Thursday, 1 September 2022

Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms SHING:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:22): It is good to rise to make a contribution on an important omnibus bill. The Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is a bill for an act to amend the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, the Victoria Police Act 2013 and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and also for other purposes. According to the new Minister for Police in the other place, who I used to have the great pleasure and privilege of shadowing when he was briefly Minister for Child Protection and Family Services—one of our four ministers for child protection in the last 10 months:

The Bill before the House introduces a range of policing reforms which are aimed at keeping the community safe and protecting the privacy of applicants to the Victoria Police Restorative Engagement and Redress Scheme.

In these endeavours the Minister for Police has the support of those of us on this side of the house. We have one or two concerns that are not overriding concerns. They are concerns that my friend in the other place Mr Battin has spoken about, and I do not feel the need to entirely recapitulate his remarks. I will touch on them in my comments, but in the main we think this bill includes some important elements and therefore we will certainly not be opposing it.

The changes to the sex offender register we feel are welcome. We have some differences with the government when it comes to the protection of vulnerable children, and those have been aired this week, as they have been aired previously. However, in regard to the changes put forward to the sex offender register, those in the Liberal and National parties and in the Andrews Labor government are as one.

I do not mean to sound braggadocious. However, I have some foreknowledge of proper processes when it comes to registers of this kind and also systems of supervision—I am thinking about the reporting provisions in the Sex Offenders Registration Act. Some years ago, when I was carrying out my doctoral studies, I had a particular focus on registers of criminals and processes that have historically ensured that, far more often than not, registers work very, very badly and also supervision schemes and the processes that, again historically, have normally ensured that police supervision in the community works very, very ill.

Firstly perhaps, when it comes to reporting I was pleased, as my dear friend Mr Battin was pleased, to see some changes in this bill—well, perhaps changes is the wrong word; some points of clarification—so that it is well known that, when reporting is required, that reporting is done in person. Mr Battin spoke about the ubiquity of Zoom, for example. Again, I think it is important, as members of the government think it is important—as the minister thinks it is important—to ensure that, when reporting is necessary, that is done in person. One of the core elements of unsuccessful schemes for the last 200 years over which schemes of supervision in the community have been operational is reporting that does not have to be done in person. So I think that the provisions contained in this bill regarding reporting in person are very good.

I also think that some of the changes, and there are several, to the operation of the sex offender register are important and well constructed. We saw over the period of the pandemic quite shockingly very significant increases in the reporting of sexual crimes against children. We have spoken in this place at length this week about crimes against women and children. We spoke about sexual crimes in particular earlier this week when we were discussing the government’s new scheme for affirmative consent, which again has the support of members of the Liberal and National parties. At that time we spoke about the current fact of the matter whereby under-reporting is so marked. I was deeply concerned, as I understand members of the government were deeply concerned, to learn through the period of the pandemic, for a whole series of complex reasons, the reporting of sexual offences against children increased so significantly.

My personal view about the sex offender register is that it is most certainly not a panacea, but it is one tool in our toolbox as we seek to keep as many Victorian children safe as possible. Sometimes the register can work well, notwithstanding the fact that historically almost every register of criminals that has ever been established has served no purpose whatsoever. To continue to monitor the workings of this register and to continue to seek to make changes in an effort to ensure that as far as possible Victorian children are safe is a good thing to do. I know from my previous life as a leader and indeed as the child protection officer at two large Melbourne schools that sometimes the workings of the sex offender register can provide comfort to families in desperate situations who are most certainly in need of comfort.

I will speak just briefly about the specifics of some of the changes, and then I will speak again very briefly about one or two of the concerns that Mr Battin already talked about in the other place. At that point I will be very pleased to listen intently to the contribution of Mr Erdogan. Some of the measures in the bill, regarding the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, are simply to clarify that for those offenders who need to be registered, when they have got contact with a child, if the offender in any way engages in physical contact or any form of communication, in particular oral communication or written communication, if the purpose is for the forming of a personal relationship, that most certainly is not allowed. That is one good change, and there are numerous other meritorious changes—minor changes you might say, but nonetheless meritorious changes—to the working of the sex offender register, which as I understand it have the support of all parties in this place.

On the concerns that we in the coalition have expressed, in particular at clause 22, we have our worries about the cost burden here on small businesses. We have broached these concerns widely in the debate in the other house, and so again I do not need to recapitulate them. Nonetheless I will simply make that point. Once again it is something to watch, if I could be so bold. I would not ever wish to instruct my colleagues on the government benches, but perhaps a suggestion: the workings of clause 22 are ones to watch.

Secondly, and in reverse order, at clause 14 my friends in the other place have argued that these powers would best be carried out by the Chief Commissioner of Police, and so if again I could be so bold as to perhaps provide some advice to my friends opposite, the workings of clause 14 are one to watch.

Finally, I was pleased to see, as I was watching intently the debate in the other place, many positive comments—

Mr Melhem: You weren’t watching, were you?

Dr BACH: Mr Melhem interjects to say I was not watching. All right, I misled the house, and I retract that. I have read some elements in Hansard. More correctly put, a member of my staff read some elements in Hansard, and they told me that this occurred. All right? That is my final position, and I stand by it. I am advised by a member of my staff, who I am told did read some elements in Hansard, that numerous positive things were said—

Mr Melhem: Why can’t your leader be like you?

Dr BACH: I am not taking up that; I will plead the fifth on that one. I am advised that numerous positive comments were made about PSOs in the other place, and again I want to put on the record my deepest admiration not just for members of Victoria Police, for our police officers, but also for PSOs, who as I am led to believe, now experience so much confidence not just in the Victorian community, where we know that PSOs experience great confidence, but also in here, where they did not always experience the confidence of all parties. I think it was the former Deputy Premier, a good person actually, who nonetheless described PSOs as ‘plastic policemen’—a disgraceful comment quite frankly. We are protected every day by PSOs. So many other Victorians are protected by PSOs. When the Baillieu and Napthine governments first introduced PSOs into our suite of protective law and order options here in Victoria, there was a huge amount of opposition. However, through the hard work of the men and women who serve the community through that role, much confidence has been garnered right across the Victorian community and—I do not mean to be overly partisan in my comments—much confidence now right across all parties in this Parliament has been expressed in our PSOs, which is a great thing.

Overwhelmingly I think this is a good bill. I think the elements that relate to registration and also to supervision in the community are good. I think that it is excellent that we are expressing such confidence in our PSOs. Of course I want to put on record how thankful I am to the men and women of Victoria Police who protect the community that I represent but also communities right across Victoria. It is a good thing that we as a Parliament continue to look at legal mechanisms to seek to ensure that they have the tools they need to continue to do their really important work and that they are protected as far as possible, notwithstanding the inherent risks of their roles and I dare say especially given shocking recent events that we have recently been discussing in this place. Every single member of Victoria Police is highly cognisant of the immense risks that they face, but we must do whatever we can in here to reasonably lessen those risks but then also to seek to ensure that whenever it is that members of Victoria Police are harmed—and some will continue to be harmed—in the execution of their duties, appropriate processes are in place to seek to support them and their families. For those reasons those of us on this side of the house will be supporting this bill today.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (16:34): I am also pleased to rise in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022. I thank Dr Bach for his refreshing contribution on the bill before the house and his expression of support. I think it is important that on matters of community safety we do come together in this chamber, regardless of political alliances or allegiances, so to speak. It is very refreshing, and it is interesting that he also shared with us his thoughts and his concerns, because as I said, as a government and as a member of this chamber I really do take on board fulsome feedback. I think robust feedback is important. Where improvements can be made we need to go away, but I think the bill in its current form in this instance is quite suitable and should be supported.

It is a very important bill of course. It is a bill that introduces a range of amendments to a number of acts but in particular to the Victoria Police Act 2013 and the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. Obviously the ultimate goal, as stated by the Minister for Police in the other place, is the aim of keeping the community safe. That is one of the primary objectives of the bill overall. The amendments included in this omnibus bill I do want to touch upon. Dr Bach did touch upon some aspects, but I think a more fulsome explanation of the exact amendments is needed in this place. Some of the amendments include allowing Victoria Police to recover costs from the organisers of large commercial events for policing services in the areas surrounding the event—for example, traffic control services in surrounding suburbs. The amendments also provide police and protective service officers, PSOs, with powers to protect the security of police premises, including requiring a person to provide a reason for their presence, asking a person to leave and not return if they do not have a legitimate reason and removing or arresting them if they do not leave in that instance.

It establishes a legislative framework for the restorative engagement and redress scheme, provides transparency about eligibility for the scheme and protects the privacy of participants. It allows the Chief Commissioner of Police to consider terminating the employment of a police recruit or PSO who has not yet been sworn in if the individual returns a positive drug test. It empowers the chief commissioner to direct or permit a registrable sex offender to report to police electronically if a state of emergency, a state of disaster or a pandemic declaration is enforced and requires the registrable offender to provide improved information. It also clarifies that the offence of sexual assault of a person with a cognitive impairment or mental illness is a class 2 offence when committed against a child, and any person who commits this offence is automatically a registrable offender and subject to the reporting requirements. It lists the commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to prepare or plan to engage in sexual activity with or procure for sexual activity persons under 16 as a class 2 offence, and any person who commits this offence is automatically a registrable offender and subject to the reporting requirements of the act.

The amendments in this bill are necessary to address gaps and provide clarity—including, for example, clarification of existing PSO powers—and to ensure police have the powers they need to keep their members and members of the community safe when attending police premises. The bill also contains amendments which deliver on commitments and drive proactive initiatives, including establishing a legislative framework for the restorative engagement and redress scheme and supporting the need for Victoria Police to better determine and recover costs for services they provide at large-scale for-profit events. We are a government that is proud of our record of listening and acting on behalf of Victorians. The Police Association Victoria was closely consulted on the amendments set out in this bill. They support the amendments and in particular welcome the actions of the government to provide police with the powers they need to ensure police premises continue to be safe for both police and members of the community. The community legal centres and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service were also consulted in the development of the bill before us.

The government is clear in its stance on policing and community safety. Since being elected in 2014 we have provided the resources, tools and powers that police need to keep the community safe. We turned around police investment, with the policing budget now 63 per cent higher than when we were first elected in 2014. Throughout this term of government we have invested over $4.5 billion in new funding for police, including funding for an additional 502 police officers and 50 PSOs in our most recent budget. This investment builds on the 3135 new police officers already on our streets, which includes general duty police officers working in local communities but also specialist officers, including hundreds of family violence police officers.

We worked closely with force command on developing this recruitment pipeline, which includes the development of the staffing allocation model, SAM, a sophisticated model that assists police to guide police resourcing needs. The model was developed by Victoria Police in consultation with the Police Association Victoria and endorsed by our government. This approach has seen the end of the boom-and-bust cycle of police resourcing. It is seeing police resourcing determined by experts and by need, rather than election cycles. The SAM, like any other model, needs to be dynamic and adapt to external variables. In recent times Victorians have profoundly changed how they live and work, working from home more and relocating to our regional towns and cities. That is why we have committed to working with Victoria Police and the Police Association Victoria to update their SAM to ensure it continues to be responsive to these changed circumstances.

As at March 2022 there were 3356 more police officers in stations and in specialist units—more now than in November 2014—a 26 per cent increase. We have 355 more PSOs across our public transport network—a 32 per cent increase. Under our watch the force has grown by 28 per cent, and that includes sworn officers, police custody officers and Victorian public service staff.

Obviously these new powers that we are providing are designed to assist police to keep the community safe. The new powers are designed to tackle serious offenders too. They include new sentencing provisions for offenders who ram police cars or injure police officers or PSOs. This means offenders who injure police can expect to see jail time. We have also developed firearm prohibition orders to tackle criminals who use illegal firearms and present a clear and present threat to our community. In this term of government we have expanded the role and powers of PSOs. PSOs perform an important role on the public transport network, but we know they can do much more than was originally imagined by those opposite. We have expanded the powers and responsibilities they have as well as their training and career structure. This was important, as PSOs were moved off the public transport network at the height of the pandemic to assist with public safety and crime prevention.

Our investment is showing results, I say. The latest crime statistics are proof. They show that the offence rate per 100 000 in Victoria has decreased by 11.9 per cent, the alleged offender rate has decreased by 18.6 per cent and overall the victimisation rate has decreased by 2.5 per cent. When we look at crime rates over the course of this government and the previous government, we see an 11.7 per cent increase in the crime rate between 2011 and 2014, while a comparison between the most recent 12 months and the last 12 months of the previous government shows a crime rate decrease of 9.7 per cent.

Another independent source of information is the recent 2022 Productivity Commission Report on Government Services. It shows that Victorians are feeling safer in their homes and communities. That is important as well. It is not only the perception; the action is there. I do not want to be too partisan, because I do note that the state opposition has expressed support for the bill before us, but I do want to point out that our government’s record on keeping the community safe is there for all to see. I am sure other speakers may want to reflect on the opposition’s record, but on that point, like I said, I do not want to be partisan, because we do have general support for the bill before the chamber, from the crossbench as well.

I want to reflect on a different part of the bill. I have talked about the reforms that strengthen the much-needed police powers, but there are also changes to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. It is another aspect, and an important aspect, of this bill.

Dr Bach: Good changes.

Mr ERDOGAN: That is right. Dr Bach says they are good changes. I concur with him on that; they are very good changes. The reforms amend the act to empower the chief commissioner to direct or permit a registrable offender to report to the police electronically if a state of emergency, a state of disaster or a pandemic declaration is in force and require registered offenders to provide improved information. The bill clarifies that the offence of ‘sexual assault of a person with a cognitive impairment or mental illness’ is a class 2 offence when committed against a child, and any person who commits this offence is automatically a registrable offender and subject to reporting requirements. It also lists the commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to prepare or plan to engage in sexual activity with, or procure for sexual activity, persons under 16 as a class 2 offence, and a person who commits this offence is automatically a registrable offender and subject to the reporting requirements of the act.

The bill provides for part 2, except for clauses 4, 5 and 6, to come into operation on the day after the act receives royal assent—so it is going to be implemented straightaway. Clause 4 will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed, with a default commencement date of 21 June 2023. A longer commencement date for clause 4 is necessary so registrable offenders impacted by this reform can be notified before it comes into effect. Section 46(3) of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 provides that:

It is a defence to proceedings for an offence of failing to comply with a reporting obligation if it is established by or on behalf of the person charged with the offence that, at the time the offence is alleged to have occurred, the person had not received notice, and was otherwise unaware, of the obligation.

Clauses 5 and 6 will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed, with a default commencement also of 21 June 2023. This is to allow sufficient time to prepare consequential regulations in accordance with section 26(5) of the Sex Offenders Registration Act to prescribe any information or documents that are required to be produced for the purposes of this new section 23A of the act.

Community safety has always been a priority of our government. That is why we have ensured a record amount of $4.5 billion has been invested into Victoria Police since we came to power. We have ensured that the police have the powers and resources they need to keep our community safe. A well-resourced police force is essential to providing a safe environment for all Victorians.

As I have raised during this contribution, the bill delivers important amendments to the Victoria Police Act and the Sex Offenders Registration Act, amongst other acts. These amendments are designed to keep the community safe, clarify a number of provisions and protect the privacy of participants in our restorative engagement and redress scheme. Our record is one of strongly backing our police force and delivering on our commitment to the community. It is what we have always done and what we will always continue to do.

I am pleased to speak on the bill before the house, because it means so much to so many people. It ensures extra measures are in place to protect members of the police force but also extra measures and tools in place to protect the wider community. Obviously the bill is only one step in terms of a number of justice legislation reforms that we have seen in this chamber. In my short time I have seen a number of improvements, and again I am proud of our government’s record of reviewing and updating legislation in a timely fashion so that we—

Dr Bach interjected.

Mr ERDOGAN: Dr Bach has interjected. I will not respond to his interjections. Like I said, in a timely fashion we are updating the law, because obviously we understand that people see what we are doing and we are delivering. Sure, there might be some people that are concerned about some of these changes. I know community legal sector stakeholders have expressed some concern about the proposed powers to assist police officers and PSOs to respond to security risks at police premises. Significant amendments have already been incorporated into this proposal in response to these concerns to ensure that the powers are proportionate and aligned with their purpose—again, another example of where we do take up robust feedback and we try to implement it in the final version of a bill before it is presented to the house. On that note, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (16:48): I rise also to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022. This bill will do a whole range of things in respect of the Victoria Police Act 2013 and the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. Clearly that means it is a very important bill for our party, which was formed predominantly on the back of Derryn Hinch’s incredible advocacy fighting for survivors of childhood sexual assault over the past three decades.

To the contents of the bill: I am so glad to see the government is fixing issues in the Sex Offenders Registration Act. Coincidentally one of the issues being fixed is one that we had been informed about by Victoria Police members and were planning to address through an amendment. This issue is that sex offenders with no fixed address do not currently have to give information about where they sleep as part of their reporting requirements. Under this bill they will now be required to identify where they sleep on a regular basis, and this is great news.

The bill will also reduce reporting from 14 days to seven days for certain information, including details of the motor vehicle they are driving. Importantly it broadens the definition of when a registered sex offender has contact with a child to include when they are maintaining contact, not just forming that contact—another great amendment. As an ex sexual offences and child-abuse investigation team detective, this is something that is very important when it comes to prosecuting an offender.

The bill clarifies that certain sexual offences against a person with a cognitive disability are class 2 offences, and I am thrilled to see the government proactively changing potentially flawed language to ensure that it is airtight, which ensures offenders’ legal representations cannot find loopholes in the law. I would ask the minister to clarify perhaps in summing up or in the committee stage the fact that there seems to be an ability for a sex offender to appeal their registration after two years in respect of this type of offending.

One amendment we are not happy with is that the bill will allow sex offenders to report by audio link, audiovisual link or electronic communication during a state of emergency or even during a state of disaster or a pandemic. The concern is that if we have a pandemic that goes on for years, like we are currently experiencing, then offenders might not be physically checked to see if they are where they should be.

One issue we have had raised with us by the specialist case managers who manage the sex offenders list is the powers of entry and search and seizure. These powers only exist if the registered sex offender has a prohibition order in place. These orders are quite difficult to get when the offender has not reoffended in recent times yet may still pose a threat to children or there is a reasonable suspicion that they are continuing to reoffend. An example might be accessing child abuse material. We had an amendment to this bill; however, we have had a commitment from the minister’s office that they will look into these issues, and for the safety of children we hope that this is investigated properly.

On the changes that the bill makes in respect to Victoria Police matters, the bill gives police powers to protect the security of police premises, including police stations. This gives officers the ability to move people on who do not have a legitimate reason to be there or who pose a threat to the peace. A legitimate reason includes seeking assistance from a police officer or PSO, reporting the commission of an offence, providing information to an officer and attendance required by law. The bill establishes a definition of ‘police premises’, which includes any premises occupied or used by Victoria Police on a permanent or temporary basis for any purposes related to the functions, duties or powers of Victoria Police. It includes police stations, office storage areas, car parks or parts of a car park, entrance foyers, exit points and PSO pods—the structures that are in the vicinity of railway stations. The bill also makes clear that protective services officers can use specialist police terrorism powers when operating in an authorised area, not just a designated place, in the event of a terrorism incident.

Moving on to another set of changes regarding the leaking or unauthorised disclosure of protected information, the bill provides a clear obligation for police personnel to only access, make use of or disclose police information if required by their current duties. The minister said it will:

… impose a clear, standalone obligation on police personnel to maintain the confidentiality of police information, without reference to separate policy documents, and with a clear instruction that access must be directly related to their current duties and functions.

We have a concern that this amendment will not create an indictable offence, only a summary offence, and therefore will be subject to the statute of limitations in bringing forward such allegations. We have a number of case studies we can cite when it comes to how this amendment may not fix the issue, including matters which take more than 12 months to be investigated and for charges to be laid. This amendment will not have its intended effect unless the statute bar is lifted. Therefore we would ask the minister’s office to commit to further reviewing these three sections—namely, sections 226, 227 and 228—of the act to ensure that victims are able to bring their cases forward. This is about instances of poor police behaviour being able to be raised in court in the very first instance.

The bill allows for the Chief Commissioner of Police to select a workplace or work unit within Victoria Police to give random drug and alcohol testing directions. There is already an ability to drug and alcohol test employees, but this will narrow the pool of potential tests. The minister said this:

… for drug testing to be an effective deterrent, the chances of being randomly tested must be increased.

Those who are doing the right thing will not be affected.

The bill establishes a framework for the restorative engagement and redress scheme, which supports current and former police officers who have experienced sexual harassment or sex discrimination in the workplace. It will provide more transparency around the eligibility criteria and increase privacy protections for participants. This means in effect that discrimination based on breastfeeding, gender identity, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status et cetera is a basis for participation in the scheme. The scheme will be administered by the Department of Justice and Community Safety and is only available for offending before 13 December 2019, as this is the date the administrative scheme came into effect.

Outcomes of the scheme can be an amount of money, counselling or therapeutic services or participation in a restorative engagement process. Oddly, no documents connected with the scheme are admissible in criminal or civil court. This causes some concern, as if someone is unhappy with the outcome and chooses to take civil action then they will have little evidence outside what has already been provided through the scheme. There is also the inability for an apology to be given, from what I read. I would ask the government to confirm whether this is correct. If not, this is a big flaw in the scheme. Some survivors do not necessarily want money, they just want a recognition of what was done to them and an apology.

One other part of the bill is that Victoria Police will now be able to charge for their services at for-profit events. This is actually quite controversial because it could render some events non-viable. Regulation will deal with how these charges are calculated. The opposition made a point in the other place about the viability of community events such as agricultural shows, and Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party would also like to seek a commitment that these types of events will not be included in the regulations.

Lastly, I just wanted to use this opportunity in debating a bill about sex offenders to speak about the report on the inquiry into management of child sex offender information. The government accepted in principle that they would refer to the Victorian Law Reform Commission the prospect of a limited disclosure scheme so parents can apply to find out if someone connected to their child has a history of child sex offending. The government’s response was:

The Act already includes measures for the public disclosure of information relating to a registrable offender in limited circumstances.

The Victorian public disclosure scheme was introduced in 2017, five years after Western Australia and nine years after the United Kingdom introduced their limited child sex offender disclosure schemes.

Any suggestion that Victoria has a limited disclosure scheme like the UK or Western Australia is simply wrong. This is something that we will take to the election as we believe it is a parent’s right to know. Other than that, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (16:56): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022. The bill establishes a legislative framework for the restorative engagement and redress scheme. It makes some changes to the drug and alcohol testing program for Victoria Police personnel. It provides police and PSOs with powers to protect the security of police premises. It authorises Victoria Police to recover costs from large commercial event organisers who require police or PSOs for safety measures outside the venue and makes changes to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004.

The redress scheme for current and former Victoria Police employees who have experienced workplace sex discrimination or sexual harassment has been operating since 2009. It was introduced in response to a 2015 report of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC). This bill amends the Victoria Police Act 2013 to vest key functions and decision-making powers relating to eligibility, the application process, determinations and reviews in the hands of the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety. The government’s second-reading speech for this bill rightly acknowledged the importance of redress schemes as a way to recognise past harm and provide support to eligible applicants without the requirement of a high evidentiary threshold or other legal constraints. This redress scheme does not exclude participants from making other reports within Victoria Police or IBAC or from taking their own legal action.

I believe the Fiskville redress scheme announced last week will also not restrict a participant from taking separate legal action if required. This is in contrast to the federal redress scheme for victims of historical sexual abuse, because when they accept a redress payment this prevents them from taking any future legal action. This has had significant implications for some survivors who might have felt no option at the time but to accept the redress they were offered. With the legal landscape changing in the last few years, they are now excluded from options that may have provided them with substantial compensation. This is something my colleague Mr Grimley raised this week in question time, and we hope the government will lobby for change in this regard.

I supported representatives of the Care Leavers Australasia Network in this Parliament last week, and they are here again this week campaigning for people who experienced extremely traumatic physical and psychological abuse to receive redress. I must say that the response to my question last week was underwhelming, and I completely understand the continued frustration of CLAN, who after 17 years are still waiting for the government to acknowledge its responsibility.

In the case of Victoria Police redress, there are members who suffered bullying and harassment which was not sexual in nature but which was still very traumatic and interrupted or cut short their careers. This was exposed in a 2013 ABC report before the VEOHRC report into sexual harassment and before WorkSafe had even charged Victoria Police in response to past reports, yet these workers have been actively excluded from the redress scheme.

John Knight was one of my first constituent meetings after being elected. His experience has left him broken and broke. I have tried a number of avenues to get him some recognition and redress, but there is no existing pathway to support him because of the historical nature of his case. I cannot move an amendment to this bill because it would require an appropriation, but I really wish I could. This is something that the government could and should address. It is something that I have spoken directly to Minister Carbines about, and I urge him to make this right for Mr Knight and so many others.

The bill makes changes to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, a keen area of interest for Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party. The reporting requirements for change of address, motor vehicle registration and other details has been reduced from 14 days to seven. We would probably like it even shorter, but still this is a good thing. We have some concerns about allowing sex offenders to report via audiolink, AV link or electronic communication and think this should only be used in exceptional circumstances and not become the norm. The bill broadens the definition of when a registered sex offender has contact with a child to include when they are maintaining contact and not just establishing contact, an important loophole that has been closed.

This bill will also require a registered sex offender who has no fixed address to identify where they sleep on a regular basis. I will note some recent research published by the Australian Institute of Criminology explored the characteristics of contact child sex offences involving child sex offenders with a prior history. It sought to understand how offenders use opportunity to perpetrate offences against children. The results suggest that these offenders are motivated, persistent and willing to adapt their offending to different victims and different contexts. Residential locations were the most common places where offending occurred, but in Victoria more than 20 per cent of offending happened in community settings. While 30 per cent of offenders in Victoria were known to the victim, a quarter of them were strangers. The research also suggests that when the offender was known to the victim or their family they were possibly unaware of the alleged offender’s prior history. This reaffirms our policy commitment that child sex offenders should be heavily monitored, and I think it also backs the case for a public sex offenders register.

The measures in this bill relating to random drug and alcohol testing of police in their workplace are sensible, though I do note the concern raised by the coalition about PSOs needing a process of review similar to that of police officers in training. On the matter of drug testing more broadly, we have been advocating for a number of years that all general duties police should be trained and equipped to administer random drug driver tests. Current provisions require highway patrol to see the person driving, which in practice means that if a general duties officer pulls someone over and believes they are drug impaired, they cannot simply detain the vehicle and get highway patrol to attend and administer a test. They have to let them drive off and call highway patrol to find them and pull them over. We know the roadside drug-testing program saves lives. An evaluation found it prevented more than 33 fatal crashes and nearly 80 serious injury crashes each year. Around 41 per cent of all drivers and motorcyclists killed on our roads who were tested had drugs in their system, so it is clear that removing drug-impaired drivers from our roads is worthy of high priority.

There are a few other provisions in the bill that I will not have time to talk on today, but I will note that cost recovery for police to assist in things like traffic or crowd management outside large commercial events is probably a reasonable ask. I want to make the point that our events industry was hit extremely hard during COVID, and the ripple effect on regional economies was pronounced. We lobbied hard for the recognition of the events sector, which at the moment remains focused on major events. I hope there is a sensible approach to when police seek to recover costs, including consideration of any impact on the financial viability of an event and the broader economic benefit to a town. It would be a terrible shame if this revenue exercise resulted in regional events being cancelled. We will consider the proposed amendments from the opposition, and I intend to ask some questions in the committee stage of the bill, but on that note I commend the bill to the house.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (17:05): I will be brief. The Liberal Democrats will not support this bill. We have problems with giving the police the power to cost recover, to charge for events, because we believe this power can and will be misused to shut down events the police do not like, to add costs to festivals and to protests that do not meet the ideological agenda of the government, to impose conditions on them and then to make them pay for them, and we do not support giving police the powers to stop people filming them. We think more people should film the police, not less.

‘Privacy can in some cases become secrecy, which can allow corruption to flourish’. That is not just my opinion; that is a direct quote from the report of the Fitzgerald royal commission into police corruption in Queensland. That is why the Liberal Democrats strongly oppose the elements of this bill that create conditions for corruption by giving more power to Victoria Police to do more things and to do more of those things in secret. No doubt a majority of police are honest for a majority of the time, but I believe the incestuous relationship between the government and VicPol has helped create a culture of violence in our police and a fertile ground for corruption. This has the potential to smear the reputation of all the police.

Allow me to explain broadly why current conditions in Victoria make corruption possible, and then I will tell you about the evidence which shows that corruption is not just possible but is happening. I believe there are significant parallels between Victoria now and Queensland in the 1980s. The long-running Bjelke-Petersen government and Queensland police developed a very cosy relationship over many years. The government rolled out laws to make the police more powerful. This included calling a state of emergency so police could use violence against protesters. The Queensland police were so loved by the Queensland government that Terry Lewis was granted his knighthood. Of course later he was no longer Sir Terence when he was sent to jail. The Victorian government also seems to have a very cosy relationship with police, and this dates back to well before the pandemic and our own state of emergency.

One of the first things the Liberal Democrats fought in this place was legislation allowing police to collect DNA from people without their consent. We were amazed by how compliant most MPs in this place were about it. So now the police can collect the most intimate details of Victorians and we have no say in it. There are also some very strange incidents which have tested the safeguards against police excess. My colleague David Limbrick attended the 420 pro-cannabis rally in Flagstaff Gardens in April 2019. During the event a 15-year-old girl was handcuffed and punched by a police officer. The only reason we knew about it was that somebody filmed it and sent it to the Age newspaper. I had expected that existing checks and balances would hold this behaviour to account, but it took a full year and many questions from the Liberal Democrats in this place before we were able to discover that in fact the police officer in question was exonerated. And unless we had asked or if it had happened in a police station with no-one to film it, we would probably have never found out about it at all. Some of you might also remember that a policeman was filmed stomping on a mentally ill man’s head and was exonerated. Almost all of the excessive violence used by police is either ignored or condoned.

The safeguards against excessive police power in this state have failed Victorians repeatedly. It all started right here with the implementation of emergency powers, and it implicates Victoria’s laughable human rights commission, the inconsistent police professional standards command and the under-resourced IBAC. It seems the standard we walked past then became the new standard the government accepted, because we saw many similar acts of state-sanctioned violence during the pandemic. We saw a pregnant woman arrested in her own home. Since she was handcuffed, if she had fallen she would have had no way to protect herself or her unborn child. The charges in this case were dropped just this week. This suggests police actions were never about enforcing the law, they were always only about suppressing dissent.

There was also a time when police were recorded openly discussing how they would trump up charges against someone filming lockdown protests, with the aim of silencing them using bail conditions. You can watch this for yourself in the award-winning documentary Battleground Melbourne. Then there was Melbourne Cup Day 2020, when police surrounded hundreds of anti-lockdown activists outside Parliament and forced them to stand tightly together for 4 hours. This was one of the most reckless events of the pandemic, and yet police actions were never criticised. All of these things indicate very clearly that police were being used not to protect the public health but to stop dissent, and today it looks like they are being rewarded, since the government can no longer give out knighthoods.

This brings me to specific reasons why you should be worried about police corruption. Over the last three years I have raised several matters about VicPol’s licensing and regulation division. MPs from the government have treated these questions with disdain, and the police minister at the time showed just as much contempt by refusing to provide adequate answers. In a recent sitting I told everyone here about the serious and credible allegations that police had stolen more than 60 000 rounds of seized ammunition. I told you how IBAC referred the investigation back to police without telling the complainants, as it does for the vast bulk of complaints that are given to it, and how the police, as they always do, investigated themselves and found they had done nothing wrong.

We know that this is nothing new. In February this year former policeman David Branov told the Herald Sun about the stealing of seized goods, drugs and firearms from police property rooms. He said, ‘It was like Kmart on Saturday’. Now you are introducing legislation that would allow more secrecy and also more power to police over people exercising their human right to assemble peacefully. You might disagree the corruption is widespread. That is what former New South Wales police commissioner Tony Lauer said before the Wood royal commission started, which eventually led to the naming of 284 police officers. The royal commissions into police corruption in both Queensland and New South Wales all started because of relatively isolated incidents which turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg. Victoria has never had a wideranging investigation of the police, and it shows. Something is rotten in the state of Victoria, and what smells is the strange and dangerous relationship where the government gives VicPol everything and anything that they want. Those of you who support the passage of this bill today will be showing that you are part of the problem. VicPol do not need to be given more powers and more protections. The people of Victoria need a royal commission into VicPol to shine some sunlight into the murk.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:12): In rising to speak to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2022, there are some aspects of what the government is proposing that I do support. I do support amendments to the sex offender register. I do support active monitoring of sex offenders to actually reduce the amount of reoffending. I also do support the protections that most people should have in the way of their workplaces, and for the police that includes not being filmed as they enter and exit their police stations. But there are other aspects that other people in this place have debated today, which are things around VicPol, that I do not support. I will not support charging people who wish to have the right to protest—charging the organisers of those events for police to attend. Why I say this is there are many community gatherings that the police will attend and walk around, and if we start having a service where the community events have to actually find or raise money for the police to be in attendance, well, I do not believe that creates a safer community. This government should actually look at ways of having peaceful protests as well as not draining police resources. There needs to be better coordination of protests. We need to have the right to protest here in Victoria, but there needs to be better communication between the people who wish to protest and the Victorian police, making sure that the police attend. We can even have a look at other ways of having these protests be well organised in the way of traffic control. There are cheaper methods than actually draining from our police. They should be on the beat looking after our community, attending domestic violence call-outs and attending when people have robberies, not having their resources drained by protests.

But we can find other ways of facilitating protest without saying that groups that organise protests or community groups have to start paying for the police attending. I really struggle again today. There is one great point, what this is trying to achieve in the way of the sex offender register, but it is attached to something that I cannot support in the way of this government’s direction towards our right to peaceful protest.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education, Minister for Agriculture) (17:16): Can I thank all speakers who have made contributions today. This is a bill that sort of covers off on eight main sections, and I think that the process even leading up to today has been quite good. There has been a lot of discussion with the minister’s office as well as departmental advice, and through that I think there has been a lot of clarity added to the discussion. Of course there will be people at the end of the day that will agree and others that will disagree and are not going to support the bill, but at least I think people are clear about what they are basing their vote on. I think it has been handled in a very good way, and I thank everyone that has been involved in it.

I just wanted to mention the issue of cost-recovery measures because this has been an issue that Mr Limbrick has drawn to our attention and that he wanted some clarity on. Of course the advisers have been involved in it, but can I also say that it has been very fortuitous that one of my ministerial advisers has been a festival director of the Port Fairy Folk Festival as well as the Apollo Bay Music Festival and indeed the general manager of the Melbourne Fringe Festival, so she was able to provide some very hands-on, practical advice in terms of how this would operate and what actually happens now when it comes to cost recovery and the arrangements that are in place in terms of police.

This amendment is intended to target large events that are run for profit. It will not impact on small local community events. I can also confirm that should this bill pass, further consultation will be undertaken with stakeholders prior to the amendment coming into effect. The bill also provides Victoria Police with the power to waive all or part of the fees where appropriate, which is exactly what police currently do. We are not seeking to change this process in any way; in fact we are seeking to protect it. Victoria Police has established a clear process for determining the level of resourcing needed to support the safe operation of an event and for discussing the amount and type of resources with an event organiser. Costs are agreed in advance and are not altered in response to any conduct or incident which occurs at the event.

Victoria Police have confirmed that whilst passive alert detection dogs, or sniffer dogs, may be deployed outside event venues to deter drug use, this is considered a police operation. It would also be the case that it is considered a police operation where police are required to attend in response to protests around an event. It is not the police’s intention that charges for police operations such as sniffer dogs will be imposed on any event organisers at all, so there is quite a distinction that is I think quite clear in relation to that. I think that those are the two key points that Mr Limbrick had. The sniffer dogs and the actual waiving arrangements that are currently in place now will be essentially for outside events as well. With that, again, I thank members for their contributions today and in the lead-up to today, and I wish a speedy passage for the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (17:21)

Dr CUMMING: Minister, is a protest considered an event?

Ms TIERNEY: The answer is no.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 26 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education, Minister for Agriculture) (17:23): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education, Minister for Agriculture) (17:23): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

House divided on motion:

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.