and my electorate is no different. Crime in Greater Shepparton is up 10.8 per cent. Whether it be retail theft, home invasions, carjackings or knife crime, everyday Victorians are being impacted. People do not feel safe in their homes, they do not feel safe on the streets, and this is due to the escalation of crime. We are seeing ongoing firebombing across the state of tobacco stores. In fact I think it is over 100. Yesterday morning, in the early hours, a gift shop in the main street of Mooroopna, which is a town in my electorate, was completely gutted following a ram raid, and the store was set alight in what police have described as a targeted arson attack. This has rattled the small-knit community, has caused a great deal of anxiety and has even enhanced the sense of unsafety. Another store in Mooroopna has been targeted and attacked three times in the past few months. Local community champion Azem has a cafe in the main street. His window has been smashed twice. He makes very little profit. He actually helps the homeless. It is these types of reckless acts that really impact communities, small businesses and someone that is trying to just do a good deed.

One of the staff from my office came to Melbourne prior to finishing up at the end of term last year. She wanted to come and have a day in Parliament, and she had not been here for quite some time. Guess what, she got up the next day and her car had been stolen, right here in the heart of Melbourne. The government has been slow on the wheel on this front and have been doing nothing to protect Victorians from this ongoing escalation of crime and war. The government thinks the solution is to deploy 14 inspectors to crack down on the ongoing issue of illicit tobacco sales, with no power to shut them down. We have 367 fewer full-time police officers under this Premier, a police shortage of more than 1400 vacancies and 41 police stations have either closed or are operating on limited hours. How can we address rising crime when police numbers are reducing at an all-time high, and more and more police stations are being closed or have had their hours reduced?

One statistic that has staggered me locally from my police officers on the ground is that they continually tell me the incidence of up to a 75 per cent increase in crime is taking up to 70 per cent of their time and taking them off the street. We are finding now that they are not able to get out to do the job that they need to do. Seventy per cent of their time is taken up with family violence incidents. I have asked the Minister for Police to provide this critical resource to help our police manage the escalating family violence incidents, and he is very aware of the significant impact that not having enough officers at the Shepparton station is having on protecting communities. The police are frustrated. They want to be there for our community when they need them. They are doing the best they can, but is it any wonder we have police leaving the force when they are sitting all day having to fill out domestic violence incident reports when they also need to be out on the ground protecting and serving their communities?

Family violence and breaches of family violence orders continue to be the number one offence in my electorate, followed by criminal damage, theft from retail stores, theft in general and motor vehicle theft. Stalking-related offences are at a 10-year high in this state, with just under 14,800 stalking-related offences recorded in the year to September 2025, the highest since 2016. Again, how can we address these rising numbers when police numbers are being reduced? People are sick to death of reoffenders getting let out on bail and onto the streets only to reoffend within hours. More than ever before, our court and justice system is overwhelmed and it is under-resourced, all because of the government’s track record when it comes to protecting Victorians.

As we saw in recent reports, accused criminals are having their bail applications prioritised ahead of other cases, which is forcing victims of crime to wait for justice and their day in court. As we all know, being a victim-survivor of sexual and family violence offences takes a toll on their life, whether it be physically, emotionally or socially. Through the bill, they will be empowered so that they have the ability 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 that revocation. This will enable eligible investigations to be finalised sooner. This is a welcome amendment, which seeks to implement recommendation 4 of the Coronial Council of Victoria’s review of reportable deaths in Victoria.

The bill seeks to also amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to enable doctors who have reviewed a person’s medical history and the circumstances of their death and are satisfied of the person’s probable cause of death to notify the registrar of the cause of death. Some other amendments the bill makes are around strengthening fines enforcement, clarifying delegation powers, allowing notices to be sent to addresses supplied in nomination statements, improving processes for declared director challenges and some minor reforms for warrants and enforcement review.

The Infringements Act 2006 will clarify service of infringement notices, establish rules for service by electronic means, tighten criteria for withdrawing notices and expand review grounds and timeframes. The Road Safety Act 1986 will have new extensions of time when no actual notice is received, clarify use of effective statements to avoid liability and standardise provisions across road and marine contexts. The tolling acts will provide clear powers for tolling corporations to notify enforcement agencies of non-payment and modernise service and nomination systems.

I would also like to touch on the acquittal and implementation of recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court report. The commission, back in 2018, was asked by the then Andrews government to consider contempt of court law reform. Contempt of court is any conduct that risks interfering with the ability of the courts to perform their role. The VLRC’s final report was tabled on 4 August 2020 and recommended to the government that as a state we need a contempt of court act to define different types of contempt and make the law clearer and fairer. In doing so, the bill before the house today seeks to enable applications to be made to lower courts and VCAT to vary or revoke legacy suppression orders made by those courts or tribunals.

As we know, suppression orders over time have been used by our courts and in proceedings to prohibit or restrict the publication or disclosure or specific information. In its report the VLRC used the term ‘legacy suppression orders’ to describe such suppression orders made under the common law or repealed provisions in court acts prior to the commencement of the Open Courts Act 2013, which was on 1 December 2013, more than 12 years ago today. That act itself, the Open Courts Act, consolidated the general powers of the Supreme Court, the County Court, the Magistrates’ Court, VCAT and the Coroners Court to make suppression orders and closed court orders, but the act did not address legacy suppression orders. Because of this gap and limitation in the legislation, such orders do not have an end date, and unlike suppression orders made under the act, they operate for a maximum period of five years. In practice today, legacy suppression orders operate indefinitely or until further order, which is contrary to the principle of open justice. Upholding this principle is a fundamental legal and democratic principle, but it also seeks to promote responsibility by holding those accountable while raising awareness of such issues.

Following the tabling of the commission’s final report, the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Chairperson of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants v Director of Public Prosecutions Victoria and others cast doubt on the power of lower courts and VCAT to review legacy suppression orders. Because of this decision, the Supreme Court is only empowered to review such orders under the jurisdiction vested in the court by the Constitution Act 1975. In addressing this, the bill seeks to enable lower courts and VCAT to review legacy suppression orders made by those courts or tribunals. Under the bill these will be referred to as pre-existing orders. Where there is an appeal on 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 a court or tribunal could have made under the Open Courts Act. It is hoped that through these amendments they will largely mirror existing suppression order review provisions that are contained in the Open Courts Act.

Another amendment I would like to touch on is the amendment of the Coroners Act 2008 – which I did earlier – to establish a new finalisation pathway for certain natural cause death investigations. This primarily is to reduce the workload by enabling more medical practitioners to certify natural cause deaths and forms part of a systemic effort to reduce pressure on the Coroners Court. Doctors may certify deaths after reviewing medical history or examining circumstances even if they were not treating the patient. We know that for anyone losing a loved one it is an incredibly emotional and difficult time and getting that closure is incredibly important. A coroner can exercise a discretion to use a pathway under the act so a pathologist or a medical practitioner under the supervision of a pathologist can register the cause of death and other prescribed particulars with the registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria. This will enable eligible investigations to be finalised sooner. This is a welcome amendment which seeks to implement recommendation 4 of the Coronial Council of Victoria’s Review of Reportable Deaths in Victoria report. The Coroners Court Act will be amended to limit the standing to apply for coronial findings 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. In closing, we do not oppose the bill.

 Matt FREGON (Ashwood) (18:52): I will give a brief contribution on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, and I am very happy to do so. I did a bit of work on this bill, as we all did, and I think members have canvassed many of the aspects very well. Obviously I am supportive of the bill, and it is great to see the opposition are not opposing the bill.

I do not think I have lived an overly sheltered life. There is a lot I have not done, and that is probably for good reasons. When I got to the words ‘animal crush material’ I had to do a little bit of a double take. How? What? I would say others, but that would probably lead to unparliamentary language. Anything we can do to eliminate any potential loopholes used by someone who is that depraved is obviously a good thing and can never be done soon enough. I do not want to go into more of that, but I cannot comprehend someone losing their humanity that much that they think this is a good idea.

When we come to the amendments this morning, obviously I am very supportive of those amendments too. I think last time we voted for the anti-vilification bill we voted for the DPP not to have to approve prosecution. I will happily vote again for that to be the case. There was a little bit of revisionist history narrative at times, but I am not going to go there more than that. I did not get a chance to speak yesterday, but I thank members in the room – the member for Caulfield and member for Box Hill, obviously – who gave powerful contributions to our Bondi condolence motion. Any steps we make to improve our anti-vilification laws are steps that this house is working towards to never have a similar motion again. We talk about education and we talk about getting people to understand, and there is a role for that. For people who are out protesting, they believe exactly what they are saying and they think that is valid. Unfortunately, some of the things they are saying on a regular basis are hurtful for people for no other reason than who those people are.

I implore those people who turn up – and we should have the ability to protest, we should have the right to protest and we should have the freedom of speech to do so – to realise that we are accountable for what we say. We are very lucky in this house that we have privilege, so we can pretty well say whatever we like, but we are still accountable to the Privileges Committee. Again, we should have our say, but be mindful. Be kind. You can argue without being cruel.

One of the things I did over the break – as did many members who joined me and many online as well ‍– is join the Holocaust Remembrance Day at the Holocaust Museum. We listened to a man, Mr Joe Schwartzberg, a Holocaust survivor, who told us his story – amazing man, amazing story. I am not going to tell his story, because it is online, right, so listen to the man yourself – and please do. The point, from what I understand – and I hope I am not verballing anyone – is Joe’s mission since he retired from his business has been to educate, to share that story, for no other reason than to say hate does not win, hate does not help. Yet we are arguing this. I feel for the Jewish community, because I would imagine – and I cannot imagine what it is like to be in the Jewish community; I am not Jewish. But I feel for that community, I would imagine, just thinking ‘Not again. Still, more? Stop it.’ There is no switch to stop it. I think we all in this house wish there was a switch to stop it.

I go to the member for Box Hill’s contribution yesterday where he asked us all, ‘What more can I do?’ I have been asking myself that question for quite a while. Obviously when there are antisemitic attacks either in my electorate or in our state, I call my friends, I speak to them – empathy, sympathy, try and understand. ‘What else can we do?’ is the question. I do not necessarily know what the answer is to fix all of it, and maybe we never will. But I think we need more of a presence to say this, not just in this house, but everywhere. I think the defence of the Jewish community from the rise in antisemitism over the last few years has to be at least equally contributed by the non-Jewish community. It does not matter which community it is: if a community in our multicultural state is being attacked, it is the rest of us who have to stand up and be the shield from that. It is on me to do everything I can – to answer the member for Box Hill. If the Jewish community feel that they cannot have, as I think the member for Caulfield said yesterday, a Hanukkah celebration in a park, that is a terrible thing. If you want me to go and stand on the edge of the park so you can have your celebration, give me a call. Post World War I there were a lot of reasons why things were complicated and things were bad, but I cannot understand how a population a hundred years ago could go from being a normal population – and I am not having a go at the German people here – to the reality of allowing the Holocaust to happen.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.