Tuesday, 24 May 2022

Bills

Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:52): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. Mr O’Brien in the other place has already noted, as various other coalition speakers have done, that on this side of the chamber we do not find this legislation problematic and indeed therefore will not be opposing it. It is an omnibus bill that seeks to implement a range of changes across some very interesting pieces of legislation in the justice portfolio, including, for example, the Crimes at Sea Act 1999. I will talk, hopefully in a way that is not too disjointed given the nature of the bill, about some of these changes. Initially I will dwell on some changes to the Adoption Act 1984 and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 that will make some changes to the way adoption works here in Victoria. These changes are of particular interest to me. Mr O’Brien made it clear that they were of particular interest to him and indeed to both the coalition parties.

If I could take the house initially to clauses 41 to 47, these seek to amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to provide for the issue of integrated birth certificates to adopted persons. This is an interesting change, an interesting reform. Integrated certificates, the government says, are ones which note the birth parents as well as the adoptive parents of the individual. The government has been at pains to make sure that we are aware that no fee will be payable for the first issue of an integrated birth certificate. Neither is there an obligation on any individual to use or apply for an integrated birth certificate. It is limited to those aged 18 years or older and where a person’s adoption was registered in Victoria. I wanted to start here because I think that this is a good change. As somebody who was adopted myself I can note—and I know that the government is sensitive to these issues—that people who were adopted have a wide range of views about questions regarding contact with birth parents and engagement with birth parents, so I think this sort of careful and sensitive approach is a good one. Some people, including me, will not want, for reasons that are their own, to seek to gain access to an integrated birth certificate. I know many other people, however, who are, like me, adopted who will be seeking to do that and will find some comfort in doing so. So I think that is a good change and a worthy change; it is one we support.

Clauses 48 to 60 also seek to make some changes to the way adoption law is administered in our state—indeed changes to the Adoption Act itself. That is from 1984, when very significant changes were made under the then Labor government and the outstanding minister Pauline Toner, Victoria’s first ever female cabinet minister—and a fine one too. They are in relation to the accessibility of certain information about adoptions. The change that this Labor government is seeking to introduce would permit the registrar of births, deaths and marriages to access certain information for the purposes of issuing an integrated birth certificate. The bill also updates references to departments in the act, necessitated by new administrative orders that transferred adoption services from one department to another, from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Justice and Community Safety.

There are one or two other changes to adoption legislation that we do not oppose but we would like to raise one or two concerns about and ask the government to continue to watch the administration of them very closely. I am talking in particular about clause 54. This seeks to remove the ability of the department to adopt out a child in its care without the consent of natural parents where the person has deserted, persistently neglected or ill-treated the child or the person has seriously ill-treated the child to the extent that it is unlikely that the child would accept or be accepted by the family of that person—I read from notes at this point just to ensure that I am reading entirely correctly from the bill. This will have the effect of limiting the ability of a child to be adopted where its parents object despite the parents having deserted or ill-treated the child. I note that this is consistent with the recommendation of the Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee through its inquiry into responses into historical forced adoptions in Victoria. I would quote a comment from the government itself. It says:

… where those grounds exist, they will be dealt with under the child protection system.

On this point my friend in the other place Mr Michael O’Brien made some comments, and, with your indulgence, President, I would not mind quoting briefly from him in order to have his comments on the record in this place as well. He said that we on this side of the house will certainly not be opposing this clause of the bill, but he went on to say:

… we are concerned by it, because we would not want to see a situation where parents who have been neglectful or abusive and ill-treated their child and have had that child taken away from them because of that are in a position to stop that child from having a better future and to deny that child that opportunity to be adopted by a family that would love him or her and would care for him or her.

I think those are very sensible comments. I understand why the government is seeking to make this change. I understand from the government that it will seek to watch the impact of this change very carefully. I understand also that this is in response to a recommendation of a significant and important inquiry into historical abuses. However, I do think a change such as this does need very close and ongoing scrutiny, so I would simply put that on the record in this place as well.

In addition to some changes to the way adoption law works in this state, this omnibus bill will seek to make a range of other changes, as I said at the outset, interestingly to the Crimes at Sea Act 1999, for example, to update references to commonwealth legislation, in particular updating references from the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006.

The bill will amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in relation to secrecy provisions and an exemption relating to religious schools. These issues were broached thoroughly in the other place. They may well be a feature of the debate here as well. They relate to our recent discussions regarding the then equal opportunity bill.

Clauses 9 to 24, as the government has stressed, amend the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 in order to use more gender-inclusive language. For example, where previously that act referred to ‘his or her’, those references are replaced with references to ‘their’ or ‘that person’. Clauses 25 to 32 make a range of miscellaneous amendments to the Judicial College of Victoria Act 2001. The most significant amendment is to the composition of JCV. It increases the number of directors from eight to, and I will quote from the legislation:

at least 9 but not more than 10 …

Now, this, we understand, is to facilitate an increase in the number of directors appointed by the Attorney from two to at least three but no more than four, and these appointees must:

… in the opinion of the Attorney-General, have broad experience in community issues affecting courts …

It was noted in the other place that there are some concerns among some in the broader legal profession that this provision may see the ability for attorneys-general to exert some political influence over the bearing of the courts. Other amendments are administrative, such as, for example, an increase in the maximum time between meetings from three to four months.

And so this is a bill, as I say, that touches on a whole range of different pieces of legislation. It makes some changes that are not insignificant and others that are almost purely administrative. On this side we would say that notwithstanding the fact that there are some good elements of this bill and notwithstanding the fact that we support it, we would like to continue to urge the government to focus in the justice portfolio on what we see as the main game. The main game is the reduction of our massive court backlogs first and foremost across the portfolio occupied by my honourable friend the Attorney-General, and in the youth justice portfolio it is fixing the dreadful crisis regarding safety for both inmates and staff at our two youth justice facilities at Parkville and Malmsbury.

In my stead, whilst I was at home battling with COVID, but battling successfully, I am pleased to report, my friend Ms Burnett-Wake asked a question of the Minister for Workplace Safety last time this house met. In response to that question the Minister for Workplace Safety admitted something quite extraordinary, and that is that in a very short period of time, from just July last year to April this year, there were 195 separate investigations by WorkSafe into safety issues at our two youth justice centres. Now, my maths is not excellent, but I think that comes out to more than four a week. That is a huge number.

We learned then at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings that in these facilities young people—our most vulnerable and traumatised young people—are routinely put in solitary confinement simply because the government cannot find the staff. Right across the state, across a whole range of different sectors and industries, there are staffing problems. Nonetheless, to put young people in solitary confinement in an arbitrary fashion is a grave thing. Indeed some experts in human rights law say that to do so is tantamount to torture. So I would urge the Minister for Youth Justice to focus not on the sorts of minor changes that we are discussing today but rather on the main game in her portfolio, which is undoubtedly to deal with the crisis engulfing those two centres.

When asked the secretary of the department did not deny that solitary confinement is often used for more than 20 hours a day for issues that do not relate to the bad behaviour of that individual but rather the government’s inability to properly staff the centres. Now, that is an abomination. The minister wonders why some young people engage in acts of violence in these centres. Solitary confinement routinely used, indeed on thousands of occasions, we were told at PAEC, over the last quarter alone, including for over 20 hours a day—you have clearly never worked with young people if you wonder why it is that a troubled, traumatised young person locked up on their own in their room for over 20 hours a day, by the admission of the secretary herself, would then come out and engage with others in a really troubling and aberrant way. This is a crisis. The minister must acknowledge it, and the minister must deal with it. Especially given the Attorney is in the chamber, and given my engagement with her on previous occasions and, to be fair to the Attorney, her very fulsome responses to me on those occasions, I do not need to talk further about backlogs. I would simply draw to the government’s attention once again that notwithstanding the fact that some good changes are made here—in particular one or two of the changes regarding adoption law I think are excellent changes—I would like to see the government focus wholly and entirely now on those key issues in the justice portfolio.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (13:05): It is a great privilege to stand today to speak on this particular bill, the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which was introduced in the other place in April. At the outset and noting Dr Bach’s really considered contribution, I want to thank him for being a voice here in a chamber where we have a lot to learn about the impact of adoption and the way in which it has extraordinary and far-reaching consequences and impacts not only for the child or indeed person involved but also for their birth parents and for those around them—their support networks, friends and families.

I want to give a shout-out to the peak bodies who have driven so much of this discussion and have been part of sharing, often, some extraordinarily difficult and sensitive stories in the course of the Victorian inquiry into historical forced adoption in Victoria and the response to that and the Senate inquiry in the commonwealth jurisdiction and also sharing a range of different perspectives in the course of understanding what the implementation of recommendations will come to and what needs to be done to accommodate various views and perspectives and priorities.

One of the people who has been at the centre of the discussion on forced adoption and historical adoptions and the devastation that they have caused is Brenda Coughlan, the spokesperson for Independent Regional Mothers. Brenda has been a force of advocacy for and representation of so many women and men who have been impacted by forced adoption, so many children—now adults—who have been impacted by forced adoption. I hope that Brenda is either listening or in a position to understand the moment of this particular bill and what it does, and I thank her for her advocacy and for continuing to shine a light on these issues as they relate to regional mums in particular.

I also note that we have members of VANISH who have been here and indeed have played a key role in the ongoing discussion around the impact of adoption—the Victorian Adoption Network for Information and Self Help—which really is encapsulated in its title. The work associated with self-help and advocacy should be and deserves to be at the centre of the work that we do as a government and that I hope successive governments will continue to do—again, by reference to Dr Bach’s contribution, something which can and indeed should take place over parliaments, no matter who occupies government benches.

ARMS has been another organisation which has been at the centre of these discussions and of acceptance of various recommendations and work to implement those recommendations following the Victorian inquiry. This is the Association Representing Mothers Separated by adoption. Jo Fraser, I understand, has been really key to the work of ARMS in representing the perspectives of those members, families and individuals who she has been a conduit for. I understand that Jo was with the Attorney-General when these matters were first flagged and has been a central part of discussions on this issue but that she is not well at the moment, having sustained a fall. I wish you all the best, and I do hope that you recover and recover well. Thank you for all of your work.

Thank you to everybody involved who has been so patient in explaining the pain and the distress that adoption has caused for so many over so many generations. This is something that I have a lot to learn about. It is something which I have been so grateful to be educated on, often in a way that has caused pain and has caused distress to those people who have shared their stories time and time again in order to provoke and encourage better government response to this issue.

What I do want to touch on with the time that I have available, which I note is limited, are a couple of things that Dr Bach went to in his contribution around streamlining and modernising the way in which our responses take place and the way in which we work alongside the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages to create documentation which reflects the wishes of those involved in adoption and in fact allows for a recognition of the birth parents of a child as well as making opportunities available for documentation which reflects ongoing involvement of a birth parent in an adoptive parent and adoptive child situation.

Making sure that there is a post-adoption birth certificate that includes those details is a fundamental recognition of a dignity for which we have a lot of ground to make up. It is a fundamental recognition of the importance of birth parents being recognised. When you write it down it can become real, and to that end words really matter and having the names of birth parents on birth certificates really matters. They give effect to, they create a record of and they create a mark of validity and of respect and of dignity which I think has been a long time coming and which I hope will go some way toward alleviating the pain and the distress of having been ignored for too long, as parents and adoptive children—entire families—have been since forced adoptions began, right through to the apology and right through to the inquiries. There is a lot of work to do, and every piece of work that can be done to create a more dignified, sensitive, respectful and healing range of documents goes some way to ensuring that we recognise what has happened, recognise the importance of ongoing improvement and respect and provide a voice for those to whom a voice was for too long denied.

Making sure that there is a degree of agency in this is also really important. The way the certificate will be available on application by an adopted person once they turn 18, at their own option, is really important. Again picking up on Dr Bach’s comment earlier, there are a range of different views and perspectives on what it is that a person to whom this application right exists will have. Each adoption journey, despite the genesis of its occurrence, will be very, very different, and each measure of distress, whilst containing a number of common themes which were very articulately expressed in the Victorian inquiry chaired by Ms Suleyman from the other place but involving a range of members from a range of different parts of the political spectrum—each story will have themes at its core but vastly different and incredibly unique, individual impacts as they have played out in everyday life.

Not all people who are adopted will want an integrated birth certificate. That is why that choice needs to be inserted and made really clear in the context of this particular legislation. This is also the case for people who may not wish to disclose that they have been adopted when producing a birth certificate for everyday purposes. It should be the person’s choice to determine the grounds upon which those conversations happen and the way in which those matters around adoption are incorporated into everyday life. That is where choice is a really important component of the birth certificate reform.

Making sure that fees are also not disproportionately onerous for people seeking these birth certificates is another big deal in this particular reform. I know the amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996, which were attempted to be passed in the last Parliament but which succeeded in this Parliament with a significant majority, dealt specifically with the question of fees for LGBTIQA+ people who wish to have their identity reflected in their birth certificate in a way which matches them and does not create enormous distress. It is not dissimilar, analogously, to the idea of choice here and the importance of making sure that fees do not represent a different way of approaching this desire to have one’s person, one’s history and one’s present incorporated into an official document.

Mandatory counselling is again another part of this particular bill, and making sure that there is a better degree of choice around the way in which counselling occurs—the optional offer of counselling—is an important change. Removing that idea of mandatory interviews provides a really key level of ownership and of agency for people to whom this requirement may apply. These interviews are not conducted to assess the applicant or to make decisions about the type of information that can be released to him or her but to offer advice and support and to ensure they are aware of any information that may contain sensitive or confronting details. That is not always desired. It is not always sought out. It is not always helpful for the wellbeing and the self-determination of the person involved. It can in fact be, as we heard from the inquiry, really disempowering. It can be really traumatic, really distressing. It can also involve a level of, for want of a better term, bureaucratic stagnation, whereby things can be slowed down, for a range of reasons, in a way that has practical consequences for the person seeking to complete that particular step. So that change, along with the other change I flagged on birth certificate reform, is part of a suite of responses to recommendations of that particular inquiry.

I want to touch again, with the very brief amount of time that I have, on information sharing and the way in which information sharing will be amended to provide the secretary with the discretionary power to release adoption information to a person who would otherwise not be permitted to receive the information, such as a person representing a support agency. This new section would enable information to be released to support agencies such as VANISH or Link-Up as an alternative to providing it directly to the person affected by adoption. The secretary’s powers, though, are of course limited, and those mandatory considerations which limit the secretary’s power will be an important way of maintaining the necessary level of balance as these amendments are rolled out and implemented.

There is a lot more I could say, that I would like to say, on the adoption components of the bill. I note that we have a number of people who will be speaking on this bill today. I think that is a really good thing, and I look forward to their contributions, but with the remaining time that I have I want to talk about amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and making sure that we placed on the record our steadfast commitment to making sure that discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people is not part of our statute book. This occurs despite the efforts of those opposite, despite the efforts of the coalition at a federal level, to demonise and to destroy the identities of LGBTIQA+ people in a range of ways, from our capacity to play sport and to participate to our capacity to engage in learning at an institution which would otherwise seek to have the power to expel or to dismiss us based on our sexuality or gender identity.

Making sure that we give effect to the changes which passed this place last year—with the opposition of those opposite, who do not in fact believe that equality is not negotiable—is an important part of sticking to our word, an important part of our actions, as a Labor government, making sure that everybody gets equal treatment before the law but that we also enshrine the right to religious belief in the course of making sure that organisations such as religious schools are able to operate within the framework of their philosophical and religious beliefs. They are the things I wanted to focus on today. I commend the bill to the house. I thank everybody who has been part of its development. I wish it a speedy passage.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (13:20): I welcome the reforms in this bill surrounding forced adoption. These are very well overdue. There is pain, suffering and anger that has existed for decades because of certain decisions made by institutions and families. The customs of the time were what we have seen for some time as inexcusable and unforgivable. The actions of certain people and institutions in removing children, accusations of drugging or misinforming mothers and the treatment of mothers in these homes should be condemned. But it is now a time to heal—or at least to try to.

It reminds me of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, where for decades the secrets and hurt had been hidden but with one inquiry and the will of the people we uncovered a fractured past. It was difficult, but it was worth it. In doing so, we allowed thousands of people to share experiences that in some cases they had never told a soul. It had been their shame and their weakness, the weight on their shoulders. But now for some it is becoming a source of strength and something they can use to help others going through the same thing.

The reality is you probably know someone who was affected by forced adoption—perhaps they do not even know it. Between 1958 and 1984 almost 40 000 adoptions were arranged in Victoria. That number is now in single figures annually. The Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee conducted an inquiry into responses to historical forced adoption in Victoria, and today we see the first of many reforms—I hope.

We will introduce integrated birth certificates for adopted persons to better recognise who they are and where they have come from. Currently the birth certificate issued after an adoption order removes all evidence of the adopted person’s birth parents and replaces them with the names of adopted parents. The inquiry found that many adopted people wanted their natural parents to be reflected on their birth certificate.

One thing I am concerned about with this bill though is, as I understand it, the change in clause 54. This will remove the ability for an adoption order to be made where a parent who has persistently neglected, ill-treated or deserted their child vetoes this decision. We were shocked to read this, but we have been informed that the court maintains the discretion to override this consent by the parent, and the court must take into consideration sections 9 and 32 of the Adoption Act 1984, which say the welfare and interests of the child concerned shall be regarded as the paramount consideration. The latter also says the secretary must ‘have regard to adoption as a service for the child’.

Our party believes that children should always be the most important consideration in any decisions. The truth is there are some people out there who simply should not be parents. We see this time and time again through the courts. If a child is presented with a loving home after experiencing trauma and injury due to their biological parents or parent, every effort should be made to remove and protect that child. The Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 describes this as an unacceptable risk. That is not what happened in these forced adoption cases. Further, through this amendment alone, we do believe there are adequate protections for children to be permanently placed in loving homes whilst balancing the righting of the wrongs from the past.

I have to say that I am disappointed these important reforms have come about in a complex, varied omnibus bill. I have been told on too many occasions when I have introduced sensible amendments by the government that reforms as important as these should not come to the house in a piecemeal approach but rather in a whole package of reforms. If this approach was really the government’s intention, we would not see reforms as important as integrated birth certificates for adopted persons included in a bill that changes the Crimes at Sea Act 1999 and changes the composition of the Judicial College of Victoria. Whilst it is a worry that only 33 of 56 recommendations have been committed to by this government, my office has been given an assurance by the Attorney-General’s office that many of the recommendations not supported in full or in principle will be further considered and this is mainly due to the cyclical budget process.

I would like to thank the Victorian Adoption Network for Information and Self Help, or VANISH, as we have heard before, who are in the gallery today, who work incredibly hard to help those who have gone through these often tragic circumstances. Thank you for your work, for highlighting the shadows, perceived shame and secrets of the past and for your contribution to the inquiry. I would also like to place on record that Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party hopes and asks that the government fulfil recommendations 38 and 39 to properly fund VANISH to provide a mental health support service in the next budget. It is currently only listed as ‘further consideration required’ in the government’s formal response, so I hope that this is updated.

In this bill, through changes to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, we will see the words ‘he’ and ‘she’ changed to ‘their’ or ‘that person’s’ or ‘the Attorney-General’ et cetera. The new federal Attorney-General was sworn in this week. She is a woman. We are happy to refer to her as the Attorney-General at first mention, but after that it would and should be ‘she’ unless Ms Gallagher insists otherwise. This is yet another not-so-subtle thin edge of yet another gender wedge. In the federal Labor Party there are moves to refer to mothers as ‘women’ or even ‘child-producing persons’, the same way breastfeeding is now referred to by some zealots as ‘chest feeding’. The National Party platform refers only to ‘people and individuals who are pregnant’, not women. And there were reports this week that a recommendation has been circulated in Victorian schools listing nearly 20 alternative pronouns for ‘him’ and ‘her’. This is political correctness gone mad.

Whilst there are other acts amended by this omnibus bill, I just wanted to speak on those two important issues today. In summary, I welcome the changes to the birth certificates for those who have gone through the tragedy and isolation of forced adoptions, and I commend this bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 1.27 pm until 2.03 pm.

Ms BURNETT-WAKE (Eastern Victoria) (14:03): Today I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This is yet another omnibus bill that brings about many changes in the realm of justice. I will state from the outset that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. Some of these amendments are simple changes to bring legislation up to date and to make it more inclusive. Others are reforms that will have a huge impact on the lives of Victorians. This bill will be particularly significant to all Victorians who have been through the adoption process or may be adopted themselves. I would like to thank Dr Bach for his contribution earlier telling the chamber about his lived experience. When you are able to speak from lived experience, it is certainly more impactful when speaking to bills that impact lives.

Between the 1950s and the 1980s childbirth was very different for many expectant mothers due to forced adoption practices. Unwed mothers were silenced when it came to speaking out about their hidden pregnancies, their treatment during birth and the grief after having their children taken away. It is easy to reflect on these times as something we have moved forward from, but there are so many women and children who are still impacted and traumatised by what happened all those years ago, and understandably so.

This bill amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to allow adopted persons to be issued an integrated birth certificate. An integrated birth certificate is one that lists both the birth parents as well as the adoptive parents of the individual. This is one of the recommendations from the forced adoptions inquiry of the Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee. Many people told the committee how difficult it is to have multiple certificates containing different information and how hurtful it is to see their original certificate with a big red ‘cancelled’ stamp through it. This amendment does not make it mandatory for a person to have both sets of parents on their birth certificate, but it gives them the option. This will allow adopted Victorians a choice to have their birth certificate reflect the story they want to tell, which is something we support.

This bill also removes the ability of the department to adopt out a child in its care without the consent of the birth parents. Where a child has been taken into care due to the birth parents deserting, neglecting or ill-treating that child, the department will now need the consent of the birth parents before adopting the child out to another family. Some people would question why birth parents who have treated their child so awfully are able to stop that child being adopted out to a more loving family. There have been concerns put forward that birth parents who neglect their children may still have control over their future and they should not. The wording of this clause means that birth parents will have the ability to prevent that child from joining a family willing to adopt and care for them. The opposition is not opposing this clause because we do not believe the government would want these children to suffer any further. The intent of the clause appears to be an attempt to strike a balance so that the trauma and the pain that comes from a child being adopted out is no longer repeated. One example might be a child who is taken into care because their parent has a drug problem and then the parent works extremely hard to rehabilitate themselves. There are situations where parents rehabilitate themselves and completely turn their lives around, and there are also situations where parents do not.

The pain and trauma that comes with adoption is very real and lasts a lifetime. This clause intends to ensure children are not adopted out while parents are making the changes needed to become responsible parents. It intends to treat adoption as a last resort. I can see what the government is attempting to do here. They are trying not to repeat the pains of the past. However, this needs to be monitored, and appropriate guidelines need to be developed. We must ensure birth parents do not use this mechanism to withhold consent to further their child abuse. The best interests of the child must also be at the forefront and centre of these decisions.

The bill does a number of other things. It also gives the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety the ability to disclose adoption information to other organisations that require access, such as the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, who need access for integrated certificates. There is some concern here again around the balance of rights. Obviously adopted people have rights to find out information about their heritage, but their birth parents also have rights to privacy. I am of the view that this section probably should have had some further consideration, especially around the protection of privacy implications.

Moving on, this bill, as I said, is an omnibus bill. Something else I want to refer to is that this bill, in clauses 9 to 24, amends the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 to use more gender-inclusive language. There are small changes such as changing ‘his or her’ to ‘their’. This will go a long way towards making Victorians feel included, which I support. I also note Mr Grimley’s contribution and would agree with it. Ensuring language is inclusive is all well and good, but not to the point where political correctness has gone mad, where you can no longer refer to your parents as Mum or Dad when at school but rather as female-identifying parent or male-identifying parent, or changing the term ‘breastfeeding’ to ‘chest feeding’. We need to always be respectful and inclusive with the language we use. It matters. However, making changes must be reasonable and balanced.

I have outlined the numerous things that this bill does, but I am equally concerned about the things it does not do. This is the third omnibus justice bill I have spoken on since becoming a member of this chamber in the last five months. We are seeing many little amendments grouped together, some more significant than others, but what we are not seeing is the government addressing the real issues in the justice system, such as the backlogs in the court and, as Dr Bach referred to earlier, in the youth justice system. Victoria has the worst criminal case backlogs in the country: 11.3 per cent of people wait for more than two years for a County Court trial, while 30.5 per cent wait more than a year for a Magistrates Court civil claim. In New South Wales it is just 3.7 per cent. What did this government get so wrong?

Our backlogs are worse than any other state in Australia and we have been warned that it may take decades to get on top of them, yet we have still not seen a plan to actually address it. The stress of a court case hangs over a person’s head for a long time. It can be quite disruptive to everyday life. The government is only dragging this out for Victorians. There are people out there who have been charged with something and are eagerly waiting to clear their names. Many, many women are also being held in remand waiting for their time to be heard, people who may very well be innocent. There are victims of crime also waiting to tell their story and have their pain recognised, and there are others waiting to be sentenced so they can get on with their lives.

All Victorians deserve their day in court. It is one of our fundamental principles that we have rights to, and it has been denied for too long. I would urge the government to address the enormous court backlogs the next time they pull together a bill aimed at improving justice.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (14:11): I am pleased to rise in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. As outlined by some of our previous speakers, this is an omnibus bill which is multifaceted and addresses a number of deficiencies. It makes improvements to a number of areas and acts. There are small but important amendments to update, clarify and improve various justice-related acts in response to several previous reviews and calls for reform. The justice amendment bill before us shows that the Andrews Labor government is getting on with implementing the recommendations of the forced adoption parliamentary inquiry and making our justice system fairer and more efficient. These amendments will help to streamline and modernise the operation of justice legislation to support our investments in courts and justice agencies to get through the backlog left by COVID. They will implement some important consequential changes whilst also promoting equality and clarity in the law. We obviously understand that fairness is at the heart of our justice system, and we are making real investments to bring that to fruition.

The amendments in this bill complement the investments already made by our government as we recover from the COVID-19 global pandemic. We have injected over $340 million since the start of the pandemic to ensure that courts continue to hear cases and to speed up resolution of matters where needed. This includes bringing on more remote hearing services, upgrading technology, appointing more judicial officers and staff and providing legal support to resolve matters before they get to court. The 2022–23 budget just handed down provides more than $41 million in funding to help clear the backlogs caused by the pandemic when a number of in-person court services were deferred to keep the community safe.

Our focus on the justice system is longstanding. It is not just about this financial year or this budget year; in previous years we have made numerous investments, so I think it is important that we understand that context too. In addition to this year’s funding the total amount of funding in previous budget years—2020–21, for example—is over $80 million, which was implemented to help the justice system recover. There was $12.47 million for initiatives to resolve matters before they get to court, including expanding pre-court legal services and reforms to Victoria’ fines system to reduce the number of infringement matters that end up in court; $44.21 million for initiatives to provide safe and secure court access for all Victorians, including to upgrade audiovisual link technology, provide better court infrastructure and support the digital transformation of court and tribunal case list filing and management; and over $24 million to ensure cases are heard and finalised quickly, including the expansion of the online Magistrates Court and pilot electronic pop-up courts with improved AVL capabilities facilitated to improve case management and listing systems.

Over $210 million was invested in 2021–22, on top of the $80 million already invested the previous year, to continue the justice recovery, help drive down court backlogs and bolster resources in courts across our state. There was $34 million to reduce wait times in courts by providing extra resources, including innovative case management programs, expanded online services, the appointment of additional judicial officers, court support staff and remote hearing services. So I guess we are not just talking about the justice system, we are investing in the justice system. An additional $40 million was used to fund further expansion of online Magistrates Court services, ensuring cases are heard and finalised quickly. This includes two new magistrates to preside over the court. There was over $56 million to enable VCAT to transition more of its hearings online and provide for quicker and easier case resolution for the community.

There is more than $22 million to continue successful measures such as active case management at the Supreme and Country courts, which is reducing the load on judges and helping to resolve matters quicker, and $55 million to Victoria Legal Aid, Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions, Corrections Victoria and victim services to ensure that they have the necessary resources to play their part in the backlog reduction. Obviously a lot of work has already been done, but more needs to be done. That is a sign of our government: we are a government that listens and acts upon what is needed. We do not just talk about the justice system, we invest in it and we improve it. Our Attorney-General in particular, Ms Symes, should be commended for taking on this difficult task.

I know, as a lawyer, that the justice system is a challenging one. Obviously there are different demands and different pressure points, and we have got a digital transformation going on as well. Some of this started before the COVID pandemic, but I think the COVID pandemic has brought to the fore the need for this digital transformation, and obviously to bring that about you need to invest real dollars, tens of millions of dollars at times, into the system to make sure it is operational and functional and assists in clearing the backlog. Our government, I am proud to say, is investing and doing that. I have explained some of the investments we have already made in that space.

Obviously supporting the Magistrates Court is important. The bill makes two changes to assist the Magistrates Court. Firstly, the bill amends the process for making rules of the court, providing additional flexibility to the court. The change ensures that not all deputy chief magistrates need to be involved in the decisions of the court. And second, the bill makes sure that the court can hear matters that VCAT is unable to hear due to constitutional issues which were addressed by the Parliament last year. The amendments will help the court manage hearings and assist it to get through the backlog caused by COVID restrictions. The court’s pending case load increased dramatically due to the pandemic, but through the court’s hard work, supported by government investments, the backlog has already started to decline. The pending case load of the Magistrates Court has been falling since the start of the year, with more than 5000 cases cut from the backlog between March and April this year. The use of online hearings, modernised court practice and expanded powers for judicial registrars have enabled the court to maintain access to justice and allow matters to progress through the system in a timely manner.

Like I said at the beginning, this is an omnibus bill with many different aspects, and I also want to talk about the important issue of eliminating sexual harassment in the Victorian court system. The preventing and addressing sexual harassment in Victorian courts and VCAT review was jointly initiated by the former Attorney-General, the Honourable Jill Hennessy, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Honourable Anne Ferguson, to identify ways to build a culture that calls out sexual harassment, giving workers and others across the justice system the confidence to speak up without fear of reprisal. The review team was led by Dr Helen Szoke AO, in partnership with the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, to examine sexual harassment in the courts and VCAT and to identify opportunities to prevent harassment and improve reporting and support for those who experience it.

The review benefited from 36 submissions or interviews with persons who had experienced sexual harassment, 26 roundtable discussions with 175 participants from legal and court settings, 50 interviews with judicial officers, experts in sexual harassment and leaders of relevant organisations, and 11 institutional submissions. Clearly there was broad consultation. The review made 20 recommendations relating to prevention, reporting, support and accountability, most of which were directed to the courts. Court Services Victoria is well progressed in implementing the 16 recommendations made to it by the review: five are complete, three are partially complete and seven are in progress. A small number of recommendations were directed at the government, including recommendation 7, which is aimed at improving the education provided to judicial officers by making the board of the Judicial College of Victoria more diverse. According to the Szoke review:

The Judicial College of Victoria was established to support the continuing development of judicial officers and VCAT members on the breadth of issues relevant to their roles. As well as specific legal education, the Judicial College can play a significant role in continuing to support judicial officers and VCAT members on how to improve diversity and gender equality within the courts and VCAT.

To do this, the Review considers that additional experience from outside the judiciary should be added to the Judicial College. Just as most private sector organisations look externally when seeking to solve a longstanding problem within the organisation, so too should the Judicial College look to the greater range of skills and experience that exist within the community to be able to deliver the broader range of educational resources required by a modern judiciary.

The bill implements recommendation 7 by increasing the number of appointed directors of the judicial college board to allow for up to four appointed directors who are not judicial officers—that is, judges, magistrates or VCAT members. This enables the appointment of two additional directors. These additional measures to add directors will diversify the experience represented on the board and help to improve judicial education provided to Victorian judicial officers by improving the understanding of judicial officers of the issues faced by the community. Appointing additional members from the community who have broad-based experience in community issues affecting the courts serves to improve the board and how it directs judicial education. This will mean that appointed directors will have lived community experience that complements the judicial experience on the board.

As I stated at the beginning, this is a broad omnibus bill and it covers a number of matters. I have tried to focus my contribution on the changes and improvements to our court system, but there are many other aspects to this bill. Some have been discussed that I am sure that other members will reflect upon, such as the introduction of integrated birth certificates for adopted persons as recommended by the forced adoptions inquiry as well as some technical changes to support other aspects of the government response; updating our Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 with gender-inclusive language; amending the secrecy provisions in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and the Gender Equality Act 2020 to better reflect operational needs; fixing an error from the reform last year to prohibit discrimination against LGBTIQ+ students and school staff; making the Judicial College of Victoria’s board more diverse and in line with the review recommendations; amendments to help the Magistrates Court improve efficiency and to remove unclear jurisdictional provisions. It even includes updates to the Crimes at Sea Act 1999 to reflect the treaty between Australia and Timor-Leste.

This bill responds to several previous reviews that have called for reform. Our government has listened to the stakeholders, has taken it on board and has had time to reflect on the recommendations and make changes that it sees fit that will improve our state. We will make sure that we clear the backlog and make sure that everyone has access to justice in a timely fashion. On that note, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:22): I also rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I have had the benefit of listening to the contributions of Dr Bach and Ms Shing on the government benches and Mr Erdogan. I really have to say that I feel unqualified almost to speak on this bill. I really want to commend Dr Bach’s contribution and Ms Shing’s contribution. I think that when we are on the same page about some of these things we really are our best selves in this place. I think the debate that has gone before on this bill just this morning has been a really good, solid reflection of exactly that—when we are our best selves. As I said, I do feel really unqualified to speak on some of the matters that particularly Dr Bach and Ms Shing have raised, and so I will not. I will not try and follow up and do justice to any of those topics, because there are plenty of other topics in this omnibus bill which we can talk about. Of course we know it is an omnibus bill. This bill seeks to amend various pieces of legislation, and I know Ms Burnett-Wake touched on some of those as well.

I might just for the purpose of my contribution focus on perhaps some of the changes to the Gender Equality Act 2020 and how things operate in the public service with regard to gender equality. I think these changes can be correctly categorised—not only these changes that I am going to speak about in a moment but the changes across what is provided in the bill—as administrative but also machinery in nature. There need to be some amendments made to other pieces of legislation—for example, things like privacy and those sorts of things. So again, this is an omnibus bill to realign and harmonise other enabling pieces of legislation. For example, just in regard to gender equality there are important changes in this bill that are going to assist the role of the public sector gender equality commissioner. For example, the gender equality commissioner in Victoria is responsible for promoting and advancing the objectives of the Gender Equality Act and working with public sector organisations, local government and universities to improve gender equality outcomes.

It is disappointing when people talk about gender equality in terms of what is ‘woke’ and all these sorts of things. That is disappointing, and it goes against and rubs hard against what I just spoke about earlier—when we are our best selves in this place and we can actually talk about things in a more objective manner. But what we know about gender equality is that if we do not actually work on improving gender equality, it drives inequality across our society, but it also promotes other things. I was reading something the other day that was in an international publication which talked about which countries across the world have high and low levels of gender equality within their society. What was linked to that was when you have an imbalance in terms of gender equality you have more violence in society as well. So the notions of gender equality and violence against women are definitely linked—you can look across the world and see lots of different cultures and countries where they are definitely linked.

This is important, and we are starting with the public sector because obviously the public sector is in a position to lead on some of these important reforms. Hopefully what we see is that once the public sector leads on implementing gender equality reforms, the private sector follows—and not only follows; in some cases there is some fantastic work that is being done in the private sector on gender equality. I might note just one example, and this flows into pay equity as well. I know that for many years in the banking sector, through enterprise bargaining agreements, not only has maternity leave been given to women having children on the basis of it being paid but superannuation contributions have been paid on that paid maternity leave component. That does address gender equality, but it impacts pay equity as well. We know that women who have taken maternity leave or parental leave—whichever flavour you want to label it—cannot then recoup those lost superannuation contributions. That was a great initiative and reform that happened in the banking sector, and that is something that has been ongoing for at least, I would say, 10 to 15 years. That is to be commended, and we are now seeing these sorts of reforms happening in other areas as well.

Going back to the bill, as I said in regard to the public sector gender equality commissioner, the commissioner also performs a range of education, facilitation, compliance and enforcement functions, and the commissioner has a dispute resolution function relating to systemic gender equality issues in the workplace. As I said, it is public sector bodies but also local councils, universities, Court Services Victoria and the Office of Public Prosecutions that refer those issues to the commissioner in accordance with the terms of an enterprise agreement or a workplace determination. What kinds of complaints can be referred to the commission for dispute resolution? A particular complaint can be referred if it relates to a systemic gender equality issue that adversely affects a group or class of employees within a designated body and the body’s enterprise agreement or workplace determination contains a relevant gender equality issue clause allowing for the commissioner’s involvement. So, again, what has to happen is that the enterprise agreement or workplace determination must enable the commissioner to facilitate the resolution of that dispute. That is not dissimilar to any other enterprise agreements where, for example, an organisation or a body or a dispute resolution facilitator must be given the enabling power through that instrument. Likewise with this instrument, the legislation will enable that, but again it has to be contained in the enterprise agreement.

The designated bodies include public sector bodies, local councils, universities, Court Services Victoria and the Office of Public Prosecutions, and the systemic gender equality issue must relate to one or more of the workplace gender equality indicators—for example, gender pay equity or leave and flexibility. There are in fact seven workplace gender equality indicators in areas where workplace gender inequality persists and where progress towards gender equality must be demonstrated. I will just go through those seven items. They are gender pay equity, gender composition at all levels of the workplace, gender composition of governing bodies, workplace sexual harassment, recruitment and promotion, gendered work segregation and leave and flexibility. Those areas are really important, and we must continue to make progress in those things.

I am really pleased to see this act actually specifying that these seven indicators will be clearly spelt out in the act, because I can say in my former life as a trade union official—and the last place I worked at was the nurses union—one of the many disputes I used to deal with was nurses seeking flexibility in their role as a nurse because they might have young children, or even elder care was something that was coming up time and time again. We often talk about child care and the need to access childcare services, but elder care is one of those things that is also becoming more prevalent. Often nurses would be seeking flexibility, whether it was leave or flexibility in hours—often nurses have to work shift work; it is a requirement of their role—where perhaps they could maybe work just night shifts or afternoon shifts to facilitate the care and picking up of children and the like. That was always a hotly contested thing. I found that particularly disappointing given that nursing is a feminised profession, and I found it really staggering actually that that was such a difficult thing for many of our hospitals. But nevertheless it is great to see that those things will be enshrined in the act and the agencies that I mentioned before—as I said, public sector bodies, local councils, universities and the court services and public prosecutions—will be required to work on these things. I think that is a great outcome, and I also look forward to seeing all employees, regardless of being male or female, being able to actually combine their work and family responsibilities, whatever they are, whether it is child-rearing or, as I said, elder care or any other responsibilities—being able to meet them. I think what you will find is you will get more productive employees in the course of it.

Also, importantly, workplace sexual harassment: we know that that sadly is something that has persisted for many, many years. I know there was a lot of work done in the sexual harassment space in the early 1980s, and I think we had a strong response to that in the equal employment opportunities act and having the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission there as a body who could assist with resolving disputes in that—and then off to the Federal Court. But it seems to be that access to justice is a problem. It is expensive to go to the Federal Court unless you have got someone funding your litigation in that area. And sadly—and I have said this before in this place—it seems to be a bit of a strategy of legal teams these days. In any sexual harassment dispute there always seems to be a media strategy around it, and we have seen a number of high-profile sexual harassment cases being prosecuted in the media. I will not mention them, but for those of us in the chamber and perhaps for those playing along at home there are any number—pick a number, any number—of high-profile sexual harassment cases where there have been obvious and demonstrable media strategies around them, which brings a lot of pressure on complainants. It is sad that women may have to think twice about bringing a complaint because of the media scrutiny that is often involved—and that should never be the case. It should always be the case that if a complaint is made, it should be able to be investigated and appropriate actions recommended if complaints are found to be upheld. But particularly in courts we have seen a number of high-profile judges and the like come under scrutiny in this area. So again, it is sad that you get these high-pressure media strategies, but this has been something that I think is a deterrent. Also I know in Minister Stitt’s portfolio she is undertaking separate work around the use of non-disclosure agreements as well.

So there is lots of work being done in this space, but as I said, if we do not work on improving gender equality—and it is fantastic that these seven indicators are now being named and labelled under this legislation—we will not see a reduction in violence towards women and we will not see a reduction in violence towards transgender people and people from LGBTIQ+ communities. It is unacceptable, and so it is great to see this as a starting point—but there is always more work to do, always more to be done. It is really a proud moment to see that these things are actually being labelled and named, and I look forward to these agencies working solidly on all of these indicators—and I know they have to report publicly on these things as well.

So again, getting back to the bill, the commissioner will have powers in relation to dispute resolution outcomes as well, so the commissioner will have the power to deal with a referred dispute in any way they consider appropriate. Again, the scope of the powers being referred to the commissioner under this bill is incredibly broad, and justifiably so. They can make recommendations, they can express views or opinions or conduct conciliation if they deem fit; however, the commissioner cannot conduct arbitration or make binding determinations. It is important that the commissioner have appropriate powers to deal with these disputes, but again, whilst there are broad powers, in a number of ways there are limitations about binding determinations, obviously because there are other organisations and courts that can do those sorts of things.

The commissioner can of course delegate their dispute resolution functions to others. So under section 45(2) of the Gender Equality Act the commissioner can delegate some or all of the commissioner’s powers in relation to the dispute to any person who has the necessary skill and independence to exercise that power. The commissioner’s delegates, or delegate, will be subject to the same secrecy obligations as the commissioner. I touched on this a little bit earlier about public campaigns around sexual harassment, but again we need to ensure—it is labelled ‘secrecy’ here, but I would call it ‘confidentiality’—confidentiality provisions around these things for obvious reasons. In an investigation, and I have also done workplace investigations in a former life, it is incredibly important that all parties maintain confidentiality when matters are being investigated, for obvious reasons. You do not want witnesses colluding on things, but you also do not want evidence being discussed and people talking about investigations in the workplace. Why? It sort of colours things and might influence the outcome of the investigation, which is not appropriate. So there you go: that is just about the commissioner being able to delegate those functions.

There are other things in the act of course—education and research functions, the commissioner and how they are impacted by current secrecy provisions and the like—but I think the stand-outs of the particular provisions in terms of this bill are the seven labelled gender equality indicators. I will conclude my contribution there, and I commend this bill to the house.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:37): I rise to speak to the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which the Greens are supporting. This is an omnibus bill that is amending multiple acts. I will focus my comments on the amendments that relate to the forced adoptions inquiry as well as the changes to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Firstly, I am really pleased to see that the bill is amending the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities to replace gendered terms such as ‘his’ or ‘her’ with gender-inclusive language. The charter is a foundational piece of Victorian law which outlines the basic rights that all of us uphold and that the Parliament commits to protecting and promoting. But the way our charter is currently written excludes a section of our community by using language that refers to binary genders. All of us should be able to see ourselves in our human rights protections and know that we are included in the rights outlined in the charter. Removing the use of gendered terms in the charter is such an important measure in promoting an inclusive, compassionate society, and I commend the government for putting these amendments in this bill today.

This bill is also implementing a number of recommendations from the Legislative Assembly’s Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria. This was an incredibly important inquiry that was long overdue, and I would like to put on the record my thanks to the many people who shared their stories in the hope of change. The practice of forcibly separating mothers and babies is a reprehensible part of our history. It caused immeasurable harm to parents who had their children taken from them as well as to the children removed from their families. Almost a decade ago this Parliament apologised to the parents and children who experienced forced separations. With this apology, the Parliament acknowledged the devastating and ongoing impacts of the practice of forced adoptions. However, as the committee noted, this apology was only the beginning of a journey to healing, reconciliation and justice and needed to be accompanied by long-term and meaningful action. While it may be long overdue, I am pleased that we are now creating this long-term change by implementing measures to support healing and provide justice for families affected by this inexcusable practice.

The bill amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to introduce integrated birth certificates in Victoria. Currently in Victoria children are issued with a new birth certificate at the time of their adoption, which replaces their original certificate. Submissions to the inquiry noted that this practice effectively erases an adoptee’s identity and that many would like the choice to access a certificate that captures both their adoptive identity and their identity at birth. These reforms will allow adopted people to request an integrated certificate which will include both their birth and adoptive parents.

The commencement date for these changes is set for October 2023. When New South Wales introduced integrated birth certificates, the bill was introduced in August and the new certificates were issued starting in November—barely a three-month turnaround. The sector has questioned why this provision needs such a long implementation time in Victoria when New South Wales was able to implement this within months. Given integrated birth certificates were one of the priority recommendations of the inquiry, with the inquiry calling for their introduction without delay, I encourage the government to bring forward the commencement of that part of this bill so that Victorians can begin to access integrated birth certificates much earlier than October 2023.

The sector has also questioned why other priority recommendations of the inquiry have not been implemented as part of this bill. For example, while the government is in the process of developing a redress scheme for people affected by forced adoption, this bill does not address the linked recommendation that the government immediately amend the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 to exclude those affected by forced adoption from the limitations period. Similarly, this bill implements part of recommendation 54 by removing some of the current grounds for dispensing with the consent to adoption but it does not extend the period to revoke consent. The government has also not taken the opportunity to introduce a no-fault scheme for adoption discharges. I know that legislative reform can be complex and that taking the time to get a bill right is important. However, in this case many of those affected, particularly mothers, have been campaigning for change and for justice for decades. I would encourage the government to introduce the recommendations from this inquiry as a priority, particularly those flagged by the committee as urgent.

While the Greens are really pleased to see the government commit to a redress scheme for people affected by forced adoptions as well as a hardship fund, we have heard concerns that the fund only applies to mothers affected by forced adoption between 1958 and 1984. Forced separations occurred in the 1940s and 50s and in the late 1980s, and it is unclear why this particular time frame has been applied to the fund.

I am also aware that the Adoption Act 1984 as a whole is overly complicated and difficult to navigate. In 2017 the Victorian Law Reform Commission reviewed the Adoption Act and recommended it be completely rewritten and replaced with a new act, yet this recommendation has also not been taken up by the government. While the Greens are pleased to see the changes to the act in this bill today, I encourage the government to commit to a full rewrite of the Adoption Act soon.

I would like to conclude by highlighting the really important work done by the sector, particularly the Victorian Adoption Network for Information and Self Help, or VANISH. One of the other recommendations of the inquiry was for ongoing funding for VANISH to continue to provide support services for people affected by historical forced adoptions—also a recommendation this government has not yet taken up. Ongoing funding for our community sector is so important to give organisations the funding security they need to continue providing support services, especially when responding to increased demand. I encourage the government to address this funding recommendation in full so VANISH can continue supporting the post-adoption community.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:44): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. In doing so I would like to note that this bill reinforces the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the forced adoptions parliamentary inquiry. This government will always fight to make our justice system fairer and more efficient, and these amendments help to streamline and modernise the operation of justice legislation. They will continue to support our investments in courts and justice agencies to get through the backlog left by COVID.

For some time we have heard the calls for reform in this arena, and I am proud to note that the government has consulted with a range of stakeholders regarding these amendments, including the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, Industrial Relations Victoria, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Local Government Victoria, relevant trade unions and the privacy team in the Department of Justice and Community Safety as well as the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Perhaps the amendment I am most proud of in this bill, although there is much to be proud of, is the strengthening of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in order to enhance community safety and protect anti-discrimination protections. In this bill the Andrews Labor government are reinforcing our strong support for equality and the LGBTIQA+ community by removing gendered language from the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. The Andrews Labor government strongly supports equality and the rights of the LGBTIQA+ community to be themselves and to be recognised for who they are.

I am really proud to represent the diverse Northern Metropolitan Region, which has many proud achievements and contributions to the advancement of the LGBTIQA+ community. Some of these were celebrated with the first-ever Melbourne Pride festival in Fitzroy, which was an amazing celebration of 40 years of decriminalisation, I think it was. Anyway, it was a great old party and a good old time, and it was a reminder that there will always be more work to do in achieving equality in our state. I have certainly worked with local organisations in the Northern Metro Region who undertake incredible work within this community, including one that recently moved to Northern Metropolitan Region. Thorne Harbour Health is a community-controlled organisation governed by members of the community that works for gender-diverse communities as well as people right across our state from LGBTIQA+ communities. I am really happy that they are back in the northern suburbs; I am just going to say that. Thank you to the CEO, Simon Ruth, for all that he does to advance the interests, health and wellbeing of this community.

I was thinking about these remarks and what else there is to be proud of. I was delighted to join Drummond Street Services for the opening of the QSpace network, which is a service to provide wraparound, integrated support and counselling to LGBTIQA+ people, their families and support networks. We know that damaging public debate around the LGBTIQA+ community can affect the mental health and wellbeing of this community, and it was good to see that the Andrews Labor government made a critical investment to make sure that that support was available where needed in a way that was appropriate to the LGBTIQA+ communities. Really, I am with you, and I stand with you, including with the calls that have been made for the gendered language in Victorian legislation to be removed.

The changes in the bill to the charter, which remove non-inclusive language such as ‘he’ or ‘she’, represent an important symbolic step towards the goal of making Victorian legislation progressively more inclusive. We know how important it is to use inclusive language in all aspects of work and life. It has been a standard practice for many years to use gender-inclusive language when drafting legislation and amendments. We will continue to look at ways to modernise our legislation and justice system to ensure it is inclusive for all Victorians regardless of their gender. Any proposal to update language across all of Victoria’s legislation would involve more careful consideration with relevant groups such as the legal community and LGBTIQA+ stakeholders to make sure that we got the details right.

Second, the bill improves changes implemented last year by the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Act 2021 to better protect Victorians from discrimination, particularly in schools and in the workplace. This bill puts beyond doubt that section 83 of the Equal Opportunity Act only permits discrimination within religious education institutions on the basis of religious belief or activity and not on the basis of any other protected attribute such as gender identity or sexual orientation. Equality in our state is absolutely non-negotiable. All Victorians, no matter how they identify, deserve to feel supported, safe and equal, including in their workplace. Our 2021 reforms, which will come into effect in June, will provide critical protections to LGBTIQA+ people from discrimination in schools, in employment and in the provision of government-funded goods and services. The Victorian LGBTIQA+ community will not soon forget that the Liberal-National coalition voted against these important reforms. Previous protections to prevent discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people were shamefully stripped back in 2011 by the former Liberal government and were blocked from being reinstated in 2016.

The amendments in this bill will also assist the public sector gender equality commissioner in educating defined entities to protect and progress gender equality within their organisations and promote gender equality in the wider community by providing case studies for how systemic gender equality issues can be resolved in the workplace. The public sector gender equality commissioner is responsible for promoting and advancing the objectives of the Gender Equality Act 2020 and working with public sector organisations, local governments and universities to improve gender equality outcomes. The bill makes amendments to gender equality commissioner secrecy provisions to ensure the expertise and experience drawn from the dispute resolution process can inform the commissioner’s work and improve accountability and transparency in relation to systemic gender equality issues. They will assist the commissioner in educating defined entities to progress gender equality in the wider community by providing case studies of how systemic gender equality issues can be resolved in the workplace.

The bill further promotes community safety and increases efficiency in the justice system and justice system processes by expanding the current exceptions to the secrecy provision, making it clear that the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission can provide information to relevant agencies in appropriate circumstances. This change, which has been requested by VEOHRC, will make clear that it can disclose otherwise confidential information to relevant agencies, including child protection or Victoria Police, to protect the welfare of others, such as when there is a serious threat of harm to a person or when necessary under a mandatory reporting obligation. Additionally, the bill will reduce the time and public resources it takes to process freedom-of-information, or FOI, applications by clarifying that VEOHRC can use or disclose information to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, VCAT, for the purposes of FOI review applications.

This bill also goes some way to eliminating sexual harassment in Victorian courts and tribunals. The preventing and addressing sexual harassment in Victorian courts and VCAT review was jointly initiated by former Attorney-General the Honourable Jill Hennessy and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Honourable Anne Ferguson, to identify ways to build a culture that calls out sexual harassment, giving workers and others across the justice system the confidence to speak out without fear of reprisal. The review, led by Dr Helen Szoke AO in partnership with VEOHRC, examined sexual harassment in the courts and VCAT and identified opportunities to prevent harassment and improve reporting and support those who experience it. The review benefited from 36 submissions or interviews with persons who had experienced sexual harassment; 26 roundtable discussions that were held with 175 participants from legal and court settings; 50 interviews with judicial officers, experts in sexual harassment and leaders from relevant organisations; and 11 institutional submissions. Can I just take a moment to thank all of those involved in that important work.

The review made 20 recommendations relating to prevention, reporting, support and accountability, most of which were directed to the courts. Court Services Victoria is well progressed in implementing the 16 recommendations made to it by the review. Five are complete, three are partially complete and seven are in progress. A small number of recommendations were directed at the government, including recommendation 7, which aimed at improving the education provided to judicial officers by making the board of the Judicial College of Victoria more diverse.

The bill implements recommendation 7 by increasing the number of appointed directors of the judicial college board to allow for up to four appointed directors who are not judicial officers. This enables the appointment of two additional directors. These additional directors will diversify the experience represented on the board and help improve judicial education provided to Victorian judicial officers by improving the understanding by judicial officers of the issues faced by the broader community. Appointing additional members from the community who have broad-based experience in community issues affecting the courts serves to improve the board and how it directs judicial education. This will mean that appointed directors will have lived experience that complements the judicial experience of the board.

Importantly, this bill improves reform, with integrated birth certificates. I know that this has been spoken about by speakers previously, but I too would like to make a contribution on this. An integrated birth certificate is a legal birth certificate that includes the details of both the person’s natural parents and adoptive parents and the date of adoption. Currently in Victoria the only legal birth certificate in respect of a person who has been adopted is the post-adoption certificate, which shows only the adoptive parents. The bill will allow the registrar of births, deaths and marriages to issue a post-adoption birth certificate that includes the details of the natural parents and adoptive parents and can be used as a legally valid proof of identity. The IBC will be available on application by an adopted person who is aged 18 years or older—at their option. The inquiry report noted that there are diverse views regarding birth certificates, and not all people who are adopted will want an integrated birth certificate. For example, an adopted person may not wish to disclose that they are adopted when using their birth certificate for everyday purposes. This bill provides adopted people with choice. South Australia implemented IBCs that are recognised as a valid proof of identification in 2018—New South Wales and the ACT in 2020.

Additionally, in line with recommendation 34 from the inquiry, the bill amends sections 76 and 92 of the Adoption Act 1984 to remove the requirement that the issuing of the pre-adoption birth certificate is subject to the same fee as the issuing of a standard legal certificate from births, deaths and marriages. The change will allow the fee for issuing a birth certificate to those affected by forced adoption to be covered under the births, deaths and marriages financial hardship and fee waiver policy, thus making it free. This is really quite a significant change for those in our community affected by adoption. I cannot wait to talk to some loved ones about this.

There is, of course, more in this bill that I could go into. I will just take a moment to commend the work of the Legislative Assembly’s Legal and Social Issues Committee, which in 2021—September of last year—tabled its report on the inquiry into responses to historical forced adoption in Victoria. The government response to the inquiry report was tabled on 10 March this year. In that, the committee made 56 recommendations of which 33 were supported by government, including plans to introduce a redress scheme. There are a further 23 that will be considered further. The bill makes a range of priority amendments to enable some key recommendations of the inquiry to be swiftly implemented. Recommendation 26 includes the introduction of integrated birth certificates for adopted people. I am so glad that this bill today will make that possible as soon as—I hope—it can be done.

There are of course other recommendations out of this report that will be implemented following the passage of this bill. I know that there are some colleagues too that are very much interested in making contributions to this important bill that will speak to them. But I will say that in the 2022–23 budget just handed down there is more than $41 million in funding to help clear backlogs caused by the pandemic. For those that are seeking justice I know that this will indeed be welcome news. A number of in-person court services were deferred in order to keep the community safe. I am hoping that with that significant investment in the budget, which I am looking forward to making a contribution on soon, we will see even more evidence of the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to ensuring safety and access to justice across our state. The bill makes a range of important reforms that improve our justice system and implement the recommendations of several reviews. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (14:59): I will be brief. This bill makes several minor changes to several different pieces of legislation. Among them is a set of changes to the human rights charter. The government wants to replace ‘him or her’ with ‘they’ and ‘that person’, presumably so that transgender and non-binary people can now have their rights equally not protected by the charter. It is a change that is meant to be symbolic of the struggle against oppression, but the real symbolism here is that in Victoria our human rights can be amended or ignored at will.

The Victorian charter has proved to be just words on paper, providing no protections to Victorians’ fundamental rights. This government has treated the charter with the same contempt with which it has treated ordinary Victorians. A charter of human rights is an act of Parliament, and it can be undone by the same Parliament, as we have seen only too well over the last two years. Thomas Paine recognised this in his Rights of Man over two centuries ago, but Victoria is yet to figure this out. I would be willing to compromise and retitle the work Rights of Persons if that is what it would take to get this government to read it.

There is a role for symbolism. I am not opposed to language changes to recognise diversity, but the rights of Victorians are not endangered by the insensitive use of pronouns in obscure legislation. It is well past time that the rights of all Victorians with all pronouns were recognised in a real bill of rights—a bill of rights that properly restricts government power.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:01): I am very happy to be rising now to speak on this bill. First of all I do want to thank all those who did contribute to the forced adoption parliamentary inquiry in the first place. I can imagine that it would have been a very powerful but also a traumatic and an emotional experience, one that was not only powerful but empowering, and empowering for the community as well, because it also enhanced everyone’s understanding of what many, many Victorians have gone through—the deep, deep pain and suffering that they have gone through. So I do want to commend all those who have contributed to this day, here and now, where we are actually actively implementing recommendations from that inquiry. Certainly there is very much an imperative—and our government absolutely acknowledges the imperative—of getting on with implementing these recommendations, hence the reason why they are being delivered here and now in this way.

I further note that these amendments will help to streamline and modernise the operation of justice legislation to support our investments in courts and justice agencies to get through the backlog left by COVID as well. As has already been noted in the chamber, there are many components to this bill which are critical to the amelioration of the way our justice system works, and I am very pleased that we are making a range of priority arrangements to enable some key recommendations of the inquiry to be swiftly implemented, noting they are very much needed as well.

I will seek not to overlap but rather just to point out some of the key elements of the various amendments that are being made via this bill. In particular, if I can go firstly to the integrated birth certificates, there has been much discussion here, and it is important that there has been this discussion in the chamber because this is certainly a very critical change. The bill will allow the registrar of births, deaths and marriages to issue a post-adoption birth certificate that includes the details of the natural parents and adoptive parents and can be used as a legally valid proof of identity, and the IBC will be available on application by an adopted person who is 18 years or older at their option. I am going to go to a further point on this: it just shows how critical it is to get the information, to get that sort of lived experience in terms of informing this kind of transformative change, because the inquiry report notes that there are—and it has been mentioned in the chamber as well:

… diverse views regarding birth certificates and that not all people who are adopted want an integrated birth certificate.

For instance, an adopted person may not wish to disclose that they are adopted when using their birth certificate for everyday purposes. The bill provides adopted people with choice, and that is certainly something that is very, very important, because it is on the one hand allowing a critical change that will very likely change the lives of many people who are directly impacted but at the same time allowing that discretion for those who do not wish to have an integrated birth certificate as such. I think that is a very respectful and considered change that is important as part of this bill being brought forward.

Another issue that I do want to go to is that of the mandatory counselling and why it is being removed. I know there has been discussion of this in the chamber, and for good reason. It is implementing recommendation 28 of the inquiry that the requirement for a person to be interviewed by an approved counsellor should be replaced with an obligation on the department to offer counselling—we can see that very necessary shift—and to advise the applicant if the information may be distressing to them. That is also empowering. It allows for various ways that people may respond to receiving information that can be very distressing but on the other hand may be very empowering as well.

Operational changes since the transition of adoption services from the former Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Justice and Community Safety have modernised practices to ensure that applicants understand the information contained in their records and can gauge their need for future support. I think that is where the emphasis is. It is, again, very much empowering legislation, respecting the variety of perspectives that there may be when you are going through a process of looking into your past, who you are, where you come from and who is part of your story. This clarifying amendment will remove the mandatory interview requirement from the Adoption Act 1984, ensuring it clearly reflects current practice. I think that is very much about honouring the differences between human beings—we are all individuals—and it is allowing and respecting that very critical and fundamental part of human nature. I think that is also a very important but respectful change.

I know there was a discussion in the chamber with regard to consent, and I will get to that point in a minute. I am trying to find the best way to explain this, but really I think it comes back to the fundamental rationale and the fundamental imperative to bring about these legislative changes and to move away from the forced adoption practices of the past. I hope that when I explain this it will counteract some of the concerns that were raised by those opposite. I will get to my point in a moment. I note that an adoption order permanently severs the legal connection between the child and their birth family—it is permanent. I know I am stating the obvious, but that is why there have to be some other components brought into the bill, and I will get to them in a moment, to ensure that that permanent decision is one that is made appropriately.

Usually the fully informed consent of each parent or guardian of the child is needed before this can happen. In some cases consent can be dispensed with by the court; for example, if a parent or a guardian cannot, after reasonable inquiry, be found. If a situation of desertion, persistent neglect or ill-treatment exists and the parents do not agree to the child being adopted, then the child can be kept safe and cared for within the child protection system. For example, a permanent care order transfers all duties, powers, responsibilities and authority to the carers of the child and child protection is no longer involved. This option maintains the child’s name and identity of origin through continuity of their original birth certificate. I have not fully got to the rebuttal yet, and I am about to get to that.

It is important that the fully informed consent of the natural parents is required for adoption so that the forced adoption practices of the past are not repeated. I think that is a fundamental tenet that is driving these very critical changes. This is just to appreciate the rationale underpinning them and these elements of the bill. The court retains as well—this is the point I am getting to, perhaps to allay some of concerns that were raised by those opposite—a discretion to dispense with consent where there are special circumstances by reason of which, in the interests of the child, consent may be properly dispensed with. So there are those couched elements within the bill to allow for the vicissitude of circumstances that we can find ourselves in in this very delicate space when we are talking about adoptions and of course moving away from forced adoptions, as is very much the central tenet of this bill.

Another element that I did want to get to is new section 100A with regard to information sharing, because I know sometimes there can be concerns about privacy and other elements when you are looking at sharing information. But if we come back to the rationale that underpins the sharing of that information then we can see the validity of the reform. So, if you look at new section 100A, to be inserted into the Adoption Act by clause 58 of the bill, it will give the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety a discretionary power to use and disclose adoption information to organisations. Why? This is needed because the current information-sharing provisions in the act apply to individuals affected by adoption, not to organisations. The secretary is required to consider certain factors before making a decision about using or disclosing adoption information—appreciating, obviously, the delicacy of this information and the incredible impact it can have, negative or positive, on an individual’s life—including the sensitivity of the information and risk to any person who may be identified from the information. The secretary must also consider whether in all the circumstances it is desirable to use or disclose the adoption information. Adoption information disclosed to an organisation under new section 100A will only be able to be used for the purpose for which it was disclosed. I think we can appreciate why there are those protections surrounding the sharing of such delicate information.

I thought it would also be helpful to explore some examples of how the new information-sharing provision may be helpful. New section 100A would allow adoption information to be released to support agencies such as VANISH or Link-Up rather than directly to a person affected by adoption. This would allow the agency to sensitively convey the information to their client to minimise trauma to all parties involved. So we can see how well considered it has been and the reflection that has gone into developing these legislative changes because of, yet again, the incredible negative or positive impact that they can have on an individual. Other common examples include providing a foster care agency with information about a child awaiting adoption, providing child protection with specific information if they are investigating an adoptive family, providing an Aboriginal community controlled organisation with information about the adoption of an Aboriginal child and, finally, providing Family Safety Victoria with information about a mother who has placed her child for adoption under the family violence information-sharing scheme.

So we can see that there are various technical components to this legislation for good reason: to provide appropriate protections but also to facilitate things such as information sharing and also people having for instance a birth certificate that actually reflects the way that they in an empowered way want their family and their history situation to be reflected. I think that is very empowering, noting that element of choice and noting that fundamentally underpinning this is the imperative to move away from those dreaded forced adoptions of the past to a much more considered and compassionate future.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:14): I rise with pleasure to speak to the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which was introduced in the Legislative Assembly on 4 April just this year. COVID has presented many challenges and difficulties in all aspects of life and operations, and particularly it has created a backlog in the courts’ operation because of the COVID pandemic. The bill and the amendments in this bill will help to streamline and modernise the operation of the justice legislation and also to speed up and to deal with the backlog of the courts. The bill is also a commitment that the government will be implementing the recommendations of the forced adoptions parliamentary inquiry. The bill is of a more technical nature but introduces important amendments to update, to clarify and to improve various justice-related acts in response to several previous reviews and calls for reform.

Before I go into some details of the bill I would like to say that the amendments in this bill complement the investment the Andrews Labor government has made in supporting our courts to recover from COVID. We have injected more than $340 million since the start of the pandemic to ensure that the courts could continue to hear cases and to speed up the resolution of matters before the courts. This has included bringing on more remote hearing services, upgrading technology, appointing more judicial officers and staff and also providing legal support to resolve matters before they do get to the courts. This year’s budget, 2022–23, that has just been handed down has provided more than $41 million in funding to help clear case backlogs after a number of in-person court services were deferred to keep the community safe.

There are some numbers I just want to mention briefly. Prior to this year’s budget, in the year 2020–‍21 nearly $81 million of investment for justice system recovery was provided, and in 2021–22 $210 million was provided to continue justice recovery, to help drive down court backlogs and to bolster resources in the courts across our state.

The bill has several components, including to update the secrecy provisions in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to clarify that disclosures may be made in additional circumstances—namely, for serious safety threats or for mandatory reporting or to cooperate with freedom-of-information reviews. Another element of the bill is to clarify protection from religious discrimination for LGBTIQ+ students and school staff. It also updates the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 with gender-inclusive terms. Another element introduces integrated birth certificates for adopted people as well as other miscellaneous amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996.

It also amends the Judicial College of Victoria Act 2001 to increase diversity of the college board and to improve governance. It also clarifies the Magistrates Court’s jurisdiction to determine referred VCAT matters involving federal jurisdiction and streamlines approval processes for making Magistrates Court rules. Another element is that it updates the Crimes at Sea Act 1999 to reflect a treaty between Australia and Timor-Leste and a new intergovernmental agreement between the state of Victoria, the commonwealth and other states. Lastly, the bill amends the Gender Equality Act 2020 to allow the public sector gender equality commissioner and other permitted persons assisting the commissioner to disclose information, again through the dispute resolution function, in appropriate circumstances.

There are so many elements of the bill. Given the time allowed to me, I will only go to some of the elements and not overlap too much with previous speakers. I would like to speak briefly on the element of the bill which strengthens the Equal Opportunity Act. The bill makes two changes to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to enhance community safety and improve anti-discrimination protections. Firstly, the bill promotes community safety and increases efficiency in justice system processes by expressly expanding the current exception to secrecy provisions to make it clear that the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission can provide information to relevant agencies in appropriate circumstances; namely, to protect the welfare of others, such as where there is a serious threat of harm to a person, or when necessary under a mandatory reporting obligation. Additionally, the bill will reduce the time and the public resources needed for processing freedom-of-information applications by clarifying that the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission can use or disclose information to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, also known as VCAT, for the purposes of FOI review application.

The second point of strengthening the Equal Opportunity Act is that the bill improves changes implemented last year in the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Act 2021 in order to better protect Victorians from discrimination, particularly in schools and workplaces. The bill puts beyond doubt that section 83 of the Equal Opportunity Act only permits discrimination within religious educational institutions because of their very nature as religious educational institutions and that it can only apply on the basis of religious belief and activity. More importantly, it cannot be applied on the basis of any other protected attribute such as gender identity or sexual orientation. Our 2021 reforms, which will come into effect in June 2022, will provide critical protection for LGBTIQ+ people against discrimination in schools and in employment and in the provision of government-funded goods and services.

The house has to be reminded that we know that the Liberal-National coalition voted against these important reforms. Previous protections to prevent discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people were stripped back in 2011 by the former Liberal government and were blocked by the Liberals from being reinstated in 2016.

The other element I would like to touch upon is about removing gendered language in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. The changes in the bill to the charter, which remove non-inclusive language such as ‘he’ or ‘she’, represent an important symbolic step towards the goal of making Victorian legislation progressively more inclusive. It has been a standard practice for many years to use gender-inclusive language when drafting legislation and amendments. Any proposal to update language across all of Victoria’s legislation would involve careful consultation with relevant groups such as the legal community and LGBTIQ+ stakeholders to make sure that we got the detail right.

The other part is about the Gender Equality Act 2020 changes. The public sector gender equality commissioner is responsible for promoting and advancing the objectives of the Gender Equality Act and working with public sector organisations, local government and universities to improve gender quality outcomes. The bill makes amendments to the gender equality commissioner’s secrecy provision to ensure the expertise and experience drawn from the dispute resolution process can inform the commissioner’s work and to improve accountability and transparency in relation to systemic gender equality issues. This change will also assist the commissioner in educating defined entities to progress gender equality within their organisation and to promote gender equality in the wider community by providing case studies for how systemic gender equality issues can be resolved in the workplace.

In the time given I can only touch upon a few elements of the bill. As we have heard from various speakers, the bill is a technical one but it is very important, with several amendments to update, clarify and improve various justice-related acts. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:27): I also rise to make a contribution today on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which as has been stated, is an omnibus bill. I might take this opportunity to thank the previous speakers who have made a contribution today in the chamber, in particular Ms Shing and Dr Bach, who shared their personal and informed experiences during their contributions. As has been said by previous speakers, this is a bill that makes a number of small but important amendments to update, clarify and improve various justice-related acts. The changes are quite technical and quite detailed. I know a lot of previous speakers have outlined a lot of those, and you will probably hear a lot of the same thing in my contribution again today, but again I think it is important that we do go over that and include that for the record anyway.

The bill responds to several previous reviews and calls for reform. It is a bill that shows that the Andrews Labor government is getting on with implementing the recommendations of the forced adoption parliamentary inquiry and is making our justice system fairer and more efficient. The amendments contained within it will help to streamline and modernise the operation of our justice legislation, and that is supported by our investments in courts and justice agencies to get through the backlog left by the COVID pandemic. They will implement some important consequential and symbolic changes but also will promote equality and clarity in the law.

The bill will update the secrecy provisions in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to clarify that disclosures may be made in additional circumstances—that is, serious safety threats, mandatory reporting or to cooperate with freedom-of-information reviews; clarify the protection from religious discrimination of LGBTIQ+ students and school staff; update the Charter of Human and Responsibilities Act 2006 with gender-inclusive terms; introduce integrated birth certificates for adopted people, as well as other miscellaneous amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996; amend the Judicial College of Victoria Act 2001 to increase diversity of the college board and improve governance arrangements; clarify the Magistrates Court judicial jurisdiction to determine referred VCAT matters involving federal jurisdiction and streamline the approval processes for making Magistrates Court rules; update the Crimes at Sea Act 1999 to reflect a treaty between Australia and Timor-Leste, a new intergovernmental agreement between the commonwealth, Victoria and other states; and amend the Gender Equality Act 2020 to allow the public sector gender equality commissioner and other permitted persons assisting the commissioner to disclose information gained through their dispute resolution function in appropriate circumstances.

Now, all of these amendments in the bill have been complemented by the investments that the Andrews Labor government have made in supporting the courts to recover from COVID, which has been a significant investment. As we know, the court system has not been immune from the impacts of the COVID pandemic—as all elements of the state—so we have made significant investments to address those issues as well. We have injected more than $340 million since the start of the pandemic to ensure that the courts could continue to hear cases and to speed up the resolution of matters. This included bringing on more remote hearing services, upgrading technology, appointing more judicial officers and staff and providing legal support to resolve matters before they got to court.

The 2022–23 budget just handed down provides more than $41 million in funding to help clear case backlogs caused by the pandemic, when a number of in-person court services were deferred to keep the community safe. In addition to this year’s budget funding the government’s total investment includes an $80.978 million investment in 2020–21 for justice system recovery made up of $12.47 million for initiatives to resolve matters before they get to court, including expanding pre-court legal services and reforms to the Victorian fines system to reduce the number of infringement matters that end up in court; $44.21 million for initiatives to provide safe and secure court access for all Victorians, including to upgrade audiovisual link technology, provide better court infrastructure and support digital transformation of court and tribunal case lists, filing and management; $24.15 million to ensure cases are heard and finalised quickly, including the expansion of the online Magistrates Court pilot electronic pop-up courts with improved AVL capabilities and to facilitate case management and listing systems; and $210 million in the 2021–22 budget to continue justice recovery, help drive down court backlogs and bolster resources in courts across the state. This includes $30.8 million to reduce wait times in courts by providing for extra resources, including innovative case management programs, expanding online services, the appointment of additional judicial officers, court support staff and remote hearing services. There is $4.9 million to fund further expansion of the online Magistrates Court, ensuring cases are heard and finalised quickly. This includes two new magistrates to preside over the court. There is $56.78 million to enable VCAT to transition more of its hearings online and provide quicker and easier case resolution for the community, and more than $22.9 million to continue with successful measures such as active case management at the Supreme and County courts, which will reduce the load of judges and help to resolve these matters earlier.

As you can see, the investments along with the amendments in this bill will help streamline the processes and continue to help us catch up with the backlog that has been created as a result of the COVID pandemic.

Returning to the bill and the specific details of the amendments within it, I will go into a little bit more detail about those now. In relation to the forced adoption inquiry and the amendments that relate to that, on 8 September 2021 the Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee tabled its report on the inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria. The government’s response to the inquiry was tabled on 10 March 2022. The committee made 56 recommendations, of which 33 were supported by the government, including plans to introduce a redress scheme. The remaining 23 recommendations will be considered further.

This bill makes a range of priority amendments to enable some of the key recommendations of the inquiry to be swiftly implemented. Firstly, the bill makes a range of amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to implement recommendation 26 to introduce integrated birth certificates for adopted people. It also amends the Adoption Act to enable the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to disclose adoption information to other organisations that require access. This amendment is necessary to allow a forced adoption redress scheme to be implemented in line with recommendation 18. It will also allow for future academic research into open adoption to occur, as set out in recommendations 14 and 15 of the report. Other amendments give the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety a clear function to provide additional adoption support services, which are the subject of recommendations 32, 37, 38 and 39. They amend the Adoption Act to enable the secretary to obtain, in order to properly protect, certain adoption records.

In relation to the integrated birth certificates, which are legal birth certificates that include the details of both the person’s natural parents and adoptive parents and the date of adoption, currently in Victoria the only legal birth certificate in respect of a person who has been adopted is the post-adoption certificate, which shows only the adoptive parents. The bill will allow the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages to issue a post-adoption birth certificate that includes the details of the natural parents and adoptive parents and that can be used as a legally valid proof of identity. This integrated birth certificate will be available on application by an adopted person who is aged 18 years or older at their option.

The inquiry report noted that there are diverse views regarding birth certificates and that not all people who are adopted will want an integrated birth certificate. For example, an adopted person may not wish to disclose that they are adopted when using the birth certificate for everyday purposes. The bill provides adopted people with choice. South Australia implemented these birth certificates, which are recognised as valid proof of identification, in 2018. New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory implemented their use in 2020.

Additionally, in line with recommendation 34 of the inquiry, the bill amends sections 76 and 92 of the Adoption Act to remove the requirement that the issuing of a pre-adoption birth certificate be subject to the same fee as the issuing of a standard legal birth certificate from births, deaths and marriages. This change will allow the fee for issuing a birth certificate to those affected by forced adoption to be covered by the births, deaths and marriages financial hardship and fee waiver policy, thus making it free.

In terms of additional amendments, there is the removal of mandatory counselling, which has also been spoken about earlier today. Section 87 of the Adoption Act currently provides that a person who has applied for adoption information, including an adopted person, must attend an interview with an approved counsellor before they can receive information about the adoption to which the application relates. The purpose of this interview, as currently conducted, is not to assess the applicant or make decisions about what should be released to the applicant but rather to offer advice and support to the applicant and to ensure they are aware that it may contain sensitive or confronting information. Effectively this bill replaces the mandatory interview requirement with an optional offer of counselling before providing an applicant with access to the information and requires that an applicant be advised if the information could reasonably be expected to be distressing. These amendments to section 87 of the Adoption Act implement recommendation 28 of the inquiry and bring the legislation in line with current practice.

In relation to the repeal of the child protection grounds, there is an amendment in this bill which implements part of recommendation 56 from the inquiry that the adoption of a child on protection grounds be restricted as far as practicable. An adoption order permanently severs the legal connection between the child and their birth family. Usually fully informed consent of each parent or guardian of the child is needed before this can happen. In some cases consent can be dispensed with by the court—for example, if a parent or guardian cannot, after a reasonable search, be found. This bill will remove some of the current grounds for dispensing with consent which relate to the parent or guardian deserting a child or persistently neglecting or ill-treating a child. If these situations exist and the parents do not agree to the child being adopted, then the child can be kept safe and cared for within the child protection system.

Other changes in the bill relate to information-sharing provisions—I am just conscious of the time. There are also changes in the bill which relate to the strengthening of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. The bill makes changes that enhance community safety and improve the anti-discrimination protections in the act. It promotes community safety and increased efficiency for justice system processing by expressly expanding the current exemptions to the secrecy provision to make it clear that the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission can provide information to relevant agencies in appropriate circumstances. And the bill improves changes implemented last year by the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exemptions) Amendment Act 2021 to better protect Victorians from discrimination, particularly in schools and in workplaces.

There are also changes which relate to removing gendered language in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, because our government strongly supports equality and the rights of the LGBTIQ+ community to be themselves and to be recognised for who they are. We will continue to take all steps to ensure that that occurs. There are changes in the bill which help to eliminate sexual harassment in our Victorian courts and tribunals, and there are also additional changes with regard to supporting our Magistrates Court in terms of the work that they do as well as changes with regard to the public sector gender equality commissioner to provide them with additional assistance and amendments to provide clarity in regard to their role as well.

Essentially this bill, as I said at the outset, will help streamline and modernise the operation of the justice system and, together with the investments that we have made through this year’s budget and the previous year’s budget, will continue to improve the system, as we have committed to continuing to do, and that is why I commend the bill to the house.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:42): I just want to take the opportunity to thank all of the speakers today. There have been some really good contributions, and obviously the details of the bill have been well examined. As you know, the bill makes several minor but meaningful changes to several acts. It is a classic omnibus bill in the justice space, and it is all about clarifying laws and making improvements where you can.

The bill of course strengthens the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and reflects changes that were requested by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission relating to secrecy provisions and relating to the appropriate sharing of information, particularly where it is of assistance to protecting the safety and wellbeing of others and also in certain FOI matters. The bill updates the charter of human rights with gender-inclusive language, removing references such as ‘his or her’ and replacing them with terms with gender-neutral language. This is something I have been wanting to do for a while, so it has been a good opportunity to be able to put it in this omnibus bill.

I certainly would like to acknowledge the work of the former Attorney-General, the member for Altona in the other place, and the Chief Justice of Victoria, Anne Ferguson, who commissioned the Szoke review of sexual harassment in Victorian courts and VCAT to identify ways to build a culture that calls out sexual harassment and certainly goes some way to giving workers and others across the justice system the confidence they need to speak without fear of reprisal. I am also pleased to report that the court services report is well progressed in implementing the 16 recommendations made to it by the review. Five are complete, three are partially complete and seven are in progress.

The bill acquits one of the recommendations directed at government. It increases the number of appointed directors to the Judicial College of Victoria board from two to four, improving the education provided to judicial officers by making the board more diverse.

I do want to spend just a little bit of time following up on some of the comments that people made in relation to our amendments that go to delivering the first tranche of actions that the government is taking in response to the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into forced adoptions in Victoria. As I said when we released our response to that report, the forced separation of children from their mothers is a shameful part of our history. For many mothers, for children, for fathers and for siblings it has resulted in significant distress, grief and lifelong trauma, and we as a government want to recognise that harm that was caused by those practices. We are committed to providing meaningful acknowledgement and support for those that were impacted, and many of those continue to be significantly impacted by those practices.

One of the key messages that we did hear throughout the parliamentary inquiry was the need for recommendations to be implemented as quickly as possible. Therefore it is a really positive start that just a few months after the report was responded to we are in a position to implement several recommendations that lay the groundwork for the rest of them once we have the important scoping and design work for the redress scheme done, which has the full attention of the department, working with our community advocates at the same time.

The bill amends the Adoption Act 1984 and the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to enable the issuing of an integrated birth certificate upon request by an adopted person who is at least 18 years of age. An integrated birth certificate will be a legal identity document which includes the names of both the adoptive and birth parents of the adopted person. I would certainly like to acknowledge the advocacy in this space of the Victorian Adoption Network for Information and Self Help, VANISH, which has put forward the case supporting the introduction of integrated birth certificates for many years. I know that many of those representatives are pleased to see that finally happen, and I think they may be here today. Thank you again for your continued efforts in a really difficult space. Hopefully this is a proud day for your organisation and what you have achieved.

I am proud that people in Victoria, including Dr Bach, will be able to have an option such as this in the near future. Integrated birth certificates will have equal status to other birth certificates, and they will be free of charge for first-time applicants. I do want to thank Dr Bach for his contribution to this bill. I have missed him since he left the shadow portfolio of Attorney-General, but it is good to see that he has a strong interest in justice matters. I think somebody speaking about lived experience of adoption is something that is of great value to this chamber, so thank you for your contribution, Dr Bach, and your passion in these areas.

There were a few questions raised in today’s debate. I just wanted to touch on the year-spanning issue, I guess—the years that this is designed to capture. It is based on the parliamentary committee’s work and recommendations that the redress scheme for mothers affected by forced adoption should span 1958 to 1984. I am aware that some people are concerned particularly about the 1958 year. I want to provide some reassurance that these years are not necessarily set in stone. They were required to ensure that work progressed to do the scoping and things like that, but we are aware that some people have got issues with the dates. As that work continues we can certainly revisit them as I receive further information from key stakeholders who are involved with the design of the redress scheme.

There is also the Victorian Law Reform Commission review of the Adoption Act. This bill implements a recommendation from that review, removing the requirement for a mandatory interview prior to the release of adoption records to adoptees and other applicants. The interview requirement becomes optional and includes an obligation that the applicant is advised if the content of the record could be distressing. This update reflects current practice in place since adoption services transitioned to the Department of Justice and Community Safety. That is being done, but I know that there is some interest in further work. I again want to take the opportunity to put on record that work on implementing further recommendations from the VLRC’s review is ongoing and occurring concurrently with the development and progress of the remaining recommendations contained in the parliamentary report. We certainly recognise that there is more work to be done on bringing the Adoption Act into line with modern expectations, and additional legislative changes will be brought to this place, including amendments to the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to allow mothers to pursue civil claims against responsible institutions. This forms part of the broader work currently being undertaken in standing up the all-important redress scheme.

There was also some commentary and questions around clause 54, which makes amendments that remove some of the current grounds for dispensing with consent to adoption of a child. Adoption is a last resort as an adoption order permanently severs the legal connection between a child and their birth family. In most cases the fully informed consent of each parent or guardian of the child is needed before this can happen. It is imperative that the fully informed consent of the birth parents is required for an adoption to occur so that forced adoption practices of the past cannot be repeated or in any way replicated in a different form. So this is an important measure to have in there, but I have heard some of the concerns about individuals perhaps not providing consent for a range of reasons—maybe malicious reasons, maybe reasons that are not in the best interests of a child for a variety of reasons—but I do note that the bill contains an important protection measure, and that is that the court retains a discretion to dispense with consent where there are:

… special circumstances by reason of which, in the interests of … the child, the consent may properly be dispensed with.

So I think that strikes the right balance. However, I will take on board Dr Bach’s request for us to keep an eye on this, and I am certainly happy to do that. We know that adoption numbers in Victoria are extremely low. In the vast majority of cases they are step-parents taking on an adoption role, or a grandparent, for example, but they are very small and different to the practices of the past. But I think that that balance, where consent is not provided, that the court can step in and have a look at whether that is an appropriate thing or not, should be a good safety net for any of those cases that the opposition have identified that they remain a little bit concerned about.

This is the first tranche of reforms brought in this place implementing the government’s response to the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s work from the lower house. So I just do want to take the opportunity again to thank them for this work. I know it was really important work and it has created a real groundswell of passion for this issue across the Parliament, so it is great to be getting on with some of these reforms.

Why wouldn’t you have passion when you are responding to some pretty horrendous stories from some pretty amazing women who have come forward to tell us how they were impacted by these practices? I commit to the women who were subjected to this that this is just the start of our government’s commitment to responding to past practices that should never have happened, and we hope that this can provide some comfort and support for people that are in this situation. I do commend the bill to the house, and I really thank those members who have contributed today and will contribute to our future reforms when they come, in the next tranche of reforms.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:53): It is not very often I have a bill that does not go into committee. You forget what you are doing. By leave, I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.

Sitting suspended 3.54 pm until 4.18 pm.

The PRESIDENT: Members, we have in the gallery the Ambassador of Israel to Australia, His Excellency Mr Amir Maimon, and his wife, Mrs Tal Maimon. Welcome to the Victorian Parliament.