Thursday, 8 February 2024
Bills
Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023
Bills
Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023
Second reading
Debate resumed.
Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:59): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023. The bill will introduce important reforms to maintain community safety and strengthen the integrity of the Victoria Police discipline system to ensure that Victoria Police personnel operate in a way that is consistent with community expectations. The bill will also enhance the privacy of participants of the restorative engagement and redress scheme for Victoria Police and make technical amendments to other Victorian legislation. While most interactions with Victoria Police are positive, it is essential that there is a robust discipline system in place to ensure police officers are held to the highest standards of integrity and that the community has confidence that this occurs.
The bill amends the Victoria Police Act 2013 – the police act, as it is known – to enhance Victoria Police’s discipline system. In 2022 Victoria Police reported an increase in disciplinary hearings for police officers and protective services officers, known in the community as PSOs, who were charged with a breach of discipline under the police act or a criminal offence. It is important that Victoria Police has a robust discipline system. Police officers have significant power to maintain and protect community safety, and it is important for everyone that there is a strong protection for members of the public in relation to the use of these police powers.
The Victoria Police code of conduct is an important organisational standard that establishes the Victoria Police values and the professional obligations that then flow from them. The bill amends the police act to ensure the Chief Commissioner of Police’s ability to issue a code of conduct for Victoria Police that is binding on Victoria Police personnel and to expressly prescribe that failure to comply with this code of conduct can constitute a breach of discipline. These amendments will consolidate the importance of the code of conduct as an organisational standard as Victoria Police establish clear consequences for failing to comply professional obligations set out in the code of conduct and ensure that Victoria Police’s behavioural expectations are communicated to the community they serve.
Police information is highly, highly sensitive in nature, and it is important that the police act strongly protects access to and the use of information. Victoria’s integrity agencies have emphasised the importance of maintaining confidentiality of police information in several recent reports. I will draw your attention to October 2022, when the Victorian Inspectorate published a special report on IBAC’s referral and oversight of Victoria Police’s response to a matter involving family violence perpetrated by a police officer. As the Victorian Inspectorate identified, violence occurred from an inappropriate disclosure of police information. Section 227 of the Victoria Police Act establishes an offence for current and former Victoria Police personnel to access, use or disclose police information when it is not in line with their current duty to do so. It can be difficult to identify this type of offending as it is often well concealed by the offender and not easily identifiable through traditional auditing processes. The offence is often only uncovered during the investigation of more serious offending, by which time the 12-month time frame for charging a person with an offence under section 227 may have expired. Delays can also be caused by a variety of issues, including lack of knowledge, complexity of circumstances or the safety concerns of the complainant, which, for example, may come about in family violence situations.
To ensure the confidentiality of police information is protected and in recognition of the seriousness of the consequences which can flow from the misuse of police information, the bill extends the statute of limitations for the offence established by section 227 of the police act from 12 months to a period of three years. These reforms aim to ensure that the discipline system continues to reflect the expectations of the chief commissioner and the broader Victorian people. I would like to acknowledge the brave advocacy efforts of individuals who have had experiences of Victoria Police breaching their duty to protect the confidentiality of police information, which has informed the need for these reforms that we are discussing here in the chamber today.
In addition to the amendments to the police discipline system, the bill amends the police act to support participants in the restorative engagement and redress scheme for Victoria Police to maintain their privacy and autonomy in reporting. The redress scheme is available for former and current Victoria Police employees who have experienced workplace sexual discrimination or sexual harassment. Since the redress scheme commenced operating, information privacy and confidentiality issues have continued to emerge. Participants share private and sensitive information to seek personal support and redress in a private, non-adversarial and non-inquisitorial setting. They do not intend to disclose information for the purposes of reporting wrongdoing or to inform disciplinary criminal or other legal proceedings.
This bill also amends the police act to exempt the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety from a requirement to notify IBAC of any matter that they are aware of which is suspected to involve corrupt or improper conduct. Mandatory reporting of information shared in applications to the redress scheme would undermine the victim-focused nature of the scheme. It would risk retraumatising participants, breach privacy, erode trust and reduce the likelihood of eligible applicants applying. The scheme provides participants with an opportunity to access personal support and redress in a non-adversarial setting without the requirement to make a formal complaint or to pursue legal proceedings to access a scheme. Of course participants already have the option, as would be known, to voluntarily report possible corrupt conduct with Victoria Police to IBAC.
This amendment will ensure the privacy of participants and that they retain ownership over their personal and sensitive information. However, in recognition of IBAC’s important role in identifying themes of potential misconduct, the secretary will be authorised to provide de-identified and thematic information from the redress scheme to assist IBAC to perform its education and prevention functions, exempting the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety from the requirement to provide information to IBAC that could lead to the identification of participants.
The proposed amendments reflect the reality that many participants do not disclose information for the purposes of reporting wrongdoing or to inform disciplinary, criminal or other legal proceedings; in fact participants often make reports to the scheme because they want to improve the culture of Victoria Police. Let me just say, however, the government understands that any penalties for information breaches that may harm the community need to be balanced with protections for whistleblowers who are making genuine and well-intentioned disclosures. Section 227 of the police act provides that police information cannot be accessed, used or disclosed without a reasonable excuse if it is not directly related to the member’s functions or duties as a member of Victoria Police. The offence is designed to protect the privacy and dignity of those involved in police matters, including victims and witnesses.
Section 39 of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012 actually establishes immunity for making a public interest disclosure, or whistleblower conduct really, and section 227 does not exclude the application of this immunity. Therefore the government believes that the current legislative framework achieves the right balance between accountability and public interest. I have heard from constituents in the Northern Metropolitan Region, in fact all of Victoria, and I need to say that they have been very clear with me about their expectations that institutions charged with protecting and maintaining community safety will have all the necessary checks and balances in place to provide a safe environment. We know that when communities trust that their issues will be heard, their privacy protected and their rights respected, we gain better outcomes for all of Victoria’s people.
Community safety will always be our priority. The Allan Labor government is proud to work with Victoria Police and police command to ensure that Victoria Police have all the tools and resources they need to keep Victoria safe, and the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023 is another example of us delivering on our commitment to the Victorian community. Since coming into government, we have made record investments of more than $4.5 billion in Victoria Police to deliver Victorians the modern, world-class policing service they deserve. I would like to perhaps highlight something that speakers before me may have, and that is the slashing of $100 million from the Victoria Police budget by those opposite. Our government absolutely understands that the community benefits from a well-resourced police force. This includes additional police, new and upgraded stations right across the state and investment in new technology to ensure that Victoria Police continues to be a modern, fit-for-purpose organisation into the future.
The Allan Labor government is committed to continuing police accountability. This bill seeks to reform the police act in significantly meaningful ways now – another example of our government delivering on our commitments to the Victorian people for their safety, security and wellbeing now and very much into the future.
Adem SOMYUREK (Northern Metropolitan) (15:09): I rise to say a few words in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023. The bill before the house proposes to amend various acts to implement a range of policing reforms aimed at strengthening the integrity of the Victoria Police disciplinary system and supporting Victoria Police and other agencies to maintain community safety. The specific objectives of the bill are to improve the internal Victoria Police disciplinary process, to strengthen Victoria Police’s capacity to regulate firearms, to expand the circumstances in which Victoria Police can deploy a vehicle-immobilising device and to support the function of the Countering Violent Extremism Multi-agency Panel.
Robust integrity measures are indispensable for ensuring that our police force, or indeed any police force throughout the world, operates in a manner that is ethical, lawful and aligned with the current values of the society that it seeks to serve. On the other hand, it is also very important that the police force is empowered to tackle new challenges such as challenges presented by technological innovation. The bad guys seem to sometimes be ahead of the curve in terms of adapting new technology for their nefarious ends, and it is important for our police force to be empowered to be able to catch them quickly. There are also societal changes that the police force needs to be able to adapt to. So therefore reforming, modernising legislation such as this that deals with integrity issues and deals with empowering the police force is vital in the functioning of our law enforcement agencies. Therefore, I support the bill; however, I have been convinced, not with a gun to my head by the Shooters party but through sheer logic and coherent, intellectual argument – now there is an oxymoron – by Mr Bourman to support his amendment.
I think he has a point. I have been at this end, and I think sometimes when you seek to do reform you can be overzealous in your reform, and it is quite easy and it is quite tempting to try to change everything, to fiddle with many things. Sometimes you might end up changing things or trying to fix things which are not broken. Mr Bourman assures me that his amendment seeks to stop the government from breaking something that ain’t broke. I do not know much about firearms. I do not know anything about rifles and firearms. I do follow geopolitics and I know something about military hardware and military technology, but I guess I am digressing a little bit there. So again I say I do not know much about guns, I do not know much about rifles and I do not know much about firearms. I have listened to the persuasive arguments – again, not with a gun to my head – and he persuaded me through sheer reason to support his amendment. If the amendment fails, it will not be a game changer as far as I am concerned. I will be supporting the bill, and I will not be entertaining any other amendments put up by anyone else.
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:13): I rise to speak to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023. I would like to speak specifically on the amendment to extend the statute of limitations for the duty of Victoria Police not to access, make use of or disclose police information. This reform comes in the wake of the Victorian Inspectorate special report about IBAC’s referral and oversight of Emma’s complaint about the Victorian police. This report shone a light on serious police misconduct, a systemic misuse of police information and a 12-month limitation period that prevented those affected from being able to take action. This reform comes at a time when one in six women have experienced stalking in Victoria and 39 per cent have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 15. The need to extend the limitation period stems from countless case studies showing that access to and the use and disclosure of police information is often only exposed well after being used to stalk, harass and control.
The amendments are a good start, but they do not address the systemic issues of police accessing the law enforcement assistance program, or LEAP, and using the database for unauthorised purposes. As my colleague Mr Ettershank detailed in his contribution, LEAP is an outmoded system with no proactive checks to flag suspicious activities – for example, when an officer searches for information about an ex-partner. In the hands of an abuser, unchecked access to the LEAP database has terrifying consequences. Time and time again there are instances of women having their and their families’ personal information accessed by police officers. It is unclear just how many police officers have had unauthorised access to the LEAP database, which is really concerning, but anecdotal evidence from those who have worked with survivors of family violence – specifically that perpetrated by police officers – indicate that in almost all cases LEAP had been used and weaponised to control and abuse victims. We know that Victoria Police do not lack the resources to improve systems and protect those being targeted by police. Further restrictions on access to information via LEAP and the ability to flag suspicious searches in real time could go a long way to preventing harm before it occurs. I hope that this bill is just the start of proactive improvements by Victoria Police to ensure police information is not misused.
This issue is something that is close to my heart. I am the granddaughter of a police officer. My grandfather was actually a senior officer, and he was also an incredibly abusive man to both my grandmother and his children, my mother and her sisters. This abuse did not go unreported. It did not go unnoticed, particularly by my grandfather’s colleagues. However, nothing at that time was done to stop this. No apology has ever been made, and it took my grandmother years to flee this violence and feel safe to be able to do so. It was long after my mother and her siblings had moved out, and it was after years and years of insidious abuse. Thankfully, we live in a different time now, and we do aim to do better – something that I have reflected on when remembering these stories of my mother and of my grandmother. I do applaud Emma especially for her strength and her courage. Her unwavering tenacity to keep fighting to be heard, to be supported and to push and shift change is so commendable.
Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:18): Today I also rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023, and I rise to speak in favour of the bill. This is a bill that will introduce significant measures that will enhance the operational capabilities and overarching safety framework of Victoria Police, allowing them to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently. Through a comprehensive approach, this bill seeks to introduce critical reforms that promise to elevate the standards of policing, accountability and, by extension, community trust.
This bill’s amendments focus on enhancing police operations and community safety, demonstrating this government’s commitment to police and public service. It also calls us all to contribute towards a safer and more secure Victoria. At its core this bill is instrumental in bolstering public safety. By refining police procedures and operational capabilities it ensures a more responsive, efficient and effective law enforcement mechanism. The emphasis on preventative and responsive strategies enhances the police force’s ability to protect citizens, thereby contributing to a safer and more secure community environment. Indeed I note my comments on a motion yesterday – prevention of crime was at its heart – and the considerable efforts already achieved in the space of youth justice, as I referred to extensively in my speech yesterday. I acknowledge Minister Erdogan, who is in the room with us today, for the continuing efforts, which see youth crime, as a proportion of all crime, currently sitting at 12.7 per cent, which is markedly down from the 20 per cent it sat at just 10 years ago when this government came into office.
I will go through bit by bit the various different acts that the amendments within this bill will seek to amend. Firstly, there is the Victoria Police Act 2013. As members I am sure will appreciate across the chamber, Victoria Police officers stand as pillars of safety and serve at the heart of our community. They dedicate their lives to the service of over 6 million Victorians. Each day these officers, numbering over 20,000, engage in approximately 14,000 interactions with the public, reflecting that commitment and that diligence. It is a role that carries immense responsibility and often significant risk. Acknowledging the sacrifices and the dangers that police officers in our state face daily is not just a matter of respect, it is a crucial step in ensuring that their welfare and support are prioritised.
The proposed reforms to the police discipline system and the amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986 and the aforementioned Victoria Police Act are reflective of a broader commitment to not only upholding the highest standards of integrity and service but also ensuring that officers who commit themselves to our safety feel supported and valued. These legislative changes are designed to improve the operational framework within which police work, thereby enhancing their ability to serve effectively while ensuring their actions align with the values and expectations of the community they protect. Additionally, disciplinary process reforms such as allowing a Victoria Police discipline inquiry officer to direct medical assessments; specifying breaches of the Victoria Police code of conduct as disciplinary breaches; and extending the statute of limitations for accessing, using or otherwise disclosing confidential police information underscore this comprehensive approach to maintaining what is and what should be a very high standard of police integrity. These reforms, which have been developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders, aim to balance the necessity of a robust disciplinary system with the rights and wellbeing of police personnel.
Protecting participants’ privacy in the restorative engagement and redress scheme through amendments to the Victoria Police Act 2013 ensures the confidentiality of sensitive information shared by current and by former employees. This measure is crucial for the scheme’s success because it will encourage reporting and participation by offering a non-adversarial avenue for support and redress.
These legislative changes, which are endorsed and put forward here today by the Allan Labor government, demonstrate a steadfast dedication to enhancing road safety, refining police disciplinary processes and ensuring that the privacy and dignity of individuals engaged in redress schemes are maintained at all times. By delivering on these commitments the government reinforces its pledge on police accountability and the continuous improvement of law enforcement practices for the safety and confidence of all of us in the Victorian community.
In addition to that, this bill will also make some improvements and amendments to firearms regulations, as others have already noted in their contributions, including my colleague Mr Batchelor, and Mrs Hermans, who made some interesting comments about firearms as well. The tightening of firearms regulations is a critical component of this bill aimed at curbing the illegal use and illegal circulation of such firearms. Specific amendments to the Firearms Act 1996 focus on stricter licensing regulations and requirements, enhanced background checks and more rigorous controls over firearms storage. These changes are expected to significantly reduce the potential for firearm-related incidents, contributing to a safer community environment. I also do at this point wish to acknowledge the genuine and robust participation of various parts of that industry in discussions with the government. I know the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia are very keen proponents of safe firearm usage. They obviously want people to participate in their sport, but they want it to happen safely and they do not want to expose their members, or indeed anyone else in the Victorian community more broadly, to risk.
Beyond this, there are also amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986. These amendments bring us to the discussion of what are known as vehicle-immobilising devices – VIDs – which is a bit of a bureaucratic-sounding name, I am sure you would agree, Acting President McArthur, for what is a very important tool that our police have to contribute to road safety and to prevent potentially critical, and potentially fatal, incidents before they can happen.
This government recognises the importance of driver safety as a critical priority, and I note the many and various initiatives currently being pursued by the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Melissa Horne, in the other place as well. One life lost on the roads is one too many. Unfortunately, we are in a state at the moment not just in Victoria but across the nation where, rather than coming down, the road toll is actually still increasing. I know it has certainly got the focused attention of Minister Horne, as with many others in our government, as to how we accurately and best tackle this problem to ensure that all Victorians can be safe on the roads, be they drivers, passengers, pedestrians, public transport users, cyclists or whoever else. To address these concerns, this bill will introduce amendments to authorise police officers to use these VIDs, such as road spikes and Stop Sticks, under new circumstances, aiming to curb dangerous driving behaviours more effectively. Again, just as we talk about in health, the best remedy is prevention, and the same applies when it comes to road safety.
Previously the police deployment of VIDs was limited to preventing drivers from escaping custody or arrest and stopping a moving vehicle under restricted situations. The proposed changes that we are faced with today in this bill will expand these powers, allowing police to use these Stop Sticks et cetera – these VIDs – pre-emptively, when there is a reasonable suspicion that such action is necessary to protect individuals or to prevent a driver from fleeing. Situations that may warrant the pre-emptive deployment of VIDs include roadside alcohol or drug tests, vehicle inspections for compliance with the Road Safety Act, efforts to effect an arrest, or in response to what is generally referred to as hoon road offences.
These amendments are a response to the tragic incidents that have highlighted the dangers posed by reckless driving, including of course the death of a young police officer recently in Western Australia. By granting these new powers, the bill aims to enhance the ability of Victoria Police to safeguard the community, prevent harm to police and the public and to manage the dangerous use of vehicles on roads. Including a reasonable suspicion requirement seeks to balance the need for increased community safety with the very important protection of individual rights. Furthermore, the development of this amendment involved consultation, just as other parts of the bill did too. Consultation has taken place with key road safety partners, including the aforementioned Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Victoria Police, the Transport Accident Commission, the Department of Transport and Planning and the Department of Justice and Community Safety, ensuring a comprehensive approach to improving road safety through this bill across Victoria. This collaborative effort underscores the government’s dedication to leveraging expert insights and resources to foster a safer road environment for us all.
Another key component of this legislation are amendments to the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003. The significant updates to this act are pivotal in bolstering our defences against the multifaceted threat that terrorism can very much still pose to us. They refine the legal tools at our disposal, ensuring our national security approaches are current and comprehensive. These amendments aim to streamline and clarify the processes around information sharing within the framework of the Countering Violent Extremism Multi-agency Panel, otherwise known as CVEMAP, an essential body advising on early intervention strategies for individuals at risk of radicalisation. By addressing feedback from CVEMAP members, the bill seeks to refine the operational framework, enabling more effective case management and assessment of at-risk individuals. This enhancement of information-sharing protocols is expected to significantly improve the MAP’s decision-making efficiency, risk management and advisory capabilities. Crucially, it aims to bolster the panel’s responsiveness to escalating risks, thereby reinforcing community safety by enabling proactive interventions against potential acts of violent extremism or terrorism. These amendments reflect a comprehensive approach to countering radicalisation, emphasising both the identification and mitigation of underlying causes, and they represent a decisive step towards safeguarding public security whilst respecting the balance once again of civil liberties.
The bill also introduces exemptions to the Worker Screening Act 2020 and the Child Employment Act 2003 for police custody officers, aligning them with police officers to streamline custody processes and acknowledge Victoria Police’s comprehensive background checks. It also amends whistleblower protections, extending the statute of limitations for police personnel misusing information to three years, balancing the need for accountability with protections for genuine disclosures. This also reflects the government’s commitment to police accountability and community expectations, emphasising similarity within the force and protecting the privacy and dignity of individuals whenever they may find themselves involved in police affairs. By enhancing investigative powers and emphasising interagency cooperation this bill aims to pre-emptively address potential threats whilst of course safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms that are the hallmark of our democratic society.
I will take a moment to address some of the potential criticism and some concerns that have been raised around various aspects of the bill. When approaching these reforms I think it is important that we consider that evidence-based findings have informed the creation of these amendments as well as the necessity and efficacy of what these legislative changes will actually provide. There are potential concerns that this bill overextends police powers over individual freedoms. Whilst I understand that, I think it is important that we draw attention to the fact that these concerns are also mitigated by the bill’s stringent safeguards and oversight mechanisms designed to protect citizens’ rights whilst enhancing public safety. Moreover, there are questions about the effectiveness of such legislative changes in reducing crime rates or improving police community relations. However, I do believe it is essential to highlight the comprehensive consultation and research that underpinned the bill, demonstrating its alignment with best practices in law enforcement and community safety. (Time expired)
Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (15:34): I was looking at the clock just wondering what was going on there, but anyway, he was making a fine contribution, so I am glad he had the time he did to put that forward. It is an important issue for us to be making contributions on and one that I am proud to be supportive of because I think all of us in here would agree and acknowledge the incredibly important work that Victoria Police do for our community and broadly for society. Having the best possible police force that we can have is key to that society piece. We know that where we do not have good law and order, where we do not have respect not only for law and order but for each other more generally, that is when we are at risk of breakdowns in society. We have seen throughout history various examples, whether they be nations or states or societies, over many, many centuries of human existence – where that respect is not there things can get out of hand, and of course that leads to terrible situations where people do not feel safe in their communities.
I think why this bill is important, and the work that we are doing is important, is that it ensures it is a two-way street. I for one am incredibly respectful of and thankful for our police force, because it is important that we are able to maintain the security, the safety and the feeling of peace that we have in our society here in Victoria. Indeed, where there are police forces around the world, they enable things such as protests, which should be able to occur respectfully so people are able to say their piece, but at the same time they ensure that respectful protest does not cross over the border, as we see around the world on occasion, into looting or theft or just outbreaks of activity or behaviour that does not fit a modern society. I am so grateful to live in a society like we have now where we can have respectful debate in a place like this. We talk about dark ages and whatnot, but we are not in a period where respectful debate cannot happen, and I am glad that we are in a state like Victoria where respectful debate can occur – where we disagree but no-one has to or no-one should worry about their personal safety.
The bill will introduce reforms to maintain community safety by increasing Victoria Police’s capacity to regulate firearms, make administrative enhancements to the operation of the Countering Violent Extremism Multi-agency Panel – that is the CVEMAP – and expand the circumstances in which police officers are authorised to use vehicle-immobilising devices. The bill also includes a range of reforms aimed at strengthening the integrity of the Victoria Police discipline system and ensuring that Victoria Police personnel operate in a way that is consistent with community expectations.
That is what I was talking about before, that two-way street. I think if Victorians have confidence in the way that our police operate, then that is a really good thing, and in return Victoria Police can expect the respect of our community. I think it is a huge respect we should give them. Growing up with people who went into the police force, I have got a huge amount of respect and admiration, because it is a tough job with big hours, and it is one that, like many of our frontline roles, is hugely demanding. We all depend on it so much when the chips are really down, whether that is an emergency situation of any sort, and I think that respect is absolutely always owed. It is in those situations where we need people, where we need those emergency services workers – in this case police – that you do realise just how deep that respect is. Having lived alongside friends of mine in the force, with the situations they have had to go through and some of the trauma with that, I have just got a very, very deep respect.
The bill will also enhance the privacy of participants of the restorative engagement and redress scheme for Victoria Police and make minor technical amendments to other Victorian legislation. It amends the Victoria Police Act 2013, the Firearms Act 1996, the Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958, the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003, the Road Safety Act 1986, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and the Worker Screening Act 2020. As I said before, it does not matter what shift police are on or what the weather is, they are out there protecting our safety and being called out in circumstances where people are in distress.
An issue that I often speak about in this place and that I am incredibly proud of is the work we have done around family violence. I think there has been a lot of work done on that with Victoria Police and the police force as first responders and how they are able to engage and work with referrals and ensure that people, predominantly women and children, who are caught up in the situation of family violence, are safe, are heard and are directed to the supports they need and that those supports that are there –
Jacinta Ermacora interjected.
Tom McINTOSH: Yes, as Ms Ermacora points out, huge improvements. I know, from personal experience many years ago, of a distressing situation. I was not involved in it; I had heard about it. The story had not necessarily been held in private ways, which again comes back to this training and this deep understanding through the force about what is needed and what is required to get the best outcomes. I think is just a small – well, it is a big example, actually.
That is why I talked before about friends of mine who are in the force. It is what they and their families give – the shifts that they work and the hours that they work. Again, to come back to family violence, we see a lot of the worst situations occurring not between 9 and 5, Monday to Friday, but it might be on public holidays, it might be at Christmas, it might be at 3 in the morning, and these are difficult times to be working. Again I come back to that point: if we have got a two-way understanding of respect between Victoria Police and the community, when the police are out serving the community, when the police are out late at night, if we have got people coming out of nightclubs or whatever – if that respect is ingrained and instilled within us and it is generally held from the time of childhood – then I just think when we have situations, whether it is between the public and the police need to intervene, where there are confrontations or whatever it might be, that we are more likely to resolve issues well and quickly.
I am proud that this side, the government, has continued to invest in Victoria Police since coming to government. It is an investment of more than $4.5 billion in Victoria to deliver Victorians the modern world-class policing service they deserve. You can only imagine the systems that were available to our police, particularly thinking back to when I was a kid, whether it was the vehicles they had, the communication systems they had, the small rural police stations. They have upgraded that all over time to enable our police force and indeed our emergency services more broadly to communicate efficiently, to travel efficiently, to do their job to the best of their ability. It is absolutely money well spent. As I said, this money has provided new and upgraded police stations right across the state, as well as that technology. As part of the 2022–23 Victorian budget we invested $342 million to deliver 502 new police officers and 50 PSOs and build on the more than 3100 additional police already on our streets. I think having that greater presence of police is good for a feeling of community wellbeing, but it is also good for our police to ensure that when they need their downtime – which they are absolutely entitled to; they are an incredible workforce, and as I have said before, their families have to give so much additionally to those working – they can have that time off and there is a workforce around them to support them in the quantity they need to keep the state safe. We have also invested in new equipment for our police, including $215 million to roll out tasers to all frontline police officers and PSOs, ensuring they have another nonlethal tool at their disposal to respond to potential violent offenders, and we have invested almost $1 billion to deliver new and upgraded police stations. As I said before, it is just so important for their place of work to be a place that is safe, healthy and clean for them.
Investing in intervention programs – we had a lot of conversation about this yesterday. If we can prevent people from being on the wrong side of the law in the first place, that is an incredibly good spend of money. The intervention programs include $12.4 million in the most recent budget to continue and expand the important work of the Aboriginal youth cautioning program and the embedded youth outreach program. Through crime prevention programs we have also invested more than $40 million to prevent youth offending through the youth crime prevention program and more than $100 million in over 948 initiatives since forming government, because our government understands that the best way to keep people out of the criminal justice system is to prevent them coming into contact with it wherever possible. We are talking about, particularly on a day like today, identifying where people are at risk of being in touch with that system for whatever reasons might put them in that situation, whether that is a family situation, trauma experienced or other issues in their lives. On mental health, again, I am so incredibly proud we had the royal commission into mental health alongside the one into family violence so that we could identify the issues and invest in the training and the support. I think it is incredibly important not only for the community but also for Victoria Police that when people are presenting with mental health issues they understand how to respond and there are the services there that can deal with that alongside the initial contact.
The latest crime statistics show a stabilisation of the offence rate, following a period of lower crime rates. We spoke at length about this yesterday – about the rates that we are seeing here in Victoria really leading the nation. As I said before, there is that investment we are making, that preventative outreach and that engagement. I think something incredibly important that police officers do across a range of specific communities around Victoria that are at risk is reach out and build those connections. I think it is about that whole understanding of the other, who might seem distanced from Victoria Police, so if there are issues and they know each other, they have that ability to engage so we do not see confrontation, or worse, crimes being committed where they could have been avoided.
The bill will make four key amendments to the Victoria Police Act to reform the police discipline system. The first amendment will empower a Victoria Police discipline inquiry officer to direct a police officer or protective services officer to undertake a medical assessment if they are satisfied that the assessment is necessary to determine whether the officer is physically and mentally fit to participate in a discipline inquiry. Currently a police officer or PSO who is the subject of a discipline inquiry can request an adjournment of the inquiry on medical grounds, and there is not a process for DIOs to verify any medical evidence provided. Guidelines will be provided to DIOs to assist in determining whether the threshold to exercise this power has been met. (Time expired)
Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (15:49): From the outset I just wish to state how pleased I am to have the opportunity to sum up what has been a very respectful and insightful debate from across the chamber from all sides. I wish that all our debates in this chamber were of that form, so thank you very much to all members in this place. I also want to thank key stakeholders who have played a vital role in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023, in particular Victoria Police, the Police Association Victoria, the Department of Transport and Planning for their work on the vehicle-immobilisation device provisions, road safety partners and the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee. I also wish to thank the Minister for Police Minister Carbines and his office and department officials for their work in developing and leading consultation on the bill.
From the contributions you will recognise that this bill is primarily justice legislation, but it does incorporate many more aspects that are very important to our community safety and to making improvements to legislation across our state. The bill does introduce a range of reforms aimed at strengthening the integrity of Victoria Police’s discipline system and ensuring that Victoria Police personnel operate in a way that is consistent with community expectations. I know that is very important, because for people to have confidence in a fully functioning criminal justice system, the conduct of law enforcement, of course the conduct of the judiciary and the conduct of the legislature are all very relevant to people’s confidence in community safety in a well-functioning democracy.
The bill also includes reforms to maintain community safety by increasing Victoria Police’s capacity to regulate firearms, making administrative enhancements to the operation of the Countering Violent Extremism Multi-agency Panel and expanding the circumstances in which police officers are authorised to use vehicle-immobilising devices. The importance of these devices cannot be overstated. We are seeing these days, with the advent of technology, the filming of such conduct does play into people’s perception of safety and also of incidents of safety. It is being recorded, and we are seeing this kind of misbehaviour. Police are on the front line apprehending people, and for that I thank them, because without them on the front line keeping us safe, this behaviour and these offenders would not be accountable. Police are that front line in holding these people to account.
The bill also enhances the privacy of participants in the restorative engagement and redress scheme for Victoria Police and makes minor technical amendments to other Victorian legislation, such as for fire services, as Mr Davis spoke about in his contribution. These are important reforms because at the heart of them they are about improving community safety, improving conduct, holding people to account for wrongdoing and making sure that there are processes that follow natural justice principles, so people are held to account appropriately.
What impresses me about some of the changes that are in this bill are improvements to the code of conduct and giving the Chief Commissioner of Police express powers to make improvements to that code of conduct. Obviously, the code of conduct does not just apply to police officers in the general sense. It does apply to all police officers, but further, to chief commissioners, deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners, protective services officers, police recruits, police reservists, Victorian public service employees of Victoria Police and special constables. So these changes and code of conduct improvements will have a big effect on a large workforce in our state.
Why do we have codes of conduct? Codes of conduct are about setting a level of expectation for those in that field and stating how we would like to see people conduct themselves, and obviously they also provide an opportunity to lead to improvements. In many regards much of our legislative framework is about setting minimum standards, but this is about much more than that – it is about expected conduct as well. Much of the legislation is technical, but what we expect to be included in the new code of conduct are clear standards of behaviours that are expected of Victoria Police personnel to ensure that any failure to comply with the new code of conduct can constitute a breach of discipline.
Behaviours that could be included or captured by the new code include the handling of police information and social media use, and we are seeing this social media use in terms of conduct for employees in other settings as well. For those of you that follow industrial relations or federal employment law, there have been many cases of public servants and people in the private sector where private social media use can interact with their duties or employment contracts. I think this is an emerging trend. Unfortunately, it is an emerging trend for criminal activity as well, with people filming and using social media as a platform to display that behaviour. Illicit drug use is an issue that people should be well aware of, as are family violence offending, predatory behaviours and managing conflicts of interest.
It is important to state that as part of these reforms there was broad consultation, and I touched upon some of the stakeholders who engaged very closely with the government in developing these laws. It is important whenever reform such as this is undertaken that the relevant stakeholders are engaged proactively. Victoria Police was consulted, and the Department of Justice and Community Safety, the police association, the Police Registration and Services Board, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the Community and Public Sector Union have been consulted in the preparation and construction of a new code of conduct, and that is important because they pretty much capture most of the parties that will be directly affected. We are all affected by the code of conduct of law enforcement, the code of conduct of the judiciary or the code of conduct and the behaviours of people in the legislature, because we all play a part in our legal framework.
There are many other aspects, as I was stating, to this legislation that are important and are important improvements to what we have in terms of giving greater powers for good behaviour bonds and in terms of disciplinary settings and clarifying the process for dealing with noncompliance. That is important, because we talk about holding offenders to account, giving people opportunities to address their offending behaviour. That sounds good, but it is to make sure that there is a mechanism in place to enforce that, and that is what this legislation does. There are a number of amendments to the Victoria Police Act 2013. They do not specify the types of conditions which may be attached to a good behaviour bond on a police officer, and they currently do not provide a clear process for dealing with noncompliance, so what these changes will do is provide that mechanism.
The bill as a whole has a focus on the justice settings around Victoria Police, but it does have many more aspects to it, such as the statute of limitations. A number of my colleagues in this place did touch upon the need to extend the statute of limitations in accessing, using or disclosing police information. This is a matter of great public interest. We know about the IBAC report Unauthorised Access and Disclosure of Information Held by Victoria Police and that misuse in these circumstances is usually not detected until an investigation of more serious misconduct or corruption action occurs. Victoria Police share these concerns with IBAC, and they have advised that by the time a report is made about a breach of section 227 and a preliminary investigation has identified misuse of police information, it is common for the 12-month statute of limitations to have expired or be close to expiring, meaning those that have misbehaved will not be held to account in those circumstances. That of course affects the community’s perception of and the community’s experience with the justice system.
Victoria Police advised that in the majority of these cases offending is difficult to identify as well as very well concealed by the perpetrator and not easily identified through traditional auditing processes. Often it is only uncovered when more serious offending behaviour is being investigated. In these circumstances Victoria Police’s initial focus is on investigating the more serious and often ongoing element of offending, resulting in delays to the investigation and/or prosecution of section 227 offences. In cases where there is a complainant, Victoria Police and IBAC have both reported significant delays between the act itself and when the initial complaint is made, due to a lack of knowledge and of safety concerns of the complainant. Victoria Police has noted that this is particularly problematic in the family violence context, where complainants are often coerced or unaware of the information being accessed or disclosed until after a relationship has broken down.
It is very important reform. It is reform where many have touched upon examples, such as Emma’s complaint. It is really distressing reading that scenario, but if that was to occur and the perpetrator or the offender is not properly held to account, that is what expanding the statute of limitations is for. Three years is an important time frame. It is greater than the one year that normally occurs in these circumstances, because the majority of the investigations occur within a three-year window, and this extension will allow for the majority of the offending to be captured. The three-year time limit is consistent with previous time extensions to comparable summary offences under sections 252 and 253 of the Victoria Police Act – offences of bribery and corruption by police officers or protective services officers are again offences that similarly affect people’s confidence in the justice system and in law enforcement. so that extension of time is important protection for the public. I think that is what people expect us to do.
Why is the wording being changed? I think that is important because I said that this legislation was technical. It does respond to a number of IBAC reports, in particular Operation Dawson: An Investigation into Alleged Misconduct by a Former Victoria Police Superintendent. IBAC recommended that section 226 be amended to impose a clear standalone obligation on police personnel to maintain the confidentiality of police information without reference to separate policy documents with a clear instruction that access must be directly related to their current duties and functions. The offences established by sections 227 and 228 of the Victoria Police Act are being updated to ensure they align with the changes made to section 226.
We have talked about redress schemes, and today a significant announcement was made by the Premier. In line with that, in the past we have made an announcement about a restorative engagement and redress scheme for Victoria Police, in particular in relation to former personnel. It is important that this bill makes reforms that make improvements to our system of justice. It does this by giving victims of these offences confidence in their privacy and confidentiality being respected. I think that is important. Without these protections people might be more reluctant to come forward, and I can understand that, because most of them have had pretty harrowing, terrible and tragic experiences. These reforms go a long way to providing an additional level of protection and privacy to people.
I know that other reforms in this bill may not appease everybody in this chamber, although for the most part, as we have heard from a number of contributors, people do agree with this bill. There are also amendments to the Firearms Act 1996. There is a firearms amnesty in place. That is an important public policy, and there is a central rationale here to encourage as many licensed firearms dealers as possible to participate in the national firearms amnesty. The Australian federal government’s Department of Home Affairs partnered with Crime Stoppers to launch a permanent national firearms amnesty. All states and territories are participating in this campaign. The national firearms amnesty has been highly successful in removing unregistered unwanted firearms from the community, preventing firearms from being obtained by criminals. As of October 2023 the total number of firearms and parts surrendered as part of the national firearms amnesty, I am pleased to report, is 2382.
There are significant protections in place as part of this legislation as well, but I think we understand the reason why we want firearms that are not being used taken out of people’s hands. They can be handed in. We encourage people to hand them in without fear of consequence and with appropriate protections. As part of the changes to the firearms legislation, the Firearms Act 1996, there are some changes to bolt action shotguns which we understand are reflective of innovations and technological improvements in the way traditional bolt action shotguns are used. Admittedly, they are clearly much more efficient than they were in the past, and as such they are quicker to load and reload and can fire more shots. This design, although more efficient, in combination with large capacity detachable magazines, is of concern because of the potential consequences of misuse, and it may present a community safety risk. In light of that we are suggesting some changes there.
There are a number of other reforms as well of a technical nature, such as the Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958 changes, and many others such as amendments to the Countering Violent Extremism Multi-agency Panel. I will not go into the detail of those; many contributors have already discussed the importance of those reforms. What I will say is that I commend the bill to the house, and I thank everyone for their support and participation in this process.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before we start, the government and Mr Bourman are yet to circulate their amendments. It may assist the committee if they circulate those amendments now.
Enver ERDOGAN: The government does have house amendments, and I ask that they now be circulated.
Jeff BOURMAN: I would like my amendments circulated too.
Clause 1 (16:07)
David DAVIS: I am just keen to have some discussion with the minister before we get to any of the points around amendments, and perhaps it might be convenient to deal with some of these points in the purposes clause. With the part 4 amendment to the Firearms Act 1996 the bill places a special condition on the holder of a category A or B long arm firearm licence who has obtained the licence for the reason of hunting or sport or target shooting. The special condition states that the licensee cannot carry, possess or use a detachable magazine with a capacity greater than five shots in combination with a bolt action shotgun. Apparently Victoria Police has specifically requested that, so you might want to confirm that. According to them it is an emerging issue, but the government told the opposition during the bill briefing that there is no hard evidence or events to support this. Given the bill briefing and that there is no hard evidence, why is the government making the change?
Enver ERDOGAN: From the outset I might be able to answer the first question: yes, Victoria Police did request this change. I think what this change is about is reflecting recent innovations in traditional bolt action shotguns, where straight-pull forward and eject-assist functionality enable the user to cycle through ammunition with less manual interaction than a traditional action shotgun. So it responds to the fact that it is much quicker to load and reload and the user can fire more shots faster now. Technological improvements have made these types of bolt action shotguns more efficient, and obviously the design in combination with a large-capacity detachable magazine is of concern because of the potential consequences of misuse and it presents community safety risks.
David DAVIS: Thank you, but I think you perhaps also confirm that there is actually no real hard evidence.
Enver ERDOGAN: I might seek clarification in relation to that.
It is my understanding that there has not been any incident as of yet, but Victoria Police have identified this as a potential future risk. So it is about preventative action, because obviously the innovation is relatively recent.
Jeff BOURMAN: If it is all right, even though my stuff relates to further down the track, like clause 14, I will just do it in paragraph 1, if I could. Minister, bolt action shotguns – that is very specific. What does this bill mean by a ‘bolt action shotgun’?
Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Mr Bourman for his interest and his question. A bolt action shotgun is a type of gun that requires the shooter to push the bolt forward to load the firearm. The bolt then needs to be manually pulled backwards to eject the spent cartridge after firing. Bolt action shotguns are a category A shotgun. A category A shotgun is, I guess, the legal definition in terms of bolt action shotguns being within the category A framework.
Jeff BOURMAN: Based on your last comment, this is meant to encompass all shotguns that are repeating that are category A, correct?
Enver ERDOGAN: I will seek some clarification for you, Mr Bourman.
Mr Bourman, these reforms are targeted to bolt action shotguns only because, as you would appreciate, they already apply for lever action shotguns.
Jeff BOURMAN: I think the government has made an error here, but I am not here to fix it for you. I am just going to leave it at that. When we get to clause 14, I will go through my amendment.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions on clause 1, Mr Bourman, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which amends clause 1. I might just note that this amendment does test all your remaining amendments as well.
Jeff BOURMAN: I so move my amendment:
1. Clause 1, page 2, lines 10 to 11, omit all words and expressions on those lines.
I think it is fairly straightforward: removing clause 14. This is fixing a problem that does not exist. I do not know why the government did not try and just put a limit of 10, which would probably be acceptable, but to move it to five is not fixing a thing.
David DAVIS: The opposition will support Mr Bourman’s amendment.
Enver ERDOGAN: I want to thank Mr Bourman for his engagement with us in relation to this. What I will say is that the government did consult the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee. As I tried to outline to Mr Davis, my understanding is that there has not been an incident yet, but I think this is a preventative measure to come into line with the improvements in bolt action shotguns.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, 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
Amendment negatived.
Enver ERDOGAN: I move:
1. Clause 1, page 3, line 5, omit “unauthorised”.
As I stated in my closing remarks, I want to thank everyone for their feedback on and contribution to the construction of this bill. I think it is important, on matters of public safety, that we do work together. There was some discussion about making sure that there are appropriate whistleblower protections, and I know some on the crossbench wanted reassurance. I felt it was important that reassurance come from the government in relation to removing any ambiguity that may exist about disclosure protections. The act does have protections in place for whistleblowers – in section 227, for example, if information is disclosed without reasonable excuse, ‘reasonable excuse’ being to justify disclosure, so as a protection. There is also section 39 in the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012, which provides protection and immunity for whistleblowers for public interest disclosures. So this just builds on that and provides reassurance that I believe the government should provide.
Samantha RATNAM: I rise to speak in support of this amendment put forward by the government. We welcome this amendment from the government in fact because it is identical to the one the Greens team, led by Katherine Copsey, who unfortunately cannot be here today, have proposed. It is important to understand why this amendment is needed, as the minister has alluded to. Currently IBAC assesses whether a disclosure is protected or not and whether IBAC has jurisdiction after a police officer has made their disclosure. A number of current and former police employees have suggested this amendment to provide clarity and certainty for police employees wishing to make a lawful disclosure to IBAC. They wholeheartedly support the proposed amendments to sections 226 and 227 as pro accountability. However, they have expressed concerns about making disclosures to IBAC without it first being very clear that they would not be found in breach of their duties if IBAC assessed their disclosure as outside jurisdiction or not protected.
This amendment clarifies this issue. It takes a lot of courage to be a whistleblower, particularly those from institutions of power like police. To ensure police officers know they will not breach their police duties by disclosing to IBAC at the time of disclosure would support them. This will promote transparency and accountability by helping current police raise concerns about police culture and systemic issues, such as racism or practices having potential adverse impacts on particularly vulnerable groups, which may or may not be protected disclosures.
I commend this amendment. My colleagues and I have put a lot of work into considering and drafting amendments such as these. We welcome a conversation with the government about how we can work constructively to get amendments across the line like this. In this case the government has chosen, and I might say at the eleventh hour, to put forward their house amendment. I will say that it is identical, as we have heard from the Deputy President and from the clerks and the running sheet; however, it does put us in a difficult position when amendments come so late that are so substantial. Given we have done the work, we are confident in this amendment because it looks very similar. It has had some slight tinkering to how it is laid out, but otherwise it looks substantive in nature, but this does not give us the time to look at the consequences of it. We trust that it is identical in nature because of the great work by the table office, but it does put us in a very unfair position when amendments come at the eleventh hour.
I would welcome the government actually embracing a new approach of working collaboratively across this chamber, given that we have done the work. If identical, the government could in fact support non-government amendments, have the same outcome and save hours of government staffers’ time. That would be such a welcome change in 2024 to demonstrate we can work across the chamber. Because we have done our due diligence, we have looked at the consequences, and we believe and trust that the amendment is identical. Despite the slight semantic difference in the way it is laid out from the one that we had proposed, it is identical in substance. We hope it does not have any unintended consequences, because we had thought about all the consequences of how we laid it out. But we would welcome the government working with us, saving a whole bunch of time. It seems like for the mere sake of not giving ground to another non-government party having passed an amendment in this house, they go to all the trouble of coming up with a house amendment at the eleventh hour. We could save a lot of time and effort and build a lot of trust and reassurance in this community if the government just opened their approach to include us all.
David DAVIS: The opposition will support this amendment. In the first clause they are identical amendments proposed by the Greens and the government. The substance of the amendments for the following clause is identical too. In that sense we welcome the outbreak of agreement and the flurry of activity by the Attorney. The truth of the matter is that this is an amendment made by the government on the coattails of the Greens proposal. We often do not agree with the Greens, but I am also happy to point to occasions where we do.
I will get to the substance of why we support the amendment – from wherever it comes: it will strengthen the position of whistleblowers. It will give clarity to the position of whistleblowers. It will not leave them with uncertainty, and to that extent we will support it. We note that the government will move the amendment first, so we obviously support what is presented to us in the order it is presented, but we do note that it does come on the coattails of the work, on this occasion, of the Greens.
Adem SOMYUREK: I am less interested in the procedural niceties than I am the fear of misleading the house. I did say during my speech that I would not be entertaining any amendment except for Mr Bourman’s amendment. I did have a look at the Greens amendment. I thought it was just the Greens being the Greens and product differentiating, so I treated that with the haughty contempt that it deserved, I thought. But since everyone is in agreement and since it would cause a delay in time if I were to walk out of the chamber and then come back, I will also be supporting this amendment. I think essentially there is not much difference at all; it is non-consequential.
Jeff BOURMAN: I too will be supporting this, and it has actually saved me the problem of deciding whether to support the Greens or not. It is so rare that I agree with them that it was becoming quite a battle inside my head, but it has been solved, so I thank the government for that at least.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 57 agreed to.
New clause (16:31)
Enver ERDOGAN: I move:
2. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 57 –
‘57A Other authorised access to, use of or disclosure of police information
After section 231(1)(a) of the Victoria Police Act 2013 insert –
“(ab) the disclosure to the IBAC of police information that relates to the conduct of a member of Victoria Police personnel or a systemic issue within Victoria Police;”.’.
New clause agreed to; clauses 58 to 63 agreed to.
Reported to house with amendments.
That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, a message will be sent to the Assembly telling them that the Council has agreed to the bill with amendments.