Tuesday, 27 August 2024

Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Jaclyn Symes:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:06): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals. This bill is a justice omnibus bill and covers a range of relevant issues, including crime statistics, the use of electronic signatures in criminal proceedings, allowing the ongoing use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief in family violence proceedings, changes to defamation in relation to reporting offences, changes to defamation in relation to defences available to digital intermediaries, amending the power of the Public Interest Monitor under two statutes and a large variety of amendments to integrity agencies in Victoria.

In relation to the treatment of crime statistics, the bill provides greater access to certain court data to the chief statistician of crime statistics for statistical and research purposes. It is the opposition’s view, interestingly enough, that the Crime Statistics Agency should have access to the data they need to do their job, because crime is skyrocketing under this Labor government, including across my northern suburbs electorate, particularly around the suburbs of Kalkallo, Mickleham and Donnybrook, where I am continually told horrifying stories about home invasions and the use of machetes. That kind of information would be actually really useful for authorities to have access to.

As I said, those suburbs are growing areas in my electorate and deserve to have the best information accessible. They also deserve to have a local police station actually in their area. Almost 600 residents in that area have signed my open letter to the Minister for Police calling on him to build a police station in the suburbs of Mickleham, Kalkallo and Donnybrook. There actually is not one. Recently Gurinder Singh, his mother and wife and two children were the victims of a violent home invasion. Three young offenders, one armed with a gun, ransacked his property and injured his mother. The rampage lasted 10 minutes. But the closest police stations are Wallan and Craigieburn, about 15 minutes away each, and of course they are not 24 hours. Gurinder is not alone; many community members have been exposed to a significant increase in crime in our neighbourhoods and fear for their safety and security.

To return to the Crime Statistics Agency, it is worth noting why this agency was set up and the historic precedent of the former Labor government that before 2010, aided and abetted by a politicised Chief Commissioner of Police, abused the statistics available to them and caused a complete collapse of public confidence in the use of police statistics. Because of that the newly elected Baillieu Liberal and Nationals government sought to establish a Crime Statistics Agency, independent with integrity, to report on the true state of crime in Victoria. As the member for Malvern said in the other place – and I want to thank the member for Malvern for the consultation that he has done on this bill:

In terms of this bill, it will allow the chief statistician to seek applicable court data held in electronic form relating to applicable proceedings, and the chief statistician can seek that from the chief executives of the Magistrates’ Court, the County Court, the Supreme Court and the Children’s Court. Applicable proceedings include criminal proceedings, bail proceedings and family violence and personal safety intervention order proceedings as well as some other matters. There are some safeguards to try and make sure that information provided is de-identified. It is not appropriate that personal information be provided to the chief statistician, but I believe the bill provides safeguards to deal with that.

As I said, my colleague Michael O’Brien has consulted widely on this bill, as all good parliamentarians should, and he highlighted in his speech on the second reading the concerns of the Law Institute of Victoria around the breadth of definitions relating to the category of applicable court data and to the limited nature of the grounds on which the chief executive officer of an applicable court can refuse to grant access to such data. While the LIV’s concerns are understandable, the safeguards are in place around the role of CEO.

The bill also clarifies the admissibility of electronic signatures in criminal proceedings. It does so by inserting a new section into the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to permit electronic signing on all documents under the Criminal Procedure Act regardless of whether any other person does or does not consent. This is not a controversial change, and over the last few years we have seen a massive rise in e-signatures thanks to remote work and other restrictions. Technology is our friend and can make life easier. We moved on from carrier pigeons, so we can move to e-signatures as well.

The bill repeals section 387P of the Criminal Procedure Act. This is an important step. This removes the sunset provision in the act which would otherwise operate this year. It will enable the ongoing use of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief of the complainant in family violence proceedings. This is important because as much as possible the justice system should be looking to make it easier and less traumatic for survivors of family violence to engage with it, and it should be allowed to continue. Removing the sunset provision will ensure that digitally recorded evidence-in-chief in family violence proceedings can continue to be used. There are safeguards contained within the Criminal Procedure Act which must be observed before a digitally recorded statement can be admitted as evidence-in-chief, and those safeguards will remain. This does not remove the right to have the accusation tested under legislation. Even if a complainant can make a digitally recorded statement which can be used in evidence-in-chief, that person must still be available to be cross-examined.

The bill also makes two significant changes around defamation law. The first is to extend the defence of absolute privilege to matters published to the officials of Australian police forces or services who are acting in their official capacity. What this means is that the defence of absolute privilege will protect any means of communicating with state, territory or Commonwealth police, including informal reports, email inquiries or using online reporting tools. Under the law as it currently stands somebody making an allegation against another person in reporting a matter to police could use the defence of qualified privilege. This is important because if someone is aware of a crime and they do the right thing and report it, they should not have to be concerned about the potential of being sued for doing so. As the member for Malvern said in the other place:

The bill seeks to clarify the liability of digital intermediaries in defamation law, and the term ‘digital intermediary’ describes a person other than an author, originator or poster of the matter who provides or administers the online service connected to the publication. It includes a broad range of online functions, including internet service providers, content hosts, search engines and social media platforms.

This is different to in the United States, where these platforms have immunity and social media platforms are the carriers of the message, akin to Australia Post or Optus, and are not responsible for what people put in their envelope, to continue the metaphor. Here in Australia it is not as simple, and there are differing views amongst state jurisdictions as well as amongst the various court systems. This bill provides statutory exemptions for search engines. Search engines such as Google or Bing, if you are so inclined, will not be liable for defamation where their automated process generates these results. This does not apply where search results are promoted or prioritised because of a payment or other benefit given to the provider on behalf of a third party.

The bill also changes the name of the Victorian Inspectorate to Integrity Oversight Victoria, which the opposition notes is supported by the CEO of the inspectorate as being an appropriate statement of their purpose and their role.

Finally, we have some concerns about the fact that this bill provides for the Premier to get advance notice of all reports to Parliament made by integrity agencies. That is right – the Premier will get a heads-up about integrity reports tabled in this place before any member of this Parliament and before anyone in the general public or media is able to view that particular integrity report. Everyone knows the obscene lengths to which this decade-old Allan Labor government has gone in its desperation to orchestrate political cover-ups of its seemingly endless disgraces. From the investigation of outright corruption by IBAC and the Ombudsman all the way through to embarrassing media scandals there is seemingly no length Labor will not go to, no bridge they will not cross, in their efforts to dismiss, diminish and distract from their shameful recidivist conduct. Let us not forget IBAC’s Operation Watts, an investigation into the deep systemic corruption which was everyday business as usual for Victorian Labor. As if it is not bad enough, Labor are happy to turn a blind eye to systemic corruption, and when it finally catches up with them they are now demanding to know how much the integrity agencies have found out. They are wanting to know ‘What are the details? What have you got on us?’ so they can massage the media messaging, so they can find out ahead of time. Labor’s political cover-up machine should have absolutely zero interaction with our integrity agencies.

If you care about integrity, if the Attorney stands here every day and claims that the integrity agencies are at arm’s reach from government and she cannot direct them to do anything, then mean it. You cannot just slip into a bill that you might just be provided with advance notice of integrity reports. That to me is not arm’s length. It provides an obligation for integrity agencies to give the Premier a heads-up. That is not right. That is not integrity. That is not the kind of integrity that Victorians expect from their government. This is a slippery government that has snuck this in the middle of the bill hoping that no-one would find out. This Labor government should have no interaction with the integrity oversight bodies in this place. We all remember – it was a disgrace – how then Premier Andrews described yet another IBAC investigation, Operation Daintree, into this government’s shameful contempt for governance and corrupt awarding of taxpayer funds by Labor operatives to Labor-aligned unions – he said it was educational. Educational was how Daniel Andrews described it. Perhaps by educational he actually meant instructional. So shameful was the former Premier’s response to yet another integrity scandal under his watch that the former IBAC Commissioner himself, Robert Redlich, addressed it, saying that Daniel Andrews:

… made much of the fact, in his long media address … that there was no crime committed.

But regrettably, quite incorrectly, he repeatedly said there were no findings made. The whole report is about findings of misconduct, and all of those findings go to a lack of integrity in the way in which …

the decision to fund the union was made.

What purpose exactly does the Labor Premier Jacinta Allan have for sneaking in previews of integrity reports when this is their response? All we can assume is that they want these sneak previews to get ahead of the stories and ahead of the cover-ups, to massage the cover-ups for the media spin doctors in the Labor Party, of which there are more working in the Premier’s office in Victoria than work for the Prime Minister. There are hundreds of spin doctors around the state spinning for this Premier and spinning for this decade-old government, and they want to spin even further by slipping this into the bill, which would diminish integrity in this state.

I spoke about Daniel Andrews talking about how IBAC’s report was educational. Imagine some of the seemingly countless scandals that we might not know about if Labor had the chance to get in ahead of time and cover them up: everything from Operation Watts to Operation Daintree to the original infamous red shirts scandal – Labor’s gateway scandal, it seems, which gave them a taste for corruption, contempt and cover-up. It did not take the dam wall long to break after red shirts, did it? That side of the chamber would have called red shirts ‘informative’ and moved on. It is almost hard to remember every sordid scandal this government has been up to its eyeballs in and has refused to accept accountability for. ‘Educational’ – the other one would have been ‘informative’.

How can we forget Labor’s second home allowance rorts – the former Speaker and Deputy Speaker rorting taxpayers funds to live hundreds of kilometres away from their electorates? Don Nardella in his caravan rorted $100,000 of taxpayer funds while claiming to live in an Ocean Grove caravan park that never allowed permanent residents. That side of the chamber would have called it enlightening for people that live in regional Victoria, this particular report. That is the contempt they show the Victorian people. So we have got educational, informative and enlightening.

How can we forget former minister Steve Herbert systematically using his taxpayer-funded chauffeur to drive and ferry dogs all around Victoria? We all love dogs – I certainly do – but it took a Labor minister to come up with a sense of extravagance and entitlement that would probably make the Kardashians blush and organise limousine rides for his dogs. That side of the chamber would have called it illuminating to the travel needs of pets, that particular report, had they been given this opportunity to have advance notice ahead of time to massage the media message.

This sense of entitlement and untouchability which has gripped Victorian Labor did not take long to jump from bemusing media scandals to being slammed by repeated IBAC and Ombudsman investigations, and now they want to take a step further and know ahead of time how badly they are going to get slammed for what they keep getting up to. This is not necessary and, typical of this Labor government, is a measure to put spin over substance and to give Labor spin doctors a chance to frame a report before the Parliament, before the opposition, before the media and before the Victoria people. They want a chance for their spin doctors in the Premier’s private office to massage the media message, to get it out, and we know that the PPO has on occasion briefed things on background ahead of time to massage media messages. This is a politicisation of integrity agencies. Who is to say that a very political operative in the Premier’s office would not brief out integrity reports early to diminish the press conference or release of an integrity agency report? That would be a very sad day for integrity in this state.

The Attorney says that the integrity agencies are at arm’s length from government. This is removing their ability to speak independently of government about government. At the same time they are trying to give briefings to the media on their report. If someone in the PPO has already backgrounded all of the journalists about why that integrity report is wrong, how is that fair? That is minimising the integrity agencies. We know this government has got form for this, and we have seen those attempts previously in this Parliament. That is not an arm’s-length process. That is likely, because they have got form, to be what we would see under this government. We oppose this attempt at politicising what should not be politicised, so I would like to circulate the amendment in my name.

Amendment circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals do not oppose this bill but seek a constructive response from both the government and our crossbench colleagues on this particular issue. It is important. We want to see a situation where the integrity agencies – IBAC, the Ombudsman – are not obligated to give the Premier Jacinta Allan a heads-up. That is a politicisation of the integrity agencies. I am looking forward to hearing other Labor speakers – perhaps it might not be on their talking points – defending why the Premier Jacinta Allan should have a heads-up about what is coming, about what criticisms there are of her government. Premier Allan ought to see integrity reports at the same time as the media, at the same time as every member of this Parliament and at the same time as the Victorian people – that is only right. To insert an obligation that they do give the Premier a heads-up is to diminish the work of the integrity agencies and the important work they do. I support our amendment and call on this entire chamber to support our amendment, but we do not oppose the bill in question.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:29): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. The bill contains a number of key reforms that make our legal system fairer for survivors of violence, facilitate better quality information for government and improve efficiency of the legal system. The bill contains two reforms focused on women’s safety, adding a complete defence to defamation action taken over reports made to police and extending digitally recorded evidence of family violence. The bill amends the Crime Statistics Act 2014 to permit the chief statistician greater access to court data. This is to support informed government policy to better understand the impacts of the justice system, and I cannot emphasise enough the importance of evidence-based policy and program development. This bill also allows the courts to use electronic signatures, which will speed up the court processes. It is the impact of this bill on victim-survivors of sexual and family violence that I will end my focus on. Digitally recorded statements are those statements recorded by police on body-worn cameras. The bill amends the Defamation Act 2005 to deliver on the government’s commitment at the Standing Council of Attorneys-General to enact nationally developed reforms.

This bill makes some minor amendments that mean very big things for women’s safety. This bill will improve transparency, accuracy and reassurance for women when reporting to police or involved in a family violence incident. Firstly, it creates an absolute defence against defamation over reports to police. The defence applies to all reports made to police, and I do want to emphasise how important this is when it comes to the reporting of family violence and sexual assaults. We know that coercion and control are huge factors in these crimes and the impact that a single threat of defamation can have on someone wanting to report to the police. This amendment will empower a person to report these incidents knowing that they cannot be pursued for defamation when reporting to the police. It will build confidence for victim-survivors to report and ensure that police will be able to get a full picture of an incident where a person may have hesitated previously.

Secondly, the bill amends an important section of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to extend police use of digitally recorded evidence by police body-worn cameras. This is to allow continuance as evidence-in-chief in family violence proceedings. One of my staff members is a former police officer, and he has expressed to me just how vital this digitally recorded evidence is for family violence proceedings. A statement taken in video format at the time of the incident with the victim-survivor shows the true nature of their fear, the environment and the scope of the offending. It is truly a powerful image and allows the court a true picture and narrative of the incident. A victim-survivor will always have the choice of providing a written statement, but a video statement is quite often significantly more powerful. It can also mean that a victim-survivor does not need to relive their trauma through police interviews and preparation of written statements. Most importantly it means that should a victim be threatened into silence, the police can still rely on the recorded evidence to show the offending and ensure protection and justice for the victim-survivor.

Victoria is leading the nation in prevention of family violence and our focus on women’s safety. I am proud of the work that the Allan Labor government has done to strengthen our laws around women’s safety and family violence, holding offenders to account and continuing to lead the charge in our prevention response. Our justice system has come a long way in its response to family violence and sexual assault, particularly against women and children. But there is more work to be done. When I was a counsellor advocate with the South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault, the overwhelming majority of my therapeutic clients chose not to seek justice through the court system. They reported to me that the stress of the process did not justify the effort. Of course of those who did navigate the justice system, many reported to me retraumatisation due to the adversarial nature of our court system in Australia. The chances of having their experiences validated were also very low at that time. If I could provide a voice to my former clients, I think they would say that anything that reduces the opportunity for intimidation and aggression within the justice system will help. Women want to safely seek justice for the crimes committed against them. They want to stop the cycle of violence in their families, and they want to ensure that their abuser does not hurt anyone else. The fact that so few of my clients at that time felt that the legal system was a viable space to navigate is an indictment of our legal system of the day and of the designers of that system – which of course was from several centuries ago in another country – who of course were all male. But these reforms show that women’s safety is always on the justice reform agenda.

The bill’s amendments to the Defamation Act 2005 mean that victim-survivors of sexual assault and harassment will not have the fear of defamation action being taken against them. Women will not have to fear such action taking place, as the amendment to section 27 extends the defence of absolute privilege to reports published to officials of Australian police forces or services who are acting in their official capacity. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must feel like to have your current or former partner or family member threaten to sue you if you go to the police – how trapped one must feel. Whilst this is not a deliberate tool of intimidation from the legal court’s perspective, we know that abusers deliberately use that weakness in the system to abuse and intimidate women even more so they can protect themselves. It truly is as if the legal system protects perpetrators by providing them with an avenue to intimidate their partner or family member further. In this circumstance this bill provides a complete immunity and defence to a defamation claim. It will ensure that victim-survivors have greater confidence and certainty when reporting to police that they are protected from defamation suits, but more importantly, victims will be protected from further intimidation and aggression by current and former partners, and in the case of family violence it is the same. This flows through to remove one of the barriers women experience when they want to report their experiences to police and reduces the risk of retraumatisation of a victim through defamation proceedings.

This bill also amends the Crime Statistics Act 2014, permitting the chief statistician to require courts to provide certain data on request. This amendment provides for regular protected sharing of data from applicable courts to the chief statistician. The shared data will enable government to view in detail the impact of legislative reform on the criminal justice system. There are conditions set where a court can refuse to share data in a narrow set of circumstances – for example, where a fair trial of a person may be affected. With the rigorous security measures in place for data held by the chief statistician, this is an unlikely event to occur. The Department of Justice and Community Safety is working with the courts to develop data-sharing processes to ensure that the workload is minimised for the courts. Existing data security protections in the Crime Statistics Act that apply to Victoria Police data will apply to all court data as well, ensuring that it is safe and secure.

Whilst we are talking about efficiencies in our court and justice systems, the bill makes a further amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to allow for electronic signatures, bringing us into the modern century. Currently there is some legal uncertainty around the ability for Victoria Police to obtain an electronic signature from a witness without requiring the consent of the receiving party. This amendment removes the uncertainty and creates greater efficiency for Victoria Police and other investigating agencies by expressly allowing the use of electronic signatures on court-related documents. This will streamline current procedures and allow investigators to utilise current technology, such as obtaining a witness statement on a tablet or electronic device out in the field. This will enable frontline police to dedicate more time to their core policing duties. The reform adds in the use of electronic signatures but still allows for the traditional method of physically signing the document.

All these small amendments work up to significant reforms, all of them interconnected. Through the capturing of digitally recorded statements we empower victim-survivors in the moment to give a true and free narrative of the trauma they have experienced. The same goes for absolute privilege when reporting to police. Removing all these small controls that a perpetrator may have over a victim-survivor only goes to strengthening those victim-survivors.

The sharing of data with the chief statistician from the courts will enable us as government to see how these types of reforms are working in the justice system. It will enable us to create stronger, clearer and more powerful legislation through data shared directly from the courts.

In all, these amendments create a more efficient process for statements taken electronically, paperwork that can be digitally signed and greater safety and protection for women and victim-survivors. The Allan Labor government is committed to supporting women and indeed all survivors of violence. Bias and discrimination as a dominant hegemony is gradually being pared back, bill by bill and program by program, and I commend this bill to the house.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:42): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024, and like a lot of omnibus bills, there are parts that are really, really important within this bill and there are parts that are pretty mundane but sort of elevated, and it is a pity that they are co-joined in some regards. It covers a number of areas, so I will go through each of those in my time.

One thing the bill does is reform stats reporting, and that is a good thing. Obviously there is considerable public concern about the rate of crime in our community. I think the suspicion in the community is that it is, if anything, under-reported. This small reform also seems to agree with that point. Of course we have got a number of reasons to be concerned, because there are closed police stations. There are 43 stations that have got reduced hours. Some are closed for 16 hours a day – that is, they are closed longer than they are open – and so the suspicion in the community is that they are under-reported. In my community, in Box Hill, total crime is up 18.3 per cent, theft is up 28 per cent, residential burglaries are up 25 per cent and theft from vehicles is up 73 per cent. In Glen Waverley total crimes are up 17 per cent, residential aggravated burglaries are up 42 per cent and retail theft is up 31 per cent. So I would imagine that there are also a number of other bits of stats that are not captured by this particular reform. Nice to have as it is, perhaps further reform should be considered in all of this.

In terms of electronic signatures in criminal proceedings, again this is not controversial; this is very sensible. It is a little bit ‘Welcome to 2007’, because much of the rest of society has been using electronic signatures for well over a decade. This does bring a small part of the judicial system up to modern practices, but consider the amount of delays that we have in the courts at the moment. Some statistics around that are that at the beginning of this year our Magistrates’ Court criminal proceedings were the worst of any mainland state. Civil court wait times were more than 12 months. County Court criminal case wait times were more than 12 months and were the worst of any state at 26.6 per cent. Supreme Court criminal case waiting times of more than 12 months were the worst of any mainland state at 28.5 per cent. So the idea that we can actually put a little bit of efficiency into the court system is well overdue, and this is a very small, tiny piece of that. You would hope for something more ambitious given the delays we have built into our court system as it is.

In terms of amending the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to allow video evidence, thank goodness common sense has won through and we are removing the sunset clause; I think that is extremely sensible. It is very, very important for the safety of women that they can give evidence via video, and I truly commend it. I think this is one of the truly important parts of this bill. In terms of equality before the law it still does allow for claims to be contested and for cross-examinations to take place, but the fact that we can integrate video for vulnerable people is a very important component of this bill. The extension of absolute privilege to police statements as well I think is again a sensible thing to be doing. I really commend that part of it.

The bill then strays into the topic of digital defamation, and I think this is where it should have been a separate bill, really, because it is tinkering with something it should not be and that is worthy of much more than tinkering. What we are looking at here is creating protection for platforms who do not actively publish, which, when you consider the range of digital services and the digital economy, is a sensible thing. People who are simply the purveyors or the conduits, as per Australia Post, are not liable for defamation, and it puts that obligation back where it belongs – on the individual who is actually making the potentially defamatory comments. When the platform becomes involved, I liken it to the platforms really being the road and the drivers the individuals navigating on the road: the road cannot be held accountable for the actions of the drivers – unless of course the road is in a very bad state.

Also, when it comes to legal discovery of digital platforms and trying to unmask trolls, it is important trolls do not have the ability to hide and pump out their vile accusations, but we also do not want to put a chill on freedom of speech, and this is where I think there really should be a separate bill, because this is a complicated, vexed area of getting the balance right between ensuring people cannot defame with impunity and also making sure we maintain freedom of speech. Non-elected agencies such as the eSafety Commissioner et cetera do not have any special superpower for discerning truth from lies, and one person’s truth is another person’s defamation. The bill, by straying into this area, is tinkering, and maybe these things will be helpful, but I think we will be revisiting this topic very, very soon. That is my prediction, because it is far more complicated than this bill allows.

Equally, we must not leave the door open for trivial complaints and weaponising of defamation laws against the ability to discuss even the most controversial topics in the public squares. Crimes of offence and words of literal violence can be a real opponent of freedom of speech. So we must be vigilant in the application of this law that it does not actually act as a chilling factor on freedom of speech while getting the balance right and making individuals accountable for the things that they say in public.

The other point that I want to make on where it is tinkering with digital defamation is that the bill does not consider the rise of AI and its nexus with social media and digital services either, and I think that is going to be an area which will have to be re-examined when we talk about digital defamation law as well.

In terms of the amendments, I concur with my colleague Mr Mulholland: for what possible reason should any individual get an advance copy of a corruption inquiry or an integrity inquiry et cetera? Really, if you look at the track record of this government, that time would be probably spent making sure they have got the bleach out and have collectively wiped everyone’s memory or aligned their stories so that they can line up in advance. Who is to say in fact the Premier could not get an injunction to prevent the publication of the findings if the findings were sufficiently adverse? It creates a perverse incentive, it is unnecessary and it is clearly inappropriate in the context of the functions of those agencies. Were there to be any goodwill on this topic, you would say the track record of the government prevents it actually, because whilst you might be able to talk about this theory, if we talk about the track record of the government and the way it has treated integrity programs, there is no good faith to be had in a clause like that. I do think the amendments are not only appropriate but also a safeguard for the future across the board. I support the amendments. We will not oppose the bill, and I will conclude my contribution there.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:51): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. This is a bill which proposes a variety of small but nevertheless important improvements for our justice system and indeed for our integrity agencies. There is not much specifically that pertains to Victoria Police itself in this bill – there are a few various points, but there is not a great deal that relates to the police force as a whole. However, just being mindful of some of the previous remarks, I will once again note this government’s unprecedented investment into our police and indeed the many new and upgraded police stations. I am very excited to see the progress of the Clyde North police station in my patch as well as the new Narre Warren police station, which is going to make a significant difference. It is all part of our continued investment in ensuring that Victorians can be safe.

The measures in this bill, however, range from improving access to court data to improving the accessibility of evidence in court proceedings, improving and making some enhancements to defamation law as well as various minor and technical amendments to justice and integrity of legislation. The amendments will be made to more than a dozen pieces of existing Victorian legislation, including the Defamation Act 2005, the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Crime Statistics Act 2014. What makes this bill particularly important, though, are the amendments it introduces that will continue the work of supporting victim-survivors of family violence, helping to provide appropriate support when reporting crimes and enabling police to assist victim-survivors when they go through the process of reporting those crimes. We know that Victoria is leading the nation when it comes to the prevention of family violence and the focus that we have on women’s safety. We have implemented all 227 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, a nation-leading royal commission, and we have also dedicated more money and effort than any other Australian government has done. Nevertheless, we are under no illusion that there is no more work to be done in this space.

This bill makes two important reforms that are aimed at improving women’s safety and the safety of victim-survivors – firstly, by introducing a complete defence to defamation over reports made to police. The defence will apply to all reports made to police, but the reforms were also developed to address the chilling effect that a threat of defamation can have on the reporting of sexual assault or harassment. Secondly, the bill extends the use of digitally recorded evidence by police body-worn cameras as evidence-in-chief in family violence proceedings. This will continue to provide greater options to victim-survivors. I do note as well a further reform, as noted in those comments, which was the introduction of police body-worn cameras, another initiative of this government. In fact if I recall correctly, they were being rolled out in the outer south-east in the Cardinia region back in 2018, and there is the improvement that has made as well. Body-worn cameras add to the accountability and the sense of trust in the community that they can hold in the police. Also, very importantly, we hope we will very much see improved outcomes in terms of reducing threats and assaults on police themselves when people are aware that they are or may be being recorded.

Indeed in the Legal and Social Issues Committee last week we heard from various retailers and discussed their role and the impacts and the trends regarding customer abuse towards retail workers. We actually heard from one of the major retailers that where they have implemented those body-worn cameras, just the mere presence of them, without them even being turned on in some cases, has led to a reported reduction in assaults and threats made against their staff, which is a very, very good thing to see. That leads me to a further reform which this government will be introducing, which is of course imposing tougher penalties for those who do assault low-paid essential frontline workers such as in retail, hospitality, public transport and other spaces, which is a very, very important reform that has been announced by Premier Jacinta Allan and one I am very, very proud to see made.

That is the impact of this legislation we are talking about today when it comes to the use of digitally recorded evidence by those body-worn cameras as they are worn by the police, and that relates to the family violence proceedings in order to provide greater options to victim-survivors of family violence. The reforms will help us to respond to victims when violence occurs and deliver stronger justice responses that will hold offenders to account. The Allan Labor government is committed to ensuring that Victoria continues its world-leading prevention response to stop violence before it starts. These reforms emphasise that women’s safety is always on the agenda and that we will always take the opportunity to improve legislation to enable better responses to violence against women.

The bill will also amend the Crime Statistics Act 2014 to permit the chief statistician to require courts to provide certain data on request. Additionally, the chief statistician will report on criminal justice issues and trends, expanding on the current reporting function, which is limited to crime statistics. This will provide the chief statistician and the government with regular protected sharing of data from applicable courts, providing a more detailed information set on the impact of reforms that this government makes to the criminal justice system. The amendments will provide that the courts can refuse to share data in narrow circumstances, such as in the unlikely event that data sharing would affect the fair trial of a person. Identified data held by the chief statistician is subject to rigorous security measures, making it very unlikely that such circumstances would need to be accounted for.

The bill also contains amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, which is aimed at improving options for evidence in court proceedings. This includes clarifying that all documents under the act can be signed electronically and that documents to commence criminal proceedings may also be signed electronically. This minor but efficient reform will clarify the current uncertainty regarding the ability of Victoria Police to obtain electronic signatures from witnesses without requiring the consent of the receiving party. Investigators can also use technology to streamline procedures, such as obtaining witness statements on iPads. This type of logical and commonsense modernisation is important because it allows our frontline police to use the existing technology that they have to hand more efficiently and gives them more time to focus on their core policing functions by removing any real or potential legal challenges to measures which enable them to do their jobs in a more straightforward manner.

I have already referenced the other major reform to digitally recorded evidence and how it will provide important improvements in assisting victim-survivors of family violence. The Criminal Procedure Act 2009 permits digitally recorded evidence in family violence proceedings; however, this provision in the act is due to be repealed on 3 October this year. Allowing for the continued use of statements recorded by police-issued body cameras is important, as it provides more options to victim-survivors, assists in facilitating the resolution of cases, helps hold perpetrators to account and reduces the burden on frontline police. A trial of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief was a response to the recommendations of the 2015 Royal Commission into Family Violence. The results of the trial and the positive effects that it has produced on victim-survivors have been very clear. The amendments in this bill will remove the sunset provision and enable the ongoing use of digitally recorded evidence for family violence offences and proceedings with a family violence intervention order. This is about reducing the need for victim-survivors to relive their traumatic experiences during police interviews or when preparing a written statement. It will allow the digitally recorded evidence to be the primary form of evidence used in court proceedings. Furthermore, it is worth noting that there is already some evidence that such evidence can increase the instances of accused perpetrators entering a guilty plea at an earlier stage of proceedings than they otherwise would. This shortening of the proceedings helps reduce the distress that taking part in the criminal justice system can have on victim-survivors.

In the area of defamation, this is a bill which makes a number of reforms. These include important provisions to protect victim-survivors of family violence. Primarily this is achieved through reforms to defamation defences to address the effects that the threat of defamation can have on sexual violence and harassment reporting. The bill will amend section 27 of the Defamation Act 2005 to extend the defence of absolute privilege to reports published to officials of Australian police forces or services who are acting in their official capacity. This will provide complete immunity and defence to any defamation claim. The amendment here will provide for greater certainty to those reporting matters to police that they will be protected against a defamation suit for that report, removing barriers to reporting to police and reducing the risk of costly and often retraumatising defamation proceedings.

Other areas of reform include amendments to the Defamation Act 2005 to clarify the liability of digital intermediaries when third parties use their online services to publish a defamatory matter and to extend the defence of absolute privilege to matters published to Australian police forces. Defamation law operates in an ever-changing digital and online landscape, and it is important that the law continues to be fit for purpose. This bill addresses and reforms various aspects of the act regarding digital intermediaries in extensive terms. I will also briefly reflect on the overall effect of these reforms and how they provide greater clarity on what potential liability exists for intermediaries and what responsibilities they have when something that could be potentially defamatory is published online. This is a fast-evolving area of law, and there remains a degree of uncertainty that needs to be addressed. This bill takes an important step towards providing the clarity that the law requires to function properly.

One final area of reform that I will touch on is the technical and procedural amendments to various integrity and justice acts that this bill introduces. These are aimed at improving the operation and the effectiveness of our state’s integrity agencies. Under existing legislation, when a person is subject to a confidentiality notice on restricted matters, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 and the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011 allow for the disclosure of this information to prescribed services, including Beyond Blue and Lifeline Australia, for the purpose of providing crisis support, suicide prevention and also for mental health and wellbeing support to the person subject to the confidentiality notice. The bill here before us today will allow for classes of services to be prescribed and, most significantly, remove the administrative barriers to providing welfare support services for witnesses and persons involved in IBAC and Victorian Inspectorate investigations.

Other reforms in this bill include clarifying the Public Interest Monitor’s new role and the functions that have been conferred by the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003 in order to streamline the notification, documentation, record keeping and security procedures under the act; providing the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner flexibility in addressing privacy complaints by providing informal dispute resolution procedures under both the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014; as well as making amendments to the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 to provide for better protection of information regarding a person’s sexual orientation and procedural amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to support more-expedient administration.

In terms of consultation it is worth noting as well that the Victorian Inspectorate, IBAC, the Victorian Ombudsman, the Public Interest Monitor, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, the chief municipal inspector, the racing integrity commissioner, the Judicial Commission of Victoria and Victoria Police have all been extensively consulted on the integrity reforms in this bill and, as I understand, are broadly supportive.

This bill before us today, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024, introduces reforms that will support the state’s integrity agencies in operating efficiently and being adequately equipped to promote a high-performing public sector and with that the community’s confidence in government and the integrity and accountability framework. It has been developed in close consultation with relevant stakeholders and seeks to implement long-term standing reforms which have been requested by the integrity agencies. It will also, most importantly, continue the work of this Labor government from its landmark, first-in-the-nation Royal Commission into Family Violence, of which all 227 recommendations have been implemented. Alongside these necessary reforms it makes more commonsense reforms to various other aspects of our justice system. I commend the bill to the house.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:06): Today I rise to contribute on the fantastic work of my good friend the Minister for Police in the other place, Minister Carbines, in particular on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. This bill will deliver critical and effective reforms to modernise and enhance our justice and integrity systems, something I am sure everyone in this place will support. We know that we need to continually modernise our justice system. It needs to be fit for purpose for the 21st century, not the 19th century.

Now to the details: the bill seeks to extend the types of evidence admissible in court to improve the legal and justice sectors’ support for victim-survivors. There is currently a national conversation around domestic violence, and we know that we need to do more, so I am pleased that this bill includes this. This bill also seeks to enact nationally developed reforms by the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, the body commonly referred to as SCAG. This bill will also improve the operations and effectiveness of Victoria’s integrity agencies.

Before I begin my contribution on the substance of this bill, we know there is a national conversation about family violence, particularly violence against women. This building had the privilege to listen to Rosie Batty just a few weeks ago – it was 10 years since the unforgivable murder of her son Luke. As we know, there is still a lot more to do. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and in their own communities, which is why it is important that we ensure that the Victorian justice and integrity systems have a comprehensive approach to address these issues.

This bill will make amendments to the Crime Statistics Act 2014 which outline a clear framework to grant the chief statistician greater access to court data rather than limiting the chief statistician to crime statistics alone. The chief statistician will now be able to gather court data on a range of issues, including criminal justice issues and trends. This will allow the chief statistician to better understand the downstream impacts of the justice system. From the minute that person interacts with police to the moment they are at a hearing in court, the chief statistician will be able to understand the individual’s journey of going through the justice system. This will allow the chief statistician to collect a range of data to mark trends in community behaviours and most importantly to see how legislative reforms are impacting the community and the criminal justice system. It will also establish a proper framework for data sharing under this bill, which will allow for more regular data sharing with the chief statistician, rather than our current system whereby courts share information ad hoc for each case.

This bill will ensure that the legal and justice systems can protect the community by implementing policies that not only support victim-survivors through the justice system but also address systemic gaps within the legal system affecting women and children. It is important to note that the chief statistician can only obtain data related to criminal proceedings, bail or proceedings under specified acts. This will ensure that the court data sharing will be protected.

We must also acknowledge that we are living in an era defined by digital technology, and this is constantly evolving. To maintain our support to victim-survivors in their pursuit of justice, we need to make sure that our justice and integrity systems adapt to the constant digital developments that surround us. We need to adapt our criminal justice system to this changing environment to ensure that it remains accessible for all Victorians and that procedures can be streamlined to reduce any backlogs. To this effect, as I said just before, this bill will introduce two important changes to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, which will expand the range of digital evidence admissible in legal proceedings. That means digitally recorded statements can be used. That is vital, particularly in giving evidence in family violence proceedings. These statements recorded by police and issued by body-worn cameras may replace formal written statements if a victim-survivor over the age of 18 consents. I would like to underline once again that participation in digitally recorded evidence-in-chief is voluntary. It will only be used when it is required and appropriate, and this amendment will provide greater options for victim-survivors. Not only that, but it also facilitates the early resolution of cases, reduces the burden of frontline police and holds perpetrators accountable. This will go a long way to ensuring victim-survivors see justice served and victims supported, with a justice framework fit for the world we live in today, with body-camera footage and other digital forms of evidence.

Secondly, it allows electronically signed document to be admissible in criminal court proceedings. We saw how the COVID-19 pandemic changed the way the justice system operates. We know that with the way the world is changing by the day we need to keep up with how it operates, and this is part of that. In doing so, court proceedings can consider documents with Victoria Police electronic signatures. This bill will provide greater accessibility and efficiency in court processes. For instance, allowing digitally signed documents in court will make it easier for Victorians living in regional or remote communities to access and participate in legal proceedings. Victorians that may be encumbered by health circumstances and other reasons can still be supported by the justice system. This ensures that all relevant evidence and documents are considered in a criminal proceeding regardless of the mobility or health restrictions a person may face. Signing documents electronically will also allow witnesses to have a better chance to remember the events accurately. On that point, this chamber should note that this can go a long way to supporting victim-survivors, who can remotely provide relevant documentation and accounts through digital means. This bill will also alleviate burdens for Victorians in the legal system. The court and tribunal will be able to access relevant evidence regardless of whether a person is unable to provide physical copies of the documents.

Furthermore, the bill also delivers on the Allan Labor government’s commitment to implement nationally developed reforms at the SCAG. Specifically, this bill includes digital intermediaries published by third-party content as potential defamatory material. The reform also extends the defence of absolute privilege – complete immunity to matters reported by the police. What this means is that victim-survivors who choose to make a report to Victoria Police will be granted immunity if alleged perpetrators try to bring defamation lawsuits against them. A lot of victim-survivors opt out of reporting to the police because they are terrified of defamation. The proposed bill will ensure that victim-survivors are better protected and encourage them to make a report to Victoria Police. This will help us protect victims of defamation by expanding the scope of defamation material and ensuring that for crimes reported to the police they cannot be sued for defamation. Moreover, digital intermediaries will be protected from unfair defamation claims when third parties use their platform to publish defamatory behaviour.

Uniformity across Australia is crucial for effective implementation of reforms of this nature, which is why we are following New South Wales and the ACT in ensuring that digital platforms are not the subject of defamation instead of the perpetrators. This includes intermediaries such as search engines and storage devices, with special provisions for online publications. By providing uniformity and clarity on how these matters can be handled we can ensure defamation cases are focused on the actions of perpetrators and not these intermediaries, which can face implications under extended liability rulings by the High Court.

This bill also seeks to improve the operation and effectiveness of Victoria’s integrity agencies. It does so by making technical and procedural amendments to various integrity and justice acts to enhance the administrative processes of the integrity system. For instance, the bill enables the Ombudsman and the Victorian Inspectorate to share information with a Victoria royal commission, board of inquiry or other commission of inquiry. The IBAC will also be given similar provisions to disclose information to the appointed commissioner of inquiry under division 5 of part 7 of the Local Government Act 2020. This amendment will assist the aforementioned integrity bodies to acquire information relevant to their role. Of course the sharing of information will only be done when it is relevant and appropriate and must not lead to the identification of a person who has made a public interest disclosure. The bill also clarifies the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate an authority under public interest complaints as referred by IBAC or improper third-party conduct in relation to the authority. This ensures that our integrity system maintains the highest standards of integrity and accountability.

I am proud to be part of an Allan Labor government that is committed to ensuring that our justice system supports family violence victims and survivors. This government has a proven track record of supporting victim-survivors, and we will continue to do so. In 2019 the Andrews Labor government invested $470,000 to fund 15 community organisations to prevent family violence in Victoria’s African communities. In 2022 the Labor government invested an additional $4.7 million to counter violent extremism through the strategic framework for countering violent extremism. And in the 2022–23 budget the Allan Labor government also invested more than $240 million to continue our efforts to end family violence and violence against women. $33.4 million of that investment went towards supporting sexual assault victims through specialist sexual assault services, an expanded sexual assault crisis line and interventions for children and young people displaying sexually harmful behaviours. $18.9 million of the funding went to Respect Victoria, which has worked hard to improve crime prevention and consent education to prevent sexual violence.

However, we can do more to support those affected by family violence. In line with this commitment our 2023–24 budget invests $925.2 million over the course of five years towards the leaving violence program. This program focuses on supporting victim-survivors to leave violent, intimidating partner relationships. It provides financial assistance for up to $5000 for those eligible.

The Allan Labor government is also developing a First Nations plan for family safety to respond to disproportionate rates of violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children. We know that Aboriginal women are 45 times more likely to experience family violence than non-Aboriginal women. That is why we are funding $2.2 million to 44 Indigenous-led projects to tackle family violence and to respond to the disproportionate violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Last year’s budget built on our efforts in supporting victim-survivors alongside this legislation before us. The budget allocated $269 million to help prevent family violence and support women’s safety across Victoria. This includes a $42 million investment to prevent family and sexual violence by continuing to deliver timely and individualised interventions. $24 million will go to help with information sharing between the police, the courts and the relevant agencies to keep women and children safe.

That of course goes hand in hand with the bill’s efforts to close gaps in the justice system for victim-survivors. We need to address this with the care and sensitivity it demands and support women facing family violence in all communities. This bill will help victim-survivors from all walks of life to more easily access support and use digitally recorded evidence from police. Being able to use evidence such as police body camera footage as evidence as opposed to written statements will go a long way to helping the most vulnerable victim-survivors in our community.

The budget included $16 million for culturally safe and community-led efforts to address family violence. The budget also included upwards of $29 million to help strengthen delivery of key legal and community support and intervention services. This will help continue specialist assistance for the LGBTQIA+ community without fear of discrimination. It will help increase access to legal support for socially and economically disadvantaged women in the justice system and will also help support community legal centres to partner with maternal and children’s health services, the Royal Women’s Hospital and Aboriginal health organisations to reach women experiencing or at risk of family violence in a safe space. For some of the most serious and complex cases of violence against women and children we allocated $31 million to support prosecution efforts against perpetrators.

This Labor government has a proven record not just of funding and supporting initiatives and programs that support victim-survivors but of fundamental reforms that support them. Victoria is leading the nation – and the world for that matter – on family violence prevention through reforms that encourage early interventions. We have dedicated more money and funding than any other Australian government ever, we have implemented all 227 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and this bill only builds on that. Victim-survivors need our support, and this government is listening and acting accordingly. The critical reforms in this legislation provide more support to victims and more resources to community-led efforts and make evidence and support easier to access. Improving access is key for those victim-survivors who are socially or economically disadvantaged and struggling to get support traditionally. That is why the Allan Labor government in this year’s budget provided $76 million to continue the specialist victim support. These reforms stand out on top of the nation-leading reforms undertaken by the Allan Labor government, and I commend the bill to the chamber.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:21): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. I would like to focus on the parts of this bill that will make the justice system more accessible for victim-survivors, the first of which is the bill’s amendment to the Defamation Act 2005 to extend the defence of absolute privilege to matters reported to police. This means that victims of sexual offences and family violence will be immune from defamation lawsuits when reporting crimes to Victoria Police. In a world where an estimated 22 per cent of Australian women aged 18 years and over have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15 and Victoria Police are responding to a family violence incident every 6 minutes, these are essential reforms. This change will encourage victims to come forward, something we know can be incredibly hard. The vast majority of Australians who are sexually assaulted never report their assault to police. As much as possible we must remove barriers to victim-survivors accessing the justice system.

Victoria Legal Aid’s submission on this proposed change cited multiple cases of clients who have been the subject of defamation threats when they raised concerns about sexual harassment in the workplace. We already know that perpetrators of this kind often weaponise the legal system to further harm their victims. The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence suggested that vexatious litigation – that is, legal action brought solely to harass or subdue – can share similar characteristics with violent behaviour like coercion and control. I have no doubt that the recent spate of high-profile defamation cases against sexual assault survivors will impact the willingness of other victims to make a report to authorities. It is no wonder there is a culture of fear and cynicism around reporting. In bringing forward this amendment and the surrounding discourse this government is encouraging victim-survivors to come forward, and I commend it on this.

I also commend this bill for its amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 that will enable the ongoing use of digitally recorded statements recorded by police-issued body-worn cameras to be issued as evidence in court cases involving family violence or a family violence intervention order. This was a recommendation of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence and will improve victims’ experiences in the system when they are required to recount their traumas. These are important reforms that reflect a genuine attempt to make our justice system a safer place for victim-survivors to be heard.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:24): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024, which makes a range of amendments to improve justice and integrity legislation here in Victoria, including by improving access to court data and improving the accessibility of evidence in court proceedings. It makes some changes in relation to defamation law and implements some minor but technical and long-awaited changes to various parts of our integrity legislation. The most significant thing I think this bill does is continue the Labor government’s commitment to ending violence against women and taking action to make sure that our laws and our systems of justice do everything that they can to support victim-survivors of family violence here in Victoria.

We have been and continue to be nation leaders in this reform space, but we have to do more, because the instances of family violence that are witnessed in too many homes across this state still need to be addressed. We have made significant changes and significant reform and I believe we are making progress, but there is much more to be done. That is why it is important that this legislation takes a couple of key steps to strengthen the legislative framework to support and protect women from violence. The first is to extend the ongoing use of digitally recorded evidence from police body-worn cameras as evidence-in-chief in cases of family violence. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 relating to digitally recorded evidence-in-chief in family violence provisions are due to sunset on 3 October 2024. The use of digital statements through police body-worn cameras provides greater options to victim-survivors to make sure that their evidence is recorded – importantly, not just in their own words, but to demonstrate the impact in ways that only audiovisual representations can. There are instances, of course, where video evidence – video recordings – can be much more impactful than just words on a page, and any assistance that that provides within the context of the justice system to resolve these family violence matters more efficiently and with less trauma is something that we should all support.

The provisions that will form a part of this bill will still, importantly, retain choice for victim-survivors of family violence over whether body-worn cameras are used for their statements. But we know from research and from practice that the approach works, and we know from listening to victim-survivors that they support their use. The trial of digitally recorded evidence-in-chief from body-worn cameras was introduced following the recommendations and report of the landmark 2015 Royal Commission into Family Violence, a royal commission established by this Labor government and implemented in full by this Labor government – all 227 recommendations implemented from that royal commission.

But there has been further research since 2015 to demonstrate the efficacy of the use of digitally recorded evidence and statements from body-worn cameras for victim-survivors of family violence. Criminology research released earlier this year showed support from victims of family violence whose cases involved the use of police body-worn cameras as evidence-in-chief. They trusted the use of these cameras and they believed them likely to produce objective evidence in their case. Furthermore, the victim-survivors who took part in the survey were optimistic about the potential for police body-worn cameras to hold perpetrators accountable, enhance opportunities for prosecution and assist police in further identifying an abuser. So we see from practice and we see from research that the use of footage from body-worn cameras as evidence-in-chief in domestic and family violence prosecutions is something that is both supported and effective in criminal prosecutions. This legislation introduces that provision into law on an ongoing basis.

The second amendment that this bill proposes relating to family violence here in Victoria provides a complete defence against defamation over reports made to police. Coming forward to police as a victim-survivor of family violence is an intensely traumatic experience. The system has to ensure that victim-survivors can tell their stories without fear or threat, and one of the fears that many have had, or some have had, and the threats that some have received are of alleged perpetrators using threats of defamation action in an attempt to silence victim-survivors from telling their story. So the amendments proposed in this bill will make a complete defence in defamation law about these reports that are made to police. They arise from, again, practice and research, and a recent study showed that there are serious concerns that victims of family violence are choosing not to report crimes against them due to the fear of legal action. That report suggests that between 70 and 90 per cent of Australians who had been sexually assaulted had not reported their most recent assault to police. What we can do to make sure that people feel confident in making police reports by making it absolutely clear that they will not receive threats of defamation for making such reports to police is, I think, an important way that we can underpin principles of justice in the criminal justice system.

The other important element to this is that it is consistent with agreements that have been made to amendments to defamation law across jurisdictions. The defamation reforms in the bill have been developed by all jurisdictions represented on the model defamation law working party and approved by the Standing Council of Attorneys-General. In 2023 SCAG agreed that jurisdictions will use best endeavours to enact the reforms for commencement this year. They are a small but important step in the right direction in helping women and other victims of domestic violence or family violence and in helping bring perpetrators to justice – two important steps. We know there is more to do, and I think what you can demonstrate from the work that this Labor government has put in over the last nearly 10 years is that we will not stop until the scourge of family violence in Victoria is dealt with.

A few of the other amendments that the bill makes are in relation to some other more technical aspects of the legal system. I think one of the things that is certainly gratifying to see is that the bill amends the Crime Statistics Act 2014 to permit the chief statistician to require courts to provide certain data on request. The chief statistician will also have a further function to report on criminal justice issues and trends rather than only on crime statistics. The aim of this amendment is to provide for a regular protected sharing of data from applicable courts to the chief statistician, providing the community with much more detailed information on the impact of legislative reforms on the criminal justice system. While previously the courts had provided data to the chief statistician on an ad hoc basis, the more ad hoc nature and the lack of regular and consistent data sharing has presented and, as you would expect, presents challenges to policy development. Often those working in institutions appreciate the clarity that legislation provides. Providing a legislative framework and a legislative basis for the regular sharing of court data in a protected and confidential manner will, I absolutely believe, improve our understanding of the criminal justice system here in Victoria and of the impact that various pieces of law reform have across that as a whole.

We know that the chief statistician and the Crime Statistics Agency perform an exceptionally important function in the state of Victoria in independently reporting on crime statistics. The way that the Crime Statistics Agency within the Department of Justice and Community Safety has established its reputation for providing high-quality statistical analysis on matters related to crime data I think both speaks volumes to the work that has been undertaken by those dedicated public servants, many of whom I have had the experience of working with in the past, but also shows an appreciation that data plays an important role in shaping decision-making.

We should encourage different parts of our government, different parts of the institutions of our state, whether they be courts or members of the executive agencies, to be sharing that information so that we can learn about the impact of the policies and laws that we are passing. The amendments in this legislation have been designed to minimise any difficulties in data sharing or in requiring that things be held in an electronic format, including the requisite legislative protections and confidentiality requirements. At a practical level I am sure that the implementation as it rolls out will be done in a way to minimise the workload for courts. It builds on the way that the Crime Statistics Agency already has access to and uses data held by Victoria Police to inform its crime statistics, and it does so in a way that respects confidentiality and enables aggregation at a community level to draw insights for policymaking. We believe fundamentally that that is both a policy and a practice that can be replicated with respect to court data, and I think those amendments in this legislation will provide a lot of benefit to everyone who is interested in the development of good public policy here in Victoria.

There are some other amendments the bill will make, including clarifying matters with respect to electronic signatures so that documents under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 can be signed using electronic means without requiring the consent of the receiving party under the Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000. The bill will also authorise the signing of documents by electronic means for the purposes of commencing criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Act. There is a degree of uncertainty that exists about the use of electronic signatures with respect to certain matters that Victoria Police undertake. This bill will enhance efficiency for Victoria Police and other investigating agencies by expressly allowing the use of electronic signatures on court-related documents under the Criminal Procedure Act, allowing investigators to use existing technology to streamline procedures. The simplest manifestation of this is obviously using iPads or similar tablet-type devices in the field to collect written statements and apply signatures on them. It saves the experience I know many of us would have had of having statements taken on forms in triplicate.

There are a range of other minor matters that the bill proposes with respect to the operation of Victoria’s integrity agencies. I will not go through those in any great detail other than to say that as a member of the Parliament’s Integrity and Oversight Committee these are matters that we obviously keep a close eye on. The function of our integrity agencies is something that this Parliament has a great interest in through the members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. The amendments that have been proposed in this bill will make small but important changes to ensure that those systems work more effectively, and we wholeheartedly support them. I commend the bill to the house.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:39): Acting President Galea, thank you so much for the call today to speak in favour of the bill before us, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. It has a number of moving parts worth noting but at its core is very simple. This bill is about ensuring that the Victorian people have the most thorough possible oversight of state powers delegated to the criminal justice system. One of the most important things we do in this place is make decisions about laws which can potentially result in a civil or criminal penalty against an individual, and it is a responsibility that I do not take lightly. I am supporting this bill before us because it gives the government more oversight capabilities and it gives the public more transparency in matters relating to civil and criminal penalties. Additionally, it gives more protection to victim-survivors of family violence, reminding us once again of the Allan Labor government’s commitment to fostering safe communities for women who are disproportionately victimised by perpetrators of family violence.

Before I address the administrative aspects of this bill I want to spend some time outlining how the bill builds on the Allan Labor government’s women’s safety agenda, and I thank our Attorney-General, who sits with us here in this place, for her tireless work in preventing family violence. Thanks to bills like this, Victoria is leading the nation in the prevention of family violence. The Royal Commission into Family Violence made 227 recommendations to make Victoria a safe place for everyone in our community to live and grow. We have adopted every single one of those recommendations; many of the amendments in the bill are directly related to the recommendations from the royal commission. As a result of that we have established Australia’s first dedicated family violence prevention agency, Respect Victoria – and can I pay my respects to the team there for the incredible work that they do; we have opened 32 Orange Door services right across the state; and we have amended the way family violence intervention orders are managed to better protect victim-survivors. Further to that, we have introduced our tailored Respectful Relationships curriculum to 1200 schools. We have supported programs providing rapid safety planning and wraparound support to help women who are at risk of becoming homeless due to family violence.

In this bill we are amending defamation laws to protect victim-survivors from the threat of defamation when they report acts of violence committed against them. The reforms protect anyone who reports a crime, so victim-survivors of sexual assault and harassment outside of family settings will also be protected. We are also changing the way digital evidence can be used in family violence proceedings. The amendments in this bill give victim-survivors more choice in determining what sort of evidence is brought against perpetrators. The amendments in this bill are part of the Allan Labor government’s much larger project to bring about the cultural changes we need to end family violence for good. Our government takes every opportunity to improve how our laws and justice systems respond to family violence.

In addition to this, we are changing the rules about how information concerning our criminal justice system is collected and shared with the government and the public. Firstly, this bill amends the Crime Statistics Act 2014 to permit the chief statistician to require courts to provide certain data on request. While the courts provide data on an ad hoc basis, the lack of regular data sharing has presented challenges to policy development by government. A legislated scheme provides a clear framework to allow regular sharing of court data in a protected and confidential manner. This change will allow the chief statistician to also have a further function: to report on criminal justice issues and trends rather than just crime statistics. This will open up a line of communication between the chief statistician and the criminal justice system, which will give us a much deeper understanding of how our criminal justice system functions. In turn, this insight will allow the government to make a more comprehensive appraisal of criminal activity within the state and it will allow our responses to be more thoroughly evidence led.

We are also protecting this amended system against mishandling. The amendments provide that courts can refuse to share data in some narrow circumstances, such as in the unlikely event that data sharing would affect the fair trial of a person. Identified data held by the chief statistician is subject to rigorous security measures, making it very unlikely that such circumstances would arise, but the amendments are there nonetheless, can I say. Additionally, Victorians have a reasonable expectation that their data will be handled securely, especially in the context of matters as sensitive as those covered by the criminal justice system. To this end the existing protections in the Crime Statistics Act will apply to ensure that police data is safe and secure. It will apply to ensure that court data is equally safe and secure, something I know many members would be keen to hear. We know that changes like this can raise some difficulties during the initial implementation phase, and the Department of Justice and Community Safety is working with the courts to develop the data-sharing processes to minimise workloads for the court as we implement these adjustments. Having been involved in this data sharing in the past I know it can be enormously complex, so thanks to all those that are about to undertake this important work. The amendments have been designed to minimise any difficulties in sharing data, such as by only requiring data that is held in an electronic format, for example.

We have taken a similar approach to amending the way documents can be signed under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. Previously the legislation required the consent of the receiving party if a document was to be signed electronically, but our amendments in the bill before us today will remove that requirement for documents related to the Criminal Procedure Act. The previous system also created some uncertainty as to whether enforcement agencies in the criminal justice system could collect electronic signatures on documents like witness statements, for example, and our changes will enhance efficiency for enforcement agencies by expressly allowing the use of electronic signatures on court-related documents. I will just make this very clear: this does not require signatures to be made electronically, it merely allows for their use. So for those that are more inclined to the physical signature, traditional means of physically signing a document will absolutely remain available.

We are also streamlining the use of electronic evidence in court matters relating to family violence. The bill allows digitally recorded evidence to be used in a proceeding related to a family violence related criminal charge or a family violence intervention order. This will provide more avenues for victim-survivors to present evidence in court without making oral statements, which can be retraumatising for victim-survivors; it is something we have spoken of in the past. This will also facilitate the early resolution of cases and reduce the administrative burden on the court system. I recall speaking on a bill a couple of years ago about how we can make the courts a physically safer space for victims of crime to attend, and now with this we are allowing more avenues for victims-survivors to present their evidence without making oral statements.

Can I also say that some of the measures have been in place on a trial basis since immediately after the 2015 Royal Commission into Family Violence, but these amendments make them permanent. I do remember their initial implementation after the royal commission from a position that I held before my parliamentary life. This means that victim-survivors will permanently have a choice between making their own statement or relying on state-gathered digital evidence when reporting family violence. Again, I will just repeat this: no-one will be required to use digital evidence. Traditional methods of evidence delivery will still be made available and both types can be used, even at the same time. The important thing here is that we are giving flexibility and control back to victim-survivors of family violence, and we are increasing the transparency of our criminal justice system as we do so.

As I mentioned earlier, we are changing defamation laws so that victim-survivors of family violence can report abuse without facing a chilling threat of litigation from a perpetrator – and I can only imagine what that means for family violence victim-survivors. This will mean that victim-survivors have the defence of absolute privilege from accusations of defamation when making reports to police or other relevant services. To be clear, this means that victim-survivors of family violence have complete immunity from a defamation claim in relation to their reports of family violence. We want victim-survivors to have complete trust in this state when they are reporting their experiences, and these amendments bring us that much closer to that goal.

In addition to this, we are bringing our defamation laws in line with the other jurisdictions right across the nation to clarify the liability of digital third parties in defamation cases. Back in 2021 there was a landmark High Court ruling which dramatically expanded the liability of certain parties in defamation cases. The Standing Council of Attorneys-General agreed that state jurisdictions in Australia should endeavour to make their defamation laws more uniform to give more clarity in future cases. The changes that are in the bill before us today largely accept the evidence of the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, which our Attorney-General does sit on, and follow similar changes made by both New South Wales and the ACT. The bill clarifies who is and who is not liable in defamation cases involving third-party online content. To offer more certainty for media outlets and of course also research platforms, we are introducing a liability exemption for search engines and some other conduit and storage services who unintentionally host content which is alleged to be defamatory. We are also introducing a defence for digital third parties like media companies and social media platforms who host content which is alleged to be defamatory, such as Facebook comments on an ABC News story, for example.

We are also introducing changes which will improve the effectiveness of our state integrity bodies and make their functions clearer to the public. For example, we will be changing the name of the Victorian Inspectorate to Integrity Oversight Victoria, which will be led by an officer called the Chief Integrity Inspector. It is important that these roles are understood by the community, and changes like this make their purpose much, much clearer. The bill also clarifies the role of the Public Interest Monitor. For those interested and listening in, the Public Interest Monitor’s functions have recently been altered by changes to the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003.

Related to the data security provisions that I mentioned earlier, we are providing the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner more flexibility to address complaints in a fair and timely manner. Relatedly, we are providing greater protection of information related to a person’s gender identity under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. We are also giving officers authorised by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission the power to execute relevant search warrants. These changes will increase the integrity and transparency of our enforcement agencies and protect Victorians’ sensitive data.

These reforms have been developed in consultation with many supportive stakeholders, including the Victorian Inspectorate, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the Judicial Commission of Victoria. While other potential future reforms were raised during the consultative process for the bill before us, the wide range of reforms included in this bill are in most urgent need of action to allow our agencies to do their jobs as effectively and as transparently as possible. I think what we are also going to see is a range of further reforms led by the Attorney-General in time to come. Can I just say the bill allows our reporting and enforcement agencies to get on with the job of protecting vulnerable Victorians as effectively as possible. At its core it is a commitment to the principles of integrity and transparency, which Victorians rightly have come to expect from this government. With that and with the short time that I have remaining, can I say to you, Acting President, and to the chamber, I commend the bill to the house.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:54): I also rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024. I will start at the outset by saying that the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill. It is an omnibus bill that changes many areas of legislation, but I will start with some of the key ones. The first one is around our national reforms around defamation. As has been referred to in previous contributions, the High Court ruling in 2021 led to a series of severe – I would say chilling – consequences on speech on social media, especially for media outlets, news agencies et cetera online. You may notice that many of them disable comments because they are worried about getting sued for defamation. Even members of Parliament, I know, have been worried about what people might say in comments on their page and that they might be liable. This agreement and this legislation will clarify the liability and non-liability of the platform providers and who is actually responsible and what the processes are, so that is a welcome change. I hope that once again soon we will see comments enabled on news websites and news social media sites, and maybe some MPs can be not so strict with allowing commentary on their pages.

There are some other points. There were some changes recommended by the Royal Commission into Family Violence, including being able to use body camera footage for witness statements with the consent of the victim. This is an excellent reform, which the Libertarian Party supports. There are also other minor changes to integrity and oversight agencies which make some minor improvements; we support these and also updating information-sharing arrangements between the courts and the chief statistician.

One concern, which I would like to thank the Attorney-General’s office for consulting with me on, around the defamation changes is that effectively the platform provider – it could be a social media company, for example – could get a complaint from someone saying that they believe a comment made about them was defamatory and then they would take that down. My concern is that this might introduce an unintended consequence where you could get vexatious online campaigns to say that things are defamatory when they are not in order to silence speech. It would be a very unfortunate consequence if that were to occur, and that is the intention of one of the amendments that I may seek to move in the committee stage, although I am still in discussion with the government about that and the best way of handling that, but that is a real concern of mine that that may happen. Nevertheless I think that in the overall scheme of things this does improve the ability for freedom of speech, because platform providers will be able to allow discussions to happen without being concerned at being held liable for comments that others have made on their platforms, so that is a good thing.

One of the other changes is around making complaints about sexual assault and providing indemnity against defamation when you go to the police with a complaint around sexual assault. I believe that this is an excellent reform. It does help take away a barrier. There are many barriers for victims of sexual assault. Again, I am concerned about one potential unintended consequence of this though in relation to things that may happen in the workplace. Victims of minor assaults in the workplace may prefer to go through workplace processes before going to the police. I am concerned that this might set up an incentive to go straight to the police and bypass any sort of internal processes at work. I am concerned that that may be an unintended consequence of this. But nevertheless for victims to be able to be reassured that they can make a complaint to the police and not be held liable for defamation is a good thing that will hopefully help reduce barriers for people who are victims of sexual assault, because as we know there are many people who are victims of these sorts of awful crimes who are very reluctant to get involved in the justice system because they know how terrible it is and they know all the barriers, and they do not want to go through it all and they are denied justice. I am hopeful that these reforms will go a small way toward helping those people obtain justice.

With that said, I will close by saying that despite some concerns about some of the potential unintended consequences of this bill, overall it is a positive reform, I believe, and it helps both the provision of justice and also the provision of people to be able to speak more freely, especially online. For that reason the Libertarian Party will be supporting this bill.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:00): Thank you, members, for your contributions today on this important bill. It covers a lot of different topics, some of them quite complex, so I do appreciate the time that members have taken to engage with my office and the department in relation to briefings and particularly for those that have got some amendments and further questions, which we will address in the committee stage. It is a bill that is a regular opportunity to improve the operation of our justice and integrity systems. There is lots of detail, as I said, but I will seek to go through a few highlights. I also have a house amendment to move that will hopefully be available imminently or before the conclusion of my contribution – otherwise we might have to move it in committee on Thursday.

I did want to take the opportunity to give a bit of a summary. I certainly am looking forward to the opportunities for better informed policy arising from the court data reforms that are proposed in this bill. The bill includes a new framework to enable the chief statistician to require courts to provide certain data, particularly for criminal and quasi-criminal policy development. The drafting has been informed by existing provisions applying to Victoria Police data. We have not just replicated the provisions – the advice was that that would not necessarily be workable – but rather we have developed a bespoke provision for court data because courts hold different information than police. The functions of police and courts are obviously different, but we do want the data to line up. We want a clear obligation to ensure the security of such data to apply for that as it does currently apply to the provision of data from the police.

Defamation is a topic that is often boring but sometimes quite interesting, and I do not want to go into too much detail about some of the interesting political defamation matters on foot at the moment. Often defamation is quite technical and procedural. Indeed these reforms are largely just that, but I do not diminish the importance of them. They have taken some time because it has been a process that has involved cooperation with several states to land consistency. There will be the opportunity to answer specific questions in committee, of course, but I just do want to reiterate that these reforms were developed by all jurisdictions represented on the model defamation law working party under the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, known as SCAG. The working group consulted with expert reference groups on the reforms. Exposure drafts were available online and further submissions were invited, so there was extensive opportunity for people to feed their views in. Indeed there were public and stakeholder consultations that have been picked up in formulating these model clauses that are now replicated in the bill here in Victoria.

The digital intermediaries part was led by New South Wales. New South Wales and ACT have already implemented and legislated these reforms; our bill is a direct replication of these changes. Uniformity is especially important in this space because obviously digital intermediaries and service providers operate and effectively publish material across state borders. I do note that Mr Limbrick has been in conversations with my office – constructive conversations – about some of his concerns about the workability of these reforms. We can definitely take the opportunity to explore that in the committee stage so that everyone has full clarity on why the laws are written as they are and to answer any of Mr Limbrick’s concerns about any impingement on freedom of speech, which is something that Mr Limbrick is well known for – his advocacy in that space.

The absolute privilege part – I think I have got full bipartisan support in relation to this, from what I have heard. It is a complete defence to cover reports made to police in their official capacity. This is a really important reform. It is where the threat of defamation has a chilling effect on sexual violence and harassment reporting. We know that this is a real thing, and we want to ensure that this can be removed and that individuals that are victims are not concerned about threats of legal action for going to police in relation to reporting harassment and sexual violence that they have been victims of. Importantly, the bill does not extend the immunity to other statements and publications which would follow the ordinary process, such as reports in the press, for example.

We are extending the use of body-worn camera evidence in family violence proceedings – again, a rather small reform but an important reform. It provides options for victim-survivors. It has been a trial, and continuing it is something that we believe has merit on a permanent basis. We are working really closely with police on other reforms to family violence and stalking intervention orders, delivering on our government’s commitment to continually improving our justice system’s response to women’s safety. The ability to provide evidence on a body-worn camera is something that is particularly useful to victims – it means that they can avoid the retraumatisation effect of having to repeat their story – but I do want to emphasise that it is an option, not a mandatory requirement in relation to reporting family violence incidents.

The bill does have many minor amendments that relate to integrity acts. It is mainly procedural and technical. They can be very detailed and sometimes minor, but they are useful reforms that have been directly a result of the engagement that we have had with agencies to improve their operation and effectiveness, and on that I also have a house amendment that I will be seeking to address.

The PRESIDENT: Do you want them distributed?

Jaclyn SYMES: They are on their way, I think, so we will see how we go. But I can give an overview of them anyway. I think they have been distributed informally via email, so this is no surprise to members in the chamber today.

The Integrity and Oversight Committee can accept complaints about the Victorian Inspectorate in very limited circumstances in relation to the committee’s monitoring and review function, and the intention of an offence provision in our legislation is not to displace this function. To ensure that the intent of the offence is clear, however, the house amendment is, on the advice of the IOC, about amending clause 108 of the bill so that it can be made explicit to provide an exception to the offence for disclosure to the IOC for the purposes of making a complaint about the Victorian Inspectorate. The IOC can also receive, handle and investigate public interest disclosures about the Victorian Inspectorate. The Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012 is clear that a discloser is not bound by a provision of any act that imposes a duty to maintain confidentiality with respect to a matter or any other restriction on the disclosure of information. This bill does not amend those protections in the Public Interest Disclosures Act. However, we are proposing a house amendment that references the relevant rights under the Public Interest Disclosures Act in sections 39 and 40 to put beyond doubt that that is clear. I would like to thank the IOC for their consideration and feedback on the integrity amendments in this bill.

That is pretty much the summary of what is contained in the bill, but I might take the opportunity whilst the house amendments are being printed to touch on some of the amendments that I know will be forthcoming in the committee and perhaps front foot some of that. I might spend some time, Mr Mulholland, on your sponsored amendment, which we are not in a position to support, and I can explain why. It is not an offensive amendment in any way, shape or form; I just do not think it makes sense based on practice and indeed the existing and remaining discretion of IBAC. Mr Mulholland’s amendment is removing the requirement to provide advance copies of integrity reports to the Premier and instead inserting a ‘may’. Existing section 162A already requires IBAC to provide an advance report to the minister, which presently is the Attorney-General. People may remember that the responsible minister prior to it being the Attorney was the Special Minister of State, which would explain why the legislation requires an advance copy to go to the minister and to the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC). With us no longer having a SMOS and with the Attorney taking back the role that they originally had in terms of having the administrative responsibility for IBAC, there is now a misalignment between the relevant minister being the Attorney and the departmental secretary being the secretary that was the SMOS’s secretary, who obviously is not my secretary; the secretary that I deal with is the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety.

The government’s version of the bill does insert new sections to provide that if IBAC intends to transmit a report to Parliament, IBAC must provide a copy to the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety – because, as I have just explained, as the relevant minister referred to in the act, it is appropriate that my department receive an advance copy in order to assist in briefing practices – but it also adds the Premier, which is catching up to the fact that the current legislation requires a copy to go to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, so it is effectively aligning the minister and Premier with their relevant departments. The amendment in the bill therefore is seeking to reflect proper practice and often what very much already happens, because IBAC, as I have said, has the discretion already to provide advance copies to relevant ministers at its discretion.

Those are my amendments, and then the house amendment, as I understand it, Mr Mulholland, is effectively requiring the removal of the Premier, when we are seeking to catch up to custom and practice. In one sense it is kind of a moot point, because IBAC can decide whether to do so or not. The problem with your amendment is that you are proposing to keep DPC but not add the Premier. Your amendment would make more sense to me if you had sought to remove the Premier and DPC, but effectively your amendment is saying that it is okay for the relevant minister – the Attorney-General – and her department to have a copy for the purposes of briefing, but you are also keeping in DPC but saying, ‘We probably shouldn’t have.’ It is not an obligation; they have already got that discretion if they do not want to. There is no obligation on IBAC to give me a copy. We are trying to make it sensible by saying, ‘If it’s DPC, it should be both DPC and the Premier’ – and similarly for me and my relevant department. The way you are proposing to do it makes it a bit clunky, in my mind. But again, it is not a die-in-a-ditch amendment. I am going to oppose it because I do not think it is proper practice. It is clunky, as I said, but again, IBAC have full discretion as to whether they want to provide advance copies or not. I think I have addressed Mr Mulholland’s amendment, which we can come back to in the committee stage.

Mr Limbrick, thank you again for your consultation on your amendments. We have got a few more discussions to have, which is why it is a good opportunity to take the time and not proceed to committee this afternoon. What I will do in my last 1½ minutes is formally circulate my house amendments, please.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I have said, they have already been forwarded to parties for their consideration. They are a direct result of feedback from IOC. I do not think anyone will have any major difficulties with them. They are largely clarifying amendments. If anyone has issues, they are more than welcome to take them up with me on Thursday in committee.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:15): I move:

That the bill be committed to a committee of the whole on the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to.