Tuesday, 2 May 2023

Bills

Human Source Management Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ingrid Stitt:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:04): I rise to make a short contribution to this bill. I will not restate its purpose or the background, which have been well and truly canvassed in this house, but I will speak to the amendments that Legalise Cannabis Victoria has negotiated. The bill before us today is fundamentally different to the bill that was first presented to this Parliament. The original framework proposed by the government was heavily criticised by stakeholders as it seemingly enabled the holders of privileged information, including lawyers, to be registered as human sources and potentially tasked to undertake information gathering on behalf of the police. This would have been, in our view, entirely inconsistent with the very purpose of the bill. Under the amended bill this cannot happen. We heard from stakeholders, and we have worked constructively with the government. Following our negotiations, we are pleased to see an extensive set of government house amendments that fundamentally change the nature of the bill and mitigate stakeholder concerns.

In relation to lawyers, these amendments change the act to effectively mirror existing legal profession uniform conduct rules that allow a solicitor or a barrister to disclose information to police if they believe there is a serious and imminent threat to national security, to the health or safety of the public, to the life of a person or of serious physical harm to a person. This is the only type of information that may be provided by a solicitor or a barrister to police in breach of client confidentiality. The amended bill provides a strict framework for the disclosure of this information. The disclosure requires the registration of the solicitor or barrister. The registration can only occur via application to and approval from the Supreme Court of Victoria. The period of registration will be determined by the court, with a legislated maximum of seven days.

Under the amendments, the police cannot task a lawyer to do anything. The police cannot assign or give instructions to the solicitor or barrister to assign them with criminal investigations or gathering criminal intelligence. This is now not the registration of a lawyer as a police informant, it is the registration of a lawyer’s contact with police in very limited circumstances and only where there is an imminent threat and oversight by the Supreme Court of Victoria – and this means that Lawyer X can never, ever be repeated.

The Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants has also recommended that the Victorian Bar and the Law Council of Australia develop ethics guidance on these conflict-of-interest scenarios. We understand that guidance should be to cease to act. Importantly, these amendments prevent a conflict from arising at law between the existing uniform conduct rules for legal practitioners and these proposed human source management laws. This is why this framework is preferable to that proposed by the opposition. To exclude lawyers from registration and to not record the contact between a lawyer and police is to risk the repeating of the very same conduct that this bill seeks to prevent. We cannot push lawyers back into the same grey area in which the Gobbo debacle occurred.

Additionally, amendments now provide significant improvements to the bill as applied to children. Under the amended bill, the definition of ‘child’ is moved from ‘under 14’ to ‘under 18’. Any child must have legal representation and/or an independent third party present in any discussions with police. Children may not be tasked by police.

Oversight of the management of human sources as a whole will continue to be undertaken by the Public Interest Monitor and IBAC. For a lawyer’s contact with police to now be overseen by the Supreme Court and limited to circumstances where the lawyer is proactively divulging information because they believe there is an imminent threat to life or of serious physical harm strikes the right balance and mirrors existing professional rules. At Legalise Cannabis Victoria we are proud of the progress we have made in securing these important changes. We can now support the amended bill in this context. This is important legislation. It acts on the advice of the royal commission. Victoria now leads the country in introducing legislation to guide and oversight police use of human sources.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:09): I also rise to speak on the Human Source Management Bill 2023. The matter of government integrity is a present and longstanding issue. The fact that oversight bodies such as IBAC have become household names in this state should be of grave concern. In a similar way, the pseudonym ‘Lawyer X’ continues to be a household shame on the justice system. The fallout of Lawyer X has had widespread consequences for our justice system and continues to impact it to this day.

Respected institutes such as the Law Institute of Victoria and the Victorian Bar association have been tasked with directly cleaning up this mess as per recommendations from the royal commission which followed them. These institutes have worked closely with the implementation monitor to ensure their obligations have been met, and I commend them for their efforts towards restoring the compromised trust between the public and our judiciary.

The High Court of Australia described the act of Gobbo, a member of the judiciary, performing the role of police informant against their own client as:

… fundamental and appalling breaches of [her] obligations as counsel to her clients and of [her] duties to the court.

Further, the High Court described the act of Victoria Police encouraging a member of the judiciary to breach her court obligations and sanction atrocious breaches of multiple police officers’ duty as ‘reprehensible conduct’. Any normal person receiving this kind of feedback from a panel of High Court justices would heed these words diligently and recoil at the very thought of repeating such behaviour. No government in good conscience should ever allow such conduct to not only be repeated but be legally sanctioned.

The government has committed to implementing all recommendations by the royal commission. It is understandable that the government would seek to satisfy these recommendations; however, the commission advised Parliament to focus on the implementation that is ‘purposeful to avoid purely compliance focused acquittal’. This bill places too much emphasis on compliance and not enough on purpose. Implementing a legal mechanism for lawyers to be used as human sources goes directly against the purpose of the commission. This is the view shared by the Law Institute of Victoria, the Victorian Bar association, Liberty Victoria, the Centre for Public Integrity, the bar council, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and many barristers and lawyers in Victoria. The government claimed to have engaged with stakeholders regarding this bill, but there appears to be significant difference in opinion on this bill between the government and these bodies. Ignoring the warnings from every respected body of the judiciary is not just an act of foolishness but an act of arrogance.

This bill not only risks the already compromised faith our public has in holders of privileged information but also risks the safety of those information holders. A centralised list of every lawyer, barrister, priest, doctor, journalist and minister engaged in police informant activity would become a hit list in the wrong hands. Following Lawyer X, at the request of IBAC, Victoria Police determined that if information about Ms Gobbo were to be released her risk of death would become almost certain.

The latest round of amendments circulated by the government, which arrived shortly after meetings with royal commissioner Justice Margaret McMurdo in April, have handballed the burden of lawyer registration and its potential human rights breaches to the Supreme Court. This not only conflicts with fundamental separations of Parliament and court judges outlined within the Irvine memo but also creates conflicts of ethics outlined within the charter of human rights and fundamental mechanisms of judicial procedure. Giving any judge the power to suspend a lawyer’s or barrister’s professional obligations compromises the integrity of the trial process.

There are no provisions within this bill or any other act which consider how information collected from human sources will be treated during the disclosure of evidence source phase during prosecution. Will prosecutors be obligated to divulge their lawyer sources? Will this evidence be permissible if redacted? Without clear instruction around such a sensitive handling of information, this could risk mistrials and potentially overturning court decisions in a similar way to some of the cases which concerned Lawyer X. There has been so much hard work by the judiciary in undoing the damage caused by the Lawyer X scandal. If this bill receives royal assent in its current form, it will only serve to undo that hard work and undermine the right to a fair trial. I will not be supporting this bill or the government’s amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:14): Thank you, everyone, for your contributions. I know that it was many weeks ago that most members made a contribution to this bill, but I do thank Ms Payne and Mr Limbrick for bringing us home today. I will just spend some time on summing up, because a little bit has happened since the introduction of this bill and obviously we did not have an opportunity to have a chat in committee. But there are just a few things I probably should try and cover off for the purpose of helping facilitate that stage. I really want to again thank people for their contributions to this bill, and hopefully we will see its passage through today. It has been a mammoth amount of work, and I want to start with some context, because the final report and its findings from the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants was handed to me on my first day as Attorney-General. I have brought it in not necessarily for the purpose of a prop but just in case anyone wanted to read anything that is in it. It is pretty heavy. It is pretty thorough. I got it on 20 December 2020, so you can imagine what my summer looked like – I read some of it at the beach. It was a really sobering read, because it is a really troubling set of circumstances that led us to establishing a royal commission in relation to these matters.

The royal commission was set up following the High Court decision. I want to commend former Attorney-General Jill Hennessy for establishing the commission. Of course that was in direct response to the High Court considering these matters, but it has fallen on me as an obligation and indeed a responsibility to implement the recommendations that have come out of this interrogation.

It is peculiar to me, given the comprehensive work that was undertaken by the royal commission, not just evidenced by the length and detail of the report but the issues that were canvassed in it, that it seems as though the opposition and indeed the Shadow Attorney-General have not paid a lot of attention to the royal commission’s final report. In fact he has based most of his response to this bill purely on the High Court matter and what it examined. Of course that is relevant, but I do not think it is cause to ignore what was a very comprehensive response already to the High Court decision. Indeed the royal commission was established for the task of independently inquiring into Victoria Police’s recruitment and management of its informants.

The royal commission received 157 submissions, including submissions from many of the stakeholders I know members have relied on in relation to their contributions, such as the Law Institute of Victoria and the Victorian Bar, and those matters, their issues, were considered as part of the final report. Repeating their views now is fine, but we do need to make the point that these are the same views that they took to the royal commission back when it started some several years ago.

The royal commission lasted 121 days, and it cost close to $40 million. It resulted in a final report with 111 recommendations for Victoria Police, the legal profession and government to ensure that the circumstances that led to Nicola Gobbo’s use as a human source will never happen again. It is clear that we took the High Court decision very, very seriously. That is why we established the royal commission, as I have highlighted, but that is something that the opposition continue to ignore. I am a bit perplexed by that, because royal commissions are set up to deal with the most serious of matters and we should not be so flippant in relation to dealing with the recommendations, whether we are in government or not.

It is important to revisit the commission’s reasoning and the basis for the proposed legislative framework for the management of human sources, but I first want to echo the view that many members have taken. I am on the public record many times saying it, but I will repeat it in the chamber: I and the government are of the view that it is almost never appropriate for a lawyer to provide information on a client. The Victorian community and the legal community can be reassured that this is indeed the government’s position. It is also my personal position not only as a member of the legal community but as the first law officer of the state.

I certainly hear and understand concerns that have been raised. However, it is the position of the government that we accept, as has been identified and recommended by the royal commission, that there may be very rare and exceptional circumstances where obtaining material subject to legal privilege might be necessary. Those are very rare situations. These exceptional circumstances were considered by the royal commission and include serious matters concerning the public interest such as a threat to national security and threats to the community or indeed the life of someone where those threats and circumstances do exist and lawyers feel compelled to protect the community. I want to be clear about this as well. I keep getting emails and questions about, ‘Why are you encouraging lawyers to snitch on their clients?’ It is not about that.

We are not actually making any changes to the obligations of lawyers – or solicitors indeed. Nothing in this bill actually obliges a lawyer to inform on their client, but if the thresholds are met, if those concerns are evident, and the lawyer or solicitor feels that they want to under that framework, voluntarily they can. It is better to ensure that we have clear guidance for the police when they are dealing with such information when it rarely occurs. We want to make sure that that exists. And I have got to say that the bill introduces the most robust system in the country, and it is through consultation and ongoing negotiation that we have actually gone even further, to the point that it is – I do not know, what is a word beyond ‘robust’?

There are just so many myths about this bill. I think it is in the media today that it is likely that this bill will pass the Parliament, and I got a tweet message from a lawyer saying, ‘I want to move interstate because I don’t want any of my clients thinking that I’m going to snitch on them.’ And I was like, ‘It’s actually a lot easier to be a police informant as a lawyer in other states rather than Victoria.’ That is a fact.

The amendments, as I alluded to, will go beyond the processes specifically recommended by the royal commission, but as I said, you know, we embarked on a lot of consultation, particularly with members of the chamber, in order to fulfil what we committed to doing and that was to implement the recommendations. So some of those matters that we have picked up include an additional process where Victoria Police must apply to the Supreme Court to register a human source with access to client legal privilege. It is actually at this point, Mr Limbrick, I might just jump in on some of your contribution where you were concerned about the judicial independence and the separation of powers and the fact that you thought that Supreme Court judges would have to make decisions about whether lawyers had breached their obligations or not. That is not their role. That is not what the legislation is proposing to do. It is about whether it is appropriate for police to use them. They will form no judgement on their legal peers or the lawyers that are seeking to provide information. That will not be their role, and they certainly clarified that with me because they would have concerns if they were asked to be the adjudicator of legal conduct under their conduct rules and the like. The Supreme Court would hear submissions from the police and also from the Public Interest Monitor, who can act as a contradictor in matters.

A lawyer may only be registered to provide information subject to client legal privilege for a maximum period of seven days, after which the human source must be deactivated and the process started again if indeed appropriate. A strict prohibition on Victoria Police tasking a lawyer registered for the purpose of attaining information subject to client legal privilege or another privilege is also part of some of our house amendments. A good example of tasking is asking someone to wear a wire, for example, and asking them to go and ask questions to elicit information that might be useful. For a lawyer to be registered it must be that the registration is necessary to achieve a legitimate law enforcement purpose and is proportionate, and there must be an imminent threat to national security, to the health or safety of a person or of serious physical harm to a person. The safeguards in the bill are clear, and they have been well considered in great detail.

I might take the opportunity to perhaps circulate my amendments at this point in time so that they are made available, because I have started to talk about some of them, and it will give people an opportunity to have a look before I finish my summing up. The addition of significant levels of external oversight that have been introduced through monitoring by IBAC would also mean that the public can have confidence that the registration of lawyers would occur in the very rarest of circumstances. Could I please have my amendments circulated.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: We have also decided to include the words ‘serious imminent threat’. ‘Imminent’ was another addition following further consultation so that we could ensure that the statutory formulation is of the highest threshold test and that it is directly coming from the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules as well, just to make sure that they are aligned. It does mean that where the test is satisfied, we are confident that the requirements under the uniform conduct rules for disclosure of lawyers to police in the conduct rules will also be met, because there were some questions about whether there would be different levels of compliance or different expectations, and that is not the case; they will be comparative.

Taken together they will provide confidence to the community that registration is appropriate, that there is a lot of transparency and accountability in the decision and that community safety is protected and promoted by these laws. It is about providing clear guidance to police rather than lawyers about when it is appropriate to consider registration of lawyers as human sources, which is effectively the problem that was identified in the royal commission.

I do want to point out that it was arguably the absence of a legislative framework that largely led to the circumstances that were the subject of the royal commission. The royal commission identified issues with police conduct. Police did not fully appreciate the risks involved with utilising a lawyer as a human source. They did not understand the risks to prosecutions, the risks to the administration of justice and the risks of undermining public confidence in the legal profession. That is why the legislative framework that is proposed by the bill means that decisions made by the police with regard to obtaining material subject to client legal privilege must be informed by legal advice. That is an important step. It means that they can get advice from lawyers about some of those issues that they should be considering before deciding whether it is appropriate to accept and register someone as a human source. That is in addition to the oversight and recommendations of the Public Interest Monitor and the external oversight from IBAC, which I have touched on. I am confident that this bill will allow police to be able to appropriately consider and manage the information they receive and to protect the identity of sources, which is very important.

The government is committed to implementing the recommendations from the royal commission. This bill does not implement all the royal commission’s recommendations. As I said, there are 111; I think 25 are addressed in this bill.

The bill has brought about people wanting to reprosecute the findings of the royal commission, and I do not think it is appropriate for us to use the chamber to effectively rehash or put ourselves in the position of the royal commission. I think that work was thorough; it was done. I do understand that there has been pressure put on members in the chamber, particularly from stakeholders who perhaps did not get their way in terms of what the royal commission’s findings were and did not necessarily agree with them, but I do not think it is appropriate to use the chamber to argue once again the validity or the appropriateness of the recommendations. I think we have done that; we have been there. That is not to say that we have not undertaken detailed consideration and negotiation on some matters, but some of the fundamental principles, particularly whether or not you can register a lawyer, were well determined before my time. What we have sought to do is implement something that picks up those rarest of circumstances so that there is a clear framework for police.

I did mention this before, but I just want to touch on the fact that the bill does not alter professional legal obligations. It does not seek to alter, undermine or diminish existing professional legal obligations at all. It is an unfortunate misconception that needs a little bit of dispelling. As I mentioned earlier, lawyers are in no way obliged to provide any information, including material subject to client legal privilege, or to be registered as a human source. It must be done so voluntarily. There is no coercion of lawyers to inform on their clients. I am not quite sure how many times I have to say this. I keep getting asked about the fact that this bill makes lawyers snitch on their clients. It just does not. It is my expectation that lawyers are aware already of their professional obligations, and I know that they take those obligations seriously. They recognise their professional duties to the administration of justice and as officers of the court.

I might, by leave, request some additional time to finish my summing up, because it will be useful for the facilitation of the committee stage.

Leave granted.

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate that. I reckon that is the first time since I have been in this chamber that I have asked for extra time to speak. Thank you; I appreciate it.

I did just want to continue touching on this legal obligation. As Attorney-General I have supported and I will always support the profession alongside the Victorian Legal Services Board and commissioner to uphold the integrity of the profession. However, it must be noted that under the solicitors conduct rules, rule 9.2, and the barristers conduct rules, rule 82, there is recognition of the very circumstances as described and reasoned by the commission that there are circumstances where lawyers are permitted to disclose confidential client information to police, those circumstances being, in the case of the solicitors rules, to avoid ‘the probable commission of a serious criminal offence’ and to prevent serious harm to a person’s safety. This is reflected in both solicitor and barrister rules. It has been written into the conduct rules, it recognises the need and it manages to allow for this.

If the bill were to prohibit police from registering lawyers as human sources, it could very much create confusion for police on whether they could lawfully accept information from a lawyer, in adherence to their conduct rules, providing information to protect community safety, for example. It could create perverse incentives to circumvent the prohibition, if it existed. As noted by the royal commission, a blanket ban would not eradicate the risk of confidential or privileged information being provided by a human source, nor would it equip officers with the skills to respond appropriately when this occurs. I had a lot of people say, ‘You shouldn’t regulate it at all.’ I just could not accept that argument. It did not make any sense. If you do not have a framework, then what stops it from happening? I do not accept that that argument stands up – and again, it is another argument that keeps getting put to me.

I wanted to address the question of whether the bill would diminish Victoria Police’s existing obligations of disclosure in criminal proceedings. The bill does not affect Victoria Police’s disclosure obligations to courts and accused persons in criminal proceedings. I have appreciated the constructive discourse over this bill from members of the crossbench and from members of the legal community. I do want to repeat that I do have an appreciation of the concerns that have been raised, but I do want to ensure our legislative scheme protects the Victorian justice system from the circumstances that were explored in the royal commission.

I think I have covered off most of this stuff. I might end on the other bit of misinformation that continues to be put out there: whether the bill will prevent another Nicola Gobbo situation. That keeps being put out there as well. The nature and scale of the conduct of both Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police in allowing her to covertly inform against clients represented an undermining of the justice system. I do not think anyone actually disputes that. The ripple effects of the events are still being felt, and there is little doubt that everything must be done to ensure that the events that led to the royal commission are never allowed to be repeated.

I am very confident that this bill will contribute massively to ensuring that the circumstances that led to the royal commission could not be repeated. However, it has to be noted that there are 111 recommendations from the royal commission, and this bill is just one pillar of that – it is 25 recommendations. There is no single recommendation that will stop another Nicola Gobbo. They all need to be implemented in a way that works together, and we need to see change embedded in Victoria Police and in the legal profession and in government in order to prevent this conduct. Again I will reiterate that the royal commission has looked at this issue in totality, and as a government we remain committed to implementing all of the recommendations delivered at government. We continue to work with other agencies with the recommendations directed to them to ensure that the events are never repeated.

This is important work. I do thank people for their consideration of the bill and the issues that it touches on – and we might skip to the committee stage and explore any of the issues that members still have outstanding. I will just put on record my thanks to my office and the department. There were a lot of questions about this bill, and it took up a lot of time and dedication and the use of expertise and skills from people that are really dedicated to their work. I want to thank them for their support in the development of this bill and indeed helping other members understand the ramifications and the implications and what it all meant. So let us go and answer some questions.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before we start on clause 1, I ask Ms Copsey to circulate her amendments, please.

Katherine COPSEY: Yes. I have one further amendment, and I ask for that to be circulated now.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you wish to speak to those amendments?

Katherine COPSEY: I am happy to speak to them during committee if that is sufficient.

Clause 1 (15:36)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The government also have an amendment to clause 1, so if you want to ask questions on their amendment, perhaps we could just do that all as part of clause 1.

Matthew BACH: The opposition also has several amendments, so could I ask if they could be circulated at this time? Is that all right?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. If you would like to circulate your amendments, that is good.

Matthew BACH: Thank you so much. I would love for them to be circulated now and, as with Ms Copsey, I would be happy to speak to them at the appropriate time throughout the committee stage.

I just had a few questions, and I do thank the Attorney-General for her opening remarks today, which quite frankly have dealt with some of the matters that I was intending to ask her about. She did talk about oversight mechanisms in the bill, but I would not mind seeking a little bit of further information from her about that point. Attorney, you have previously said that the registration of lawyers as informants would be rare and ‘subject to multiple stages of independent oversight’. I wonder would you mind stepping through, for the benefit of the house, those multiple stages.

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you, Dr Bach. Is that in reference just to informants and human sources with legal professional privilege? Yes, just legal. The first step would be police giving due consideration to it themselves. If they wanted to proceed with the registration of the source and therefore the ability to use the information, they would have to seek legal advice as to whether that was appropriate, and then the Chief Commissioner of Police or delegate would need to apply to the Supreme Court. The Public Interest Monitor can act as a contradictor, so the PIM is involved in relation to giving a view as well, and then there is IBAC oversight of the process as well.

David LIMBRICK: The amendments circulated by the government substantially change the functions of the original bill. Normally when a bill goes through this house the human rights implications of the bill would be considered by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC). Will there be any opportunity to examine the human rights impacts of these amendments, considering their substantial changes to the original bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: We are not intending to undertake another formal process of applying the human rights charter formally, but we always consider those implications when we are developing legislation, when we are making amendments. There is also the ability for people to challenge legislation through the courts under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. In terms of the deviation, as I think you put it, it is more restrictive in relation to the ability to register informants, so we would not think there would be much change to the consideration of human rights in relation to that. I would also say that SARC considered this bill twice.

Katherine COPSEY: Attorney, the bill is silent on whether a lawyer who has been registered as a human source to provide privileged information under clause 30B in those exceptional circumstances can go on representing their client while registered or if they can represent the same client again after a period of registration. Attorney, you have touched on this, I acknowledge, during your second-reading speech. Can you please clarify whether a client–legal relationship should continue in these circumstances?

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Ms Copsey for her question. The commission did not anticipate that the bill would regulate the compliance of lawyers with their ethical obligations or alter those obligations. Requirements in relation to the management of conflicts of interest by solicitors and barristers are governed by the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barrister) Rules and the legal profession uniform solicitors conduct rules and further clarified in the commentary of those rules and guidance from the relevant legal profession regulation bodies nationally and in Victoria. Attempting to regulate the professional conduct of lawyers outside of the uniform law framework could undermine the uniform law scheme and reduce clarity for lawyers about their obligations. Whether particular conduct would be permissible under professional conduct rules is a matter which is ultimately determined by the relevant governing body. In the case of solicitors, the Victorian legal services commissioner has jurisdiction to investigate and enforce unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct matters. The commission also made several recommendations to legal professional bodies to update the commentary to solicitor conduct rules and accompanying guidance to solicitors in relation to the management of conflicts of interest by lawyers and the specific issues that arise when making a disclosure of confidential information. I am also aware that other states, as a result of the royal commission, updated theirs as well in anticipation of some of the changes that we are making, but just to make it all clear for their jurisdictions as well.

I note that the Victorian Legal Services Board and commissioner have also published a regulatory guideline for lawyer conduct in providing information to police, which clearly states that lawyers should not continue to act for clients where they provide information to police in relation to an imminent threat. It is my expectation that much lies in the guidance provided by the VLSB and the VLSC that lawyers should cease to act for clients where they have been registered as a human source against their client. But I hope that explains the difficulty in providing for that specifically in legislation. We think it is picked up elsewhere.

David LIMBRICK: I would like to ask the Attorney about something she mentioned in the summing up. The Attorney spoke about the role of the Supreme Court, and I am going on memory here, but I think the Attorney was objecting to how I was stating their role in this process. I think the Attorney was saying that they were not involved in the process other than authorising it. But if we look at clause 30B, it clearly states in 30B(2)(b) the court has to make an assessment on whether that person:

… is reasonably expected to have access to information that is subject to a legal obligation of confidentiality and, if so, whether that information is related to the information the person is expected to provide to a police officer if registered as a reportable human source …

Now, if this reportable human source was a lawyer, then effectively the court, by my reading, would be making a judgement on the legal status of that information that the source had and how they would provide it. I invite the Attorney to comment on that and the role of the Supreme Court.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, you referred to a clause. Are you referring to the bill or my amendments?

David LIMBRICK: Your amendments, sorry.

Jaclyn SYMES: The Supreme Court’s role has been introduced by way of amendment through negotiation, effectively. There was a lack of confidence in police being the final arbiter. I did not actually share that lack of confidence, but this is being included in order to provide an additional layer of reassurance that this is going to be robust and appropriate and that in no way, shape or form could a police officer just decide themselves because it helps the case. They have to go through a range of steps, and the final step to be introduced is for the Supreme Court to consider whether all the steps have been followed appropriately. It is a process-driven final step before somebody can be registered as a police informant when they have access to legal professional information and the like. It is more checks and balances to ensure the process is right for the police conduct. They do not have a view in relation to how a lawyer has acted, but they have to determine whether that person is captured by the definition in the act. That is where they would be drawing on the clause 30B that you have referred to.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer, but I would put it to the Attorney that clause 30B contains many similar considerations that the police themselves have to make – you know, things like types of information that that person has access to, their health, their wellbeing, their age, all of these other things. Many of these things they would have to consider are exactly the same as what the police would have to consider in the first place, so they would have a similar role in the process to police, so they are basically just making a similar judgement or confirming what the police have told them.

Jaclyn SYMES: They have to consider whether the information is privileged for the purpose of assessing the risk of the registration but not whether the lawyer has breached anything. It is very similar to what the police have to consider because, as I put it, our original legislation proposed that the process stop with the Chief Commissioner of Police, but people were concerned that was not robust enough. And, you know, I can see that part of the way of legislating is to consult and negotiate, and we are willing to accept a suggestion, which is why we have put a house amendment in bringing in a role for the Supreme Court, which is a final step in ensuring that everything has been done appropriately.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer. On the subject of privilege, there has not been a lot of discussion around the other types of privilege. All of the public discussion seems to have been around lawyer privilege, but there are some things I wanted to clarify around these other types of privilege. The one that piqued my curiosity the most was parliamentary privilege. Could the Attorney provide an example of the types of information that would be considered to be used? My understanding of parliamentary privilege is that it has a very wide meaning, but one of the meanings is that things said in Parliament cannot be used in legal proceedings and things like that. I am struggling to find examples of parliamentary privilege that would be used in this way.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, I find it difficult to come up with a lot of examples in relation to some of the conduct that we are covering because, as I have said repeatedly, the rare exceptional circumstances where legal professional privileged information is going to be subject to the police informant regime is so rare and so confined. I am finding it difficult to come up with examples in my own head when this is even going to be used, which is probably a similar situation for parliamentary privilege, so it is difficult for me to give you concrete examples. What we want to make sure is that in the event that something comes up we have got a system that can deal with it. But I will just confer with the experts in the box to see whether they have been able to come up with tangible examples, which is always a little bit fraught when you are addressing something that may happen, not fixing an existing problem.

David LIMBRICK: I was just going to clarify I was not necessarily looking for scenarios but just what context and what type of privileged information we are talking about. When we are talking about parliamentary privilege, what type of information are we talking about? How would that actually work?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, we kind of have to flip the way we discuss this, I think, because the framework is to inform police about when they can use information and when they cannot. It is not necessarily thinking about people trying to bring information to them. Because anyone can bring information to the police; it is whether they can use it, how they can use it and where protections should apply. If information came to them through parliamentary privilege, would they be in a situation where they would register it and use it? Probably not. But by ensuring that we have got a framework that says it is privileged information and therefore cannot be used, that is guidance with which they can then respond to the receipt of that information. It is better if you look at it through that framework. The whole thing is about the receipt of information, not the giving of information, and the framework that protects how you would use that information. There is nothing to stop anyone going to police about anything ever; it is just whether it can be used in court or in investigations, how you use and clarify that information giving due consideration to a range of privileges and whether that would be admissible and how and all of that. So it is more about guidance for police than necessarily, in this case, MPs.

David LIMBRICK: When evidence is collected and used in a trial, they normally have to declare the source of the evidence. How will the privileged information acquired through this bill be presented to the court in a compatible way? Obviously you cannot declare the source, because you will put the source at a particular risk. How does that work in a compatible way?

Jaclyn SYMES: There are no changes in this bill to the disclosure obligations, so the same processes apply that would ordinarily apply.

David LIMBRICK: In the amendments, in new section 30B, subsection (2)(k), it says the court must consider:

any rewards that are proposed to be given to the person if registered as a reportable human source …

What are we talking about with rewards? Are we talking about a reward for solving a crime? Are we talking about financial payments? It is not clear to me what is actually meant by ‘rewards’ there.

Jaclyn SYMES: A good example would be discounted sentences.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer. Is there any possibility that these rewards might breach some sort of protection against coercion?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, and this is already a system that exists.

David LIMBRICK: Could the Attorney please provide clarity on the privilege actually engaged by this bill? Specifically there is some confusion between client legal privilege as set out in the Evidence Act 2008 and legal professional privilege.

Jaclyn SYMES: I can do exactly that. I apologise if we did not bring it to your attention. My amendments have brought in both definitions. The background is the advice was that that would be duplicative and unnecessary, but because concerns remained, and that is kind of a feature of this bill, we put it back in. It means nothing except it gives people comfort that it includes both the statutory definition and the common-law definition.

David LIMBRICK: Sorry to jump around all over the place; I apologise. Back to the different types of privilege, one of the types of privilege is journalist privilege. Is that an actual legal privilege? Because my understanding was that there is no sort of actual legal privilege there.

Jaclyn SYMES: Journalistic privilege is a form of legal privilege, but it is much more limited. There are no specific changes to that in this legislation because we are not actually altering privileges. In terms of my ability to go through the differences and when it is relevant and when it is not, that is not in the context of this bill. If you are interested in more information, I can get it for you, but it was not something that I was anticipating going through in great detail in terms of its definition.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for her answer. One final question about privilege: one of the other privileges defined here is confessional privilege. For the sake of clarity, is that confined to like in the Catholic Church they call it a confessional: you have a confession? Or could that be something more informal such as someone talking to a priest, for example – that is not a formal confession. What are the boundaries of that confessional privilege?

Jaclyn SYMES: Similar to my response to your previous question, there is no change to what is privileged and what is not in relation to this bill. It is just the ability for police to register sources who have privileged information or not and how they can use that. I guess I would just reiterate that the bill provides safeguards and protections for all privileged information. That is the point: we do not want to undermine the ability of people to have confidence in a range of services that involve sensitive information and private information. That is not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is: when is it appropriate for police to utilise such information – in what circumstances – and what are the oversight mechanisms and the like?

David LIMBRICK: One other question about the Supreme Court’s role: would the Supreme Court be expected to consider the human rights to a fair trial and protection from incrimination, and if so, will the Supreme Court be expected to suspend those rights in order to approve a potential registration?

Jaclyn SYMES: One of the features of the bill, Mr Limbrick, is the ability for the Supreme Court to impose conditions on how the information can be used, so factors such as the implications for everyone and how trials would operate would be a natural feature of their discretion in relation to the ability for that information to be used.

Katherine COPSEY: Clause 58, Attorney, provides for a situation where if the Chief Commissioner of Police does not accept a recommendation of the Public Interest Monitor, the Public Interest Monitor can only reapply for a review of the decision to the commissioner, who may again reject their advice. Attorney, can you please outline what recourse the Public Interest Monitor may have if their advice not to register a human source was twice not accepted by the Chief Commissioner of Police and specifically how this provides sufficient protections from unsound registrations by the commissioner?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before I call the Attorney, Ms Copsey, the Attorney is prepared to answer that question now, but when we have questions that relate to specific clauses, sometimes it is better to ask them when we get to that clause.

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Ms Copsey for her question. It is a bit loaded – you know, ‘unsound registrations by the commissioner’ – but all right. I have spoken to the chief commissioner at length in relation to this bill, and it is important to have oversight and safeguards and the like. I will answer your question again thinking this is in the rarest of circumstances, but you never know; let us make sure that we get this right.

Recommendations made by the Public Interest Monitor could cover material issues such as whether a source should or should not be registered, but it may also cover things such as time frames on reporting. If the Chief Commissioner of Police does not accept a recommendation of the PIM, there are several pathways under the bill for the PIM to report to the Attorney-General or to IBAC. The PIM would be able to raise concerns directly with IBAC in relation to IBAC’s functions to monitor the compliance of Victoria Police with the bill and IBAC’s broader jurisdiction in relation to police oversight. Under the bill, the PIM can give information to IBAC that it considers on reasonable grounds is relevant to the functions of IBAC under the bill. The PIM could also report a failure to act on its recommendations in relation to the registration of a human source to the Attorney-General under clause 62(3), subject to requirements for the Attorney-General to notify the Chief Commissioner of Police and to remove sensitive information from the report.

The Attorney-General must table a special report in Parliament within 14 days of receiving it from the PIM. Further, the PIM must report to the Attorney-General annually on the number of occasions on which its recommendations to the chief commissioner are not accepted and whether the PIM considers the chief commissioner’s reasons for not accepting a recommendation are adequate under clause 62(2)(f) and also (g). Again, the Attorney-General must table an annual report in Parliament within 14 days of receiving it from the PIM. It would be open to the Attorney-General to raise any concern raised by the PIM directly with the chief commissioner or indeed IBAC, where it relates to IBAC’s function, to monitor Victoria Police’s compliance with the bill and IBAC’s broader police oversight jurisdictions.

I guess the shorter answer to your question is that there are a number of pathways for the PIM to raise concerns in both an immediate way and a systemic way if that was appropriate. The protections provide for a thorough system but without imposing significant additional reporting or monitoring obligations on that body.

Katherine COPSEY: This is the final question for me – and Attorney, I acknowledge you did touch on this in your summing up. Attorney, the primary purpose of the bill is to ensure circumstances that instigated the royal commission will never be able to occur again. Can you outline step by step how the current bill provides sufficient checks and balances to mitigate against that?

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you, Ms Copsey, and I think it is a good question for you to finish on, because you have captured the fundamental issues that have sort of circled around this bill. An opportunity for me to go through that step by step and in great detail is welcome because I might have prepared something to ensure that I could respond to that question. I know that is the number one issue that people have been raising again and again – why do this if it is not going to have a positive impact and prevent something such as the Lawyer X issue happening again? The bill introduces Australia’s first and most rigorous legal framework for the registration, management and oversight of human sources to ensure that the events that led to the commission cannot happen again. In Victoria there is currently no legal framework to guide police decision-making around the use of human sources and no independent external oversight or reporting requirements relating to Victoria Police’s use of human sources.

Importantly, the commission did not recommend that any person should be prohibited from being a human source and recommended instead government legislate appropriate protections and external oversight arrangements for Victoria Police. Accordingly the bill does not prevent Victoria Police from registering any class of person as a human source, but high-risk human sources, such as lawyers, must be put through the most stringent registration process with the greatest number of safeguards in place. The application process to the Supreme Court will mean that in the very rare situation that Victoria Police intend to register a lawyer as a human source for the purposes of obtaining information that is subject to client legal privilege, police must obtain authorisation from the court. Where any such registration is authorised the robust system of safeguards in the bill will ensure that appropriate scrutiny is applied to Victoria Police’s use of the source to ensure that the events that gave rise to the royal commission do not happen again. The safeguards include that a lawyer may only be registered to provide information subject to client legal privilege for a maximum period of seven days, after which the human source must be deactivated; a strict prohibition on Victoria Police tasking a lawyer registered for the purpose of obtaining information subject to client legal privilege or another privilege; and consideration by the court of submissions made by the Public Interest Monitor. The registration of a lawyer would also be subject to strict oversight by IBAC after the registration has been made.

IBAC has the function to monitor Victoria Police’s compliance with the bill, which it will fulfil by receiving and considering mandatory reports from Victoria Police on registrations, material contraventions of the framework and the receipt of privileged information from human sources; conducting regular, mandatory inspections of Victoria Police’s records; and making findings and recommendations to Victoria Police on its human source management systems and practices. IBAC will also retain its broader jurisdiction to investigate police misconduct, including in relation to any action taken by Victoria Police under the bill or any failure to comply with the bill that falls within this existing jurisdiction. The strict registration, use and oversight arrangements under the bill will ensure that, if Victoria Police does not comply with its obligations under the bill, non-compliance can be identified and rectified early to ensure that the events that led to the commission, again, do not happen ever again. This creates a significant additional level of oversight that is not present in any other jurisdiction in Australia.

I have full confidence that the safeguards in the bill alone will ensure that another Gobbo situation is extremely unlikely to occur – if not impossible. However, it is important to reiterate that the royal commission delivered 111 recommendations directed towards government, Vic Police and the legal community. To prevent another situation, we need to continue to work collaboratively to implement all 111 recommendations. The government is still committed to implementing the recommendations, and to ensure that we are accountable to deliver this I do note the work of the implementation monitor Sir David Carruthers as well as the regular reporting that I have responsibility for tabling in the Parliament on the progress of this work.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (16:10)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

1. Clause 3, after line 27 insert –

“client legal privilege includes legal professional privilege;”.

I touched on this in an answer to Mr Limbrick earlier. It is, arguably, duplication, but to put it beyond doubt, we are putting both definitions in the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the Attorney’s amendment 1 be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

Members: Aye.

David Limbrick: No.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think the ayes have it.

David Limbrick: The noes have it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ring the bells.

Bells rung.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will just explain to the house where we are at the moment. I have put the question on the Attorney’s amendment 1, which inserts a definition of ‘client legal privilege’ to clarify that it includes ‘legal professional privilege’. A division has been called, but Mr Limbrick has a point of order. For new members, if we are in the middle of a division and you want to speak at all, you need to cover your head.

David Limbrick: On a point of order, Deputy President, it is lovely to see you all again, but apparently I have challenged the incorrect amendment, and I apologise.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Limbrick, just for clarification, you wish to withdraw your opposition to this amendment?

David Limbrick: Correct.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite the Attorney to move her amendments 2 to 5, which are a test for amendments 6 to 8, 14 to 16 and 18 to 46 on sheet JS27C, so we still need to move them.

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry. There are a lot of amendments that are interacting, so I just wanted to be clear on what I was moving. I am moving my amendments 2 to 5, which are consequential amendments related to my substantive amendment for the Supreme Court’s oversight of the registration of a reportable human source to obtain and/or disseminate information subject to client legal privilege. I understand that these effectively test the substantive position that has been a topic of conversation throughout the committee. This is the amendment that you are going to call a division on, Mr Limbrick. All right. This is working out well. I move:

2. Clause 3, page 3, line 7, after “23,” insert “30C,”.

3. Clause 3, page 6, line 32, omit “application;” and insert “application; or”.

4. Clause 3, page 6, after line 32 insert –

“(d) an application to the Supreme Court under section 30A;”.

5. Clause 3, page 7, line 6, after “23” insert “or 30C”.

Matthew BACH: On this side of the house we do not oppose these amendments. We would have preferred them to go further. On this side of the house we believe that for other categories of reportable human source, such as minors or persons with a serious medical or mental health condition, medical privilege, journalist privilege or religious confession privilege, a retired senior judge should have oversight of the power of the Chief Commissioner of Police to register them, and then in our view this person should be able to veto a proposed registration if it is not appropriate. This would have – again, in our view – provided an appropriate level of oversight to what is currently the unchallengeable power of the chief commissioner to register a reportable human source under the bill in its current form. So we do not oppose these amendments and will not be opposing these amendments, notwithstanding the fact that we would have preferred them to go further.

Amendments agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Bach, that will mean that your amendment 1 to this clause cannot be moved. I invite you to move your amendments 2 to 4.

Matthew BACH: I move:

2. Clause 3, page 4, insert the following definition after line 17 –

“lawyer means a person who is, or was previously –

(a) an Australian lawyer; or

(b) a foreign lawyer; or

(c) an Australian-registered foreign lawyer –

within the meaning of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Victoria);”.

3. Clause 3, page 5, line 29, omit all words and expressions on this line.

4. Clause 3, page 6, line 2, omit all words and expressions on this line.

Just briefly, for the benefit of the house, these amendments seek to secure one principal aim, and that is to prohibit Victoria Police from registering a lawyer as a human source in relation to their role or knowledge of confidential or privileged information obtained as a lawyer. That will mean that Victoria Police would not be able to use a lawyer as a source against the lawyer’s clients; however, a lawyer could still be used as a source in relation to someone other than a client as client legal privilege would not be engaged. In this house, in the other place and in the media Mr O’Brien principally but also other members of the coalition team have fully furnished the reasons why we think this is such an important thing.

David LIMBRICK: I concur with Dr Bach. The Liberal Democrats will be supporting this amendment.

Moira DEEMING: I would also like to support this amendment.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (14): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (21): John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Amended clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (16:29)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

6. Clause 4, line 33, after “register” insert “, or apply to the Supreme Court for authorisation to register,”.

This is a consequential amendment related to my substantive amendment in relation to Supreme Court oversight.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (16:31)

Matthew BACH: Attorney, I will be quick. This clause of the bill requires that informed consent can only be given if a person does not face coercion or undue pressure from another person. I wonder if you might talk us through what that would look like and perhaps provide an example.

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Bach, in relation to the clause in the bill, we are defining the meaning of ‘informed consent’, which is not a foreign concept for many pieces of legislation. It is just specifying that in order for a person to give informed consent in relation to registration of a human source they have to give consent freely and without undue pressure or coercion by any other person. I think that it is pretty clear what that definition means, but I do not want to go into examples, because they are hypothetical situations. As with many pieces of legislation, contracts and the like, informed consent is required, and the bill seeks to be very informative in relation to ensuring what we mean by that.

Matthew BACH: I thank the Attorney. Examples are not hypothetical; they are examples. Nonetheless, former judge Stephen Charles KC has said that his view is that it is possible that under this legislation police could manipulate lawyers by threatening to prosecute them for other matters unless they register as a human source. Would that be covered as coercion?

Jaclyn SYMES: It would be my expectation that that would amount to coercion.

Clause agreed to; clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (16:34)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

7. Clause 10, line 14, omit “23;” and insert “23 or 30C;”.

8. Clause 10, after line 14 insert –

“(ab) the power to approve the making of an application under section 30A;”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (16:35)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite the Attorney to move her amendments 9 and 10, which are identical to Ms Copsey’s amendments 1 and 2 on sheet KC03C.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move amendments 9 and 10:

9. Clause 12, line 2, omit “aged 14 years or under”.

10. Clause 12, lines 4 and 5, omit “who is aged 14 years or under”.

These are consistent with Ms Copsey’s amendments in relation to removing the 14-year age limit such that police would be prohibited from approaching a child of any age to initiate contact for the purpose of registering them as a reportable human source.

Katherine COPSEY: I rise to speak in support of the government’s house amendments 9 and 10 and note that my comments relate to 11 and 12 as well. These amendments, as has been noted, replicate amendments 1 to 4 introduced by me on behalf of the Victorian Greens. The amendments ensure that all children, regardless of age, are afforded the same special protections in this bill, meaning that any person under the age of 18 cannot be:

… requested induced or procured by a police officer for the purpose of being registered as a human source under clause 12, nor can they be tasked as a human source under 15.

Prior to these amendments, the bill proposed to only apply these important protections to children aged under 14 years. The amendments reflect the fact that all children are among the most vulnerable groups of people that engage with the police, and that these interactions with police at a young age can be associated with serious, adverse future life outcomes. Knowing this, we must extend the most robust protections our laws can provide to adequately protect all children interacting with police, without exception.

I think this is especially important when children may be faced with incredibly complex and consequential choices about being registered or used by police as a human source. With these house amendments the government has acted in a way that I believe is consistent with how good government should act: that is, they genuinely listened to feedback and concerns and did not hesitate to make changes, even to their own proposals, where there was room for improvement. I give credit to the Attorney-General and her office, as she noted. But the biggest beneficiary of this new government approach will be the Victorian community, and I commend these amendments to the house.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 (16:38)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite the Attorney to move her amendments 11 and 12, which are also identical to some amendments that were put forward by Ms Copsey.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

11. Clause 15, line 2, omit “14 years of age or under”.

12. Clause 15, line 4, omit “aged 14 years or under”.

This is to put beyond doubt again, removing that 14-year age limit such that police would be prohibited from tasking a human source who is a child of any age.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

New clause (16:39)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

13. Insert the following New Clause after clause 15 –

“15A Prohibition on tasking a human source where information subject to client legal privilege

A police officer must not task a human source who is registered for the purpose of a police officer obtaining, or obtaining and disseminating, information from the human source that is subject to –

(a) client legal privilege; or

(b) client legal privilege in respect of which there is an exception to the privilege.”.

It relates to the prohibition of police from tasking a human source for the purposes of obtaining or disseminating information subject to client legal privilege, again coming back to some of the comments that I have made in my summing-up and in the process of answering committee questions. We do not think it is appropriate for human sources that have client legal privilege to be used in an active way to go and seek further information via tasking mechanisms. The example that is often used is wearing a wire.

New clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (16:40)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

5. Clause 16, lines 8 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) A police officer, during any interaction with a child concerning the potential registration of that child as a human source, must ensure the presence of at least one of the following –

(a) an Australian legal practitioner;’.

6. Clause 16, lines 24 to 31, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the police officer must –

(a) consult the child before determining who will be present during the interaction; and

(b) if an Australian legal practitioner is not to be present during the interaction, inform the child and the child’s parent, guardian or independent person that the child may express their wish to have an Australian legal practitioner present at any time; and

(c) take reasonable steps to facilitate the child’s wishes in this regard before any interaction with the child takes place or before any further interaction with the child takes place (as the case requires).’.

I will speak now, and I will summarise and commend a number of the Greens’ related amendments to clauses 16, 17 and 20 – I will cover those now – as well as a new clause, 17A, that we also propose to insert into the bill.

As I outlined in my contribution earlier in debate, with the government house amendments, the Greens have held concerns that the bill as it was introduced did not do enough to protect children interacting with Victoria Police in relation to human source matters. For example, the original clause 16 of the bill outlined the following process in relation to the registration of children as human sources: (1) that the child is entitled to the presence of a legal practitioner or a parent or guardian or, if not appropriate for a parent or guardian to be present, an independent person; (2) that a police officer must inform this child of the entitlement before any discussion about registration can occur; and (3) that a police officer must take reasonable steps to facilitate the presence of a third person or party.

Clause 17 outlined a similar process for children who were already registered as a human source for when they subsequently interacted with police in that capacity. What is apparent is that the current proposed provisions place the onus entirely on the child to determine whether or not they need an adult present with them during their registration and interactions as a human source. My concern is that a child, when put on the spot in front of an authority figure such as Victoria Police, may be unable or unwilling to give proper consideration to whether they could request an adult to be present with them in such exceptional circumstances, let alone feeling able and empowered to do so. I think many in this chamber would agree that children simply must, unless a life-or-death emergency requires otherwise, have a parent or guardian or an independent adult present when they interact with police on issues around their registration or use as a human source. I note that this same requirement, this protection mandating that an adult is present, already applies if police are to formally question a child in relation to a criminal offence. So what the Greens are really asking with these amendments is that the sorts of protections that apply in that questioning scenario be extended to circumstances relating to the registration and use of children as human sources in this bill.

My amendments 5 to 8 require that either a parent or guardian, a legal representative or an independent adult be present during any interactions a child may have either during the registration process under clause 16 or when they are registered as a reportable source who is interacting with police under the provisions of clause 17. As far as is reasonable, the amendments call for police to facilitate a child’s preference as to which adult is present. To be clear, when a child has already been registered as a human source and is interacting with police under clause 17, this requirement would only apply to the child’s interaction in their capacity as a human source – namely, when they are providing information. It would not apply in superficial instances, such as logistical arrangements – arranging a meeting time or something – between the child and police officers.

As I outlined earlier, we also fully recognise there may be rare or exceptional circumstances in an emergency where it is not possible to have an independent adult present, which is why we propose a new clause 17A in the bill, which I will now also briefly speak to. Currently there are no specific protections in the bill for children during emergency registrations or interactions, and the Greens accept that in the special case of emergency registrations, where there is a serious or imminent threat to national security, the community or human life, the conditions for registration of a child as reportable human source may need to be more flexible in terms of whether or not an independent adult is also present. New clause 17A requires in such circumstances that the police must inform the child of the right to the presence of an independent adult and take reasonable steps to facilitate this, but it does not mandate the presence of an independent person if it is simply not possible in the circumstances. We do believe this gets the balance right, protecting children’s rights and protecting the community in rare and exceptional circumstances.

The final related amendment that we have put forward amends clause 20 and requires an independent third person must be present if it is not appropriate for a parent or guardian to be present at the time a child gives informed consent to be registered as a human source. The issue of what constitutes informed consent is always up for discussion, especially regarding vulnerable people placed in circumstances that accentuate their vulnerability. We accept that mandating the presence of an independent adult when a child is giving informed consent in circumstances where it is not appropriate for a parent or guardian to be present does not guarantee that true informed consent will be provided, but it does, I believe, by an additional measure help to ensure that the environment where the child is required to formally provide consent is more conducive to this outcome – they are more supported.

I would like to thank the stakeholders that the Greens engaged with, who have informed our position in developing these amendments which extend protections for young people through the registration process and in their interactions with Victoria Police. I also thank the Attorney-General’s office for their feedback and work to help refine them. I hope that the Parliament will work in that spirit of collaboration and unity in supporting and passing these amendments for additional protections for children.

David LIMBRICK: Although I have serious concerns about children being used as human sources in the first place and share many concerns about the ability to form consent, I do acknowledge that these amendments will improve safeguards, and therefore I will be supporting them.

Jaclyn SYMES: The additional protections and additional measures, particularly because they are aimed at children, are supported by the government.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (16:47)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

7. Clause 17, lines 3 to 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) A police officer, during any interaction which constitutes human source activity with a child who is a human source, must ensure the presence of at least one of the following –

(a) an Australian legal practitioner;’.

8. Clause 17, lines 20 to 33, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the police officer must –

(a) consult the child before determining who will be present during the interaction; and

(b) if an Australian legal practitioner is not to be present during the interaction, inform the child and the child’s parent, guardian or independent person that the child may express their wish to have an Australian legal practitioner present at any time; and

(c) take reasonable steps to facilitate the child’s wishes in this regard before any interaction with the child takes place or before any further interaction with the child takes place (as the case requires).’.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

New clause (16:48)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

9. Insert the following New Clause after clause 17 –

‘17A Protections for a child – emergency registrations

(1) A child is entitled to the presence of the following persons during any interaction between the child and a police officer concerning the potential registration of that child as a human source –

(a) an Australian legal practitioner;

(b) either –

(i) a parent or a guardian; or

(ii) if a parent or guardian is unavailable or it is not appropriate for a parent or guardian to attend, an independent person.

Example

It is not appropriate for a parent or guardian to be present if the child is to provide information about the parent or guardian or the presence of the child’s parent or guardian may place the child or any other person at risk.

(2) A human source registered on an emergency registration who is a child is entitled to the presence of the persons specified in subsection (1)(a) and (b) during any interaction between the human source and a police officer concerning the child’s role as a human source.

(3) A human source registered on an emergency registration who is a child is entitled to request the presence of a person referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b) (or both) during any other interaction between the human source and a police officer.

(4) A police officer must inform the child of the entitlements in subsection (1) before any interaction concerning potential emergency registration of the child takes place between the human source and the police officer.

(5) A police officer must inform the child of the entitlements in subsections (2) and (3) before any interaction concerning registration or deactivation takes place between the human source and the police officer.

(6) The police officer must take reasonable steps to facilitate the presence of each person entitled to be present under subsection (1) or (2) or whose presence is requested under subsection (3).’.

New clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (16:48)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

14. Clause 18, line 8, after “register” insert “, or apply to the Supreme Court for authorisation to register,”.

This is moved for a very similar reason to my moving the last few amendments.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 (16:49)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

10. Clause 20, after line 34 insert –

‘(3A) If it is not appropriate for the parent or guardian to give consent to the child’s registration, a police officer must ensure that an independent person is present at the time the child gives informed consent.’.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 21 (16:50)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

15. Clause 21, page 22, before line 1 insert –

“(1A) A police officer must not apply to the Chief Commissioner to register as a reportable human source a person who is reasonably expected to have access to information that is subject to client legal privilege or information in respect of which there is an exception to client legal privilege, for the purpose of obtaining, or obtaining and disseminating, information of that kind.”.

Everyone that has got the running sheet can see that amendment 15 is a consequential amendment similar to the others which are related to my substantive amendment to introduce Supreme Court oversight. For those that are playing along at home and who do not have this sheet that we are all following, each time I stand up and say ‘So moved as previously’, they are consequential amendments to give effect to the substantive amendment that brings in the Supreme Court oversight of the registration of reportable human sources to obtain and/or disseminate information subject to client legal privilege.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 (16:50)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

16. Clause 23, after line 22 insert –

“(1A) The Chief Commissioner must not register a person as a reportable human source under this section if –

(a) the person is reasonably expected to have access to –

(i) information that is subject to client legal privilege; or

(ii) information in respect of which there is an exception to client legal privilege; and

(b) the purpose of the registration is for a police officer to obtain, or to obtain and disseminate, information that is subject to client legal privilege or information in respect of which there is an exception to client legal privilege.”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 24 (16:52)

Jaclyn SYMES: This is an amendment that clarifies that the chief commissioner must have regard to any recommendations given by the PIM to the chief commissioner relating to the registration of a reportable human source. I move:

17. Clause 24, line 22, after “Monitor” insert “to the Chief Commissioner”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 25 (16:52)

Jaclyn SYMES: Amendments 18 to 20 are also consequential. I move:

18. Clause 25, line 28, after “source” insert “under section 23”.

19. Clause 25, page 26, line 7, after “source” insert “under section 23”.

20. Clause 25, page 26, line 10, after “source” insert “under section 23”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 26 (16:53)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

21. Clause 26, page 27, lines 5 to 8, omit all words and expressions and insert –

“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the information that the person is to be registered to provide is subject to –

(a) client legal privilege; or

(b) an exception to client legal privilege or any other privilege.”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 27 (16:53)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

22. Clause 27, line 12, after “source” insert “under section 23”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 28 (16:54)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

23. Clause 28, line 3, omit “The” and insert “Subject to any conditions imposed by the Supreme Court under section 30B, the”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 29 (16:54)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

24. Clause 29, line 12, after “months” insert “or, if applicable, the period fixed by the Supreme Court”.

25. Clause 29, line 15, omit “the registration” and insert “a registration under section 23”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 30 agreed to.

New clauses (16:55)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

26. Insert the following New Division after Division 3 of Part 3 –

“Division 3A – Application to Supreme Court to register a person as a reportable human source for certain purposes

30A Application to Supreme Court for the registration of a person as a reportable human source for certain purposes

(1) A police officer, with the approval of the Chief Commissioner, may apply to the Supreme Court for an order authorising the Chief Commissioner to register a person as a reportable human source for the purpose of a police officer obtaining, or obtaining and disseminating, information that is subject to client legal privilege or information in respect of which there is an exception to client legal privilege if the police officer is reasonably satisfied –

(a) that the use of the person as a human source –

(i) is necessary to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective; and

(ii) is proportionate to that objective; and

(b) that the risks associated with the person’s registration as a human source have been identified and can be adequately managed; and

(c) that the registration of the person as a reportable human source is otherwise appropriate and justified; and

(d) of either of the following –

(i) that –

(A) there is a serious and imminent threat to national security, the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, the life of a person or of serious physical harm to a person; and

(B) registering the person as a reportable human source is immediately necessary to respond to the threat; and

(C) the information or assistance that the person is expected to provide if registered as a reportable human source cannot be obtained through any other reasonable means; or

(ii) the information is subject to an exception to client legal privilege of a kind that permits its disclosure to law enforcement officers.

(2) An application must –

(a) specify the name of the applicant; and

(b) specify the name of the person in respect of whom the application is made; and

(c) specify the information proposed to be obtained, or obtained and disseminated; and

(d) specify the reasons why the information is likely to be the subject of client legal privilege or subject to an exception to client legal privilege; and

(e) specify the required duration of the registration; and

(f) if the application is made in writing, be signed by the police officer making the application; and

(g) unless the police officer making the application reasonably believes it would be impracticable to do so, be supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds on which the application is made.

(3) If the police officer making an application under this section reasonably believes that it is impracticable for the application to be made in person, the application may be made by telephone or other electronic communication.

(4) An application that is made without a supporting affidavit must be accompanied by any information requested by the court.

(5) A police officer who makes an application without a supporting affidavit must provide a supporting affidavit within 24 hours after making the application.

30B Supreme Court may authorise the registration of a person as a reportable human source for certain purposes

(1) The Supreme Court may make an order of a kind referred to in section 30A(1) only if the court is reasonably satisfied –

(a) that the use of the person as a human source –

(i) is necessary to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective; and

(ii) is proportionate to that objective; and

(b) that the risks associated with the person’s registration as a human source have been identified and can be adequately managed; and

(c) that the registration of the person as a reportable human source is otherwise appropriate and justified; and

(d) of either of the following –

(i) that –

(A) there is a serious and imminent threat to national security, the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, the life of a person or of serious physical harm to a person; and

(B) registering the person as a reportable human source is immediately necessary to respond to the threat; and

(C) the information or assistance that the person is expected to provide if registered as a reportable human source cannot be obtained through any other reasonable means; or

(ii) the information is subject to an exception to client legal privilege of a kind that permits its disclosure to law enforcement officers; and

(e) in the case of an application that is not made in person, that it would have been impracticable for the application to be made in person; and

(f) in the case of an application that is not supported by an affidavit, that it would have been impracticable for an affidavit to have been prepared and sworn or affirmed before the application was made.

(2) In considering whether the court is reasonably satisfied of the matters specified in subsection (1), the court must consider the following –

(a) whether the person is reasonably expected to have access to privileged information or privileged information in respect of which there is an exception to the privilege and, if so, whether that information is related to the information the person is expected to provide to a police officer if registered as a reportable human source;

(b) whether the person is reasonably expected to have access to information that is subject to a legal obligation of confidentiality and, if so, whether that information is related to the information the person is expected to provide to a police officer if registered as a reportable human source;

(c) any specialist advice regarding the registration of the person as a reportable human source;

(d) the person’s age;

(e) the person’s health, including the person’s mental and physical health;

(f) the purpose for which the person is proposed to be registered as a reportable human source;

(g) the conditions that would be imposed on the registration;

(h) the length of time for which the person is proposed to be registered as a reportable human source;

(i) mitigation of any risk to the safety of the person if the person is registered as a reportable human source;

(j) the adequacy of the risk assessment and any other material provided in support of the application;

(k) any rewards that are proposed to be given to the person if registered as a reportable human source;

(l) if the person is a child –

(i) whether registration as a reportable human source is in the best interests of the child; and

(ii) any expected impact of registration on the child’s wellbeing; and

(m) any submissions made to the court by the Public Interest Monitor.

(3) An order must specify –

(a) whether the information that is proposed to be obtained, or obtained and disseminated, is likely to be subject to client legal privilege or an exception to client legal privilege of a kind that permits its disclosure to law enforcement officers; and

(b) the purpose for which the Chief Commissioner may register the person as a reportable human source; and

(c) the date of making of the order; and

(d) the maximum period for which the registration of the person in respect of whom the application is made may be in effect, being a period that is not longer than 7 days; and

(e) any conditions to which the order is subject.

(4) An order must not –

(a) authorise the registration of a person as a reportable human source for the purpose of tasking the person; or

(b) be varied, extended or renewed.

(5) If an order is not made in writing, the court must provide the police officer with a copy of the order as soon as it is practicable to do so.

(6) An application under this section must not be heard in open court.

30C Chief Commissioner may register a person as a reportable human source following court order

(1) The Chief Commissioner may register a person as a reportable human source if the Supreme Court makes an order under section 30B authorising the Chief Commissioner to register the person.

(2) Before registering the person, the Chief Commissioner must ensure that the person has given informed consent to the registration and that the Chief Commissioner has a record of that person’s informed consent, as required by section 20.”.

It would have been easier to do this one first. This is the amendment which is after all of the consequential amendments which effectively relate to enabling police to apply to the Supreme Court for authorisation to register a person as a reportable human source in order to obtain and/or disseminate information which is subject to client legal privilege. It is inserting a new clause and is the additional oversight mechanism that we have arrived at in our conversations and negotiations with people inside the chamber and stakeholders that had an interest in this bill. It is an additional measure of reassurance and oversight in relation to the registration of human sources that have privileged information in a legal sense.

I know that a lot of people have had a lot of conversations with my office and stakeholders on this particular additional oversight. We believe it is superior to what was proposed by the opposition in relation to the next step that could be applied for the Chief Commissioner of Police in relation to, again, those very rare circumstances in which this type of information could be used under the regime protecting human sources and indeed the use of that information. Thank you to all of those people that have been involved in crafting this amendment.

New clauses agreed to; clauses 31 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 (16:57)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

27. Clause 38, line 18, after “registration” insert “or a registration under section 30C”.

28. Clause 38, line 30, after “registration” insert “or a registration under section 30C”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 (16:58)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

29. Clause 40, after line 20 insert –

“(1A) A police officer must not apply to the Chief Commissioner for emergency registration of a person as a human source a person who is reasonably expected to have access to information that is subject to client legal privilege or information in respect of which there is an exception to client legal privilege, for the purpose of obtaining, or obtaining and disseminating, information of that kind.”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 41 (16:58)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

30. Clause 41, after line 21 insert –

“(1A) The Chief Commissioner must not register a person as a human source on an emergency registration application if –

(a) the person is reasonably expected to have access to –

(i) information that is subject to client legal privilege; or

(ii) information in respect of which there is an exception to client legal privilege; and

(b) the purpose of the registration is for a police officer to obtain, or to obtain and disseminate, information that is subject to client legal privilege or information in respect of which there is an exception to client legal privilege.”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 42 to 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 (16:59)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

31. Clause 45, after line 20 insert –

“(4) Despite subsection (3), in the case of a registration under section 30C that is the subject of a further application to the Supreme Court under section 30A, the Chief Commissioner must suspend the registration of the human source at the expiry of the registration period determined under section 29(1) until the further application has been determined by the court.”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 (17:00)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

32. Clause 47, page 44, line 2, after “registration” insert “unless a human source registered under an emergency registration has unexpectedly provided information which is subject to client legal privilege or information that is subject to client legal privilege in respect of which there is an exception to the privilege”.

This is in relation to the chief commissioner’s requirement to quarantine privileged information – to suspend or deactivate a registration in the event a human source provides unexpected privileged information other than in respect of an emergency registration.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 (17:01)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

33. Clause 50, line 24, after “23,” insert “30C,”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 (17:02)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

34. Clause 52, line 8, after “source” insert “under section 23”.

35. Clause 52, after line 17 insert –

“(ab) to appear at the hearing of an application under section 30A to test the content and sufficiency of the information relied on and the circumstances of the application;”.

36. Clause 52, page 47, line 20, omit “(a).” and insert “(a); and”.

37. Clause 52, page 47, after line 20 insert –

“(c) for the purpose of performing the function under subsection (1)(ab) –

(i) make submissions to the court by telephone or other electronic communication; and

(ii) ask questions of any person giving information in relation to the application; and

(iii) make submissions to the Supreme Court as to the appropriateness of granting the application.”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 (17:02)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

38. Clause 54, line 11, omit “an application” and insert “any application”.

39. Clause 54, after line 12 insert –

“(1A) The Chief Commissioner, as soon as practicable after the making of an application under section 30A and in accordance with the regulations (if any), must provide the Public Interest Monitor with –

(a) a copy of the application; and

(b) a copy of any affidavit in support of the application and of any information provided to the court.”.

40. Clause 54, line 18, after “is made” insert “to the Chief Commissioner or the Supreme Court”.

41. Clause 54, line 19, after “Commissioner” insert “or the Supreme Court”.

42. Clause 54, line 20, after “application” insert “(as the case requires)”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 55 (17:03)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

43. Clause 55, line 5, after “source” insert “under section 23”.

44. Clause 55, line 17, after “source” insert “under section 23”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 56 to 61 agreed to.

Clause 62 (17:03)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

45. Clause 62, page 55, after line 13 insert –

“(ga) the number of times the Public Interest Monitor was notified under section 54 of an application to the Supreme Court under section 30A; and”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.

Clause 65 (17:04)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

1. Clause 65, after line 12 insert –

“Note

See section 5 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2011 in relation to the meaning of police personnel misconduct.”.

This amendment was circulated at the beginning of the committee stage, and I will speak briefly to the Greens proposed amendment to clause 65. The bill is quite reliant on IBAC to provide oversight of Victoria Police’s registration, use and management of human sources. Clause 65(1)(a) of the bill provides that IBAC will monitor compliance by the chief commissioner and other members of Victoria Police personnel with the human source management framework. What is not explicit in the current version of the bill is whether IBAC, in this monitoring and oversight role, has an express jurisdiction to investigate and make findings against police officers if they seriously breach this registration framework. What this amendment seeks to simply clarify is that IBAC does have the power to identify, investigate and make findings against members of Victoria Police who breach the human source management framework by clarifying that such breaches could constitute police personnel misconduct, as defined in the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011. In short, making this explicit on the face of the legislation will assist police officers to be aware that IBAC has the power to act strongly where there is non-compliance with the framework, and this, along with the substantive house amendments that have been introduced by the government today, should provide far improved reassurance that what happened with Lawyer X simply cannot be repeated.

We do acknowledge here that there are broader issues surrounding the adequacy and resourcing of IBAC; there will be frequent discussion in this chamber, I am sure. The effectiveness of IBAC monitoring Victoria Police is something that needs to be addressed. We do look forward to coming reforms to strengthen police oversight on this and a number of other areas. For now we think that including this note on the face of the legislation makes this jurisdiction clearer and therefore the legislation more functional. I commend this amendment to the house.

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Ms Copsey for bringing this amendment to the house. It simply signposts that police misconduct under the bill can be interpreted as misconduct under the IBAC act, and as such we will support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 66 to 72 agreed to.

New clause (17:07)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

46. Insert the following New Clause after clause 72 –

“72A Chief Commissioner to report on applications to the Supreme Court

The Chief Commissioner must give a report to IBAC at least once every 3 months which specifies the number of applications made under section 30A and, of those –

(a) the number that were granted by the court; and

(b) the number that were refused and the reasons each was refused.”.

It is a new clause, but it is a consequential amendment. It requires the chief commissioner to periodically report to IBAC on the number of registration applications that are made to the Supreme Court. I expect that to be very small, if not zero.

New clause agreed to; clauses 73 to 94 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:08): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:08): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is:

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

Council divided on question:

Ayes (21): John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Noes (14): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.