Thursday, 29 August 2024

Bills

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

Committed.

Committee

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Limbrick, I believe you have some amendments to circulate.

David LIMBRICK: I should have circulated these in my speech on the second reading. I will detail them during the course of the committee, but for the functioning of the committee I circulate my amendments now.

Clause 1 (10:16)

David LIMBRICK: If it suits the Attorney-General, I will just acquit all my questions on clause 1, for convenience’s sake, if that is fine. My first question is around the absolute privilege for people who report cases of sexual assault. If an accusation of sexual assault is made with absolute privilege to officials of Australian police forces or services who are acting in an official capacity and then that information somehow enters the public domain through a leak or a data compromise and does not result in a guilty conviction but nonetheless does result in defamation of the accused, is there any recourse for the victim of defamation in such circumstances?

Jaclyn SYMES: The absolute privilege only applies to the actual reporting to the authorities. Once that is published in any other way, the person responsible for the publishing of it is not afforded the privilege that was afforded in the first instance. So if your scenario has a little bit of a convoluted way of not being able to identify, potentially, the source, the courts would look at who published it and work backwards from there.

David LIMBRICK: Just for clarity’s sake and my understanding, in a hypothetical scenario where data was leaked, for example – or through a data compromise – the person, be it the media or whoever published that, would be the one liable for the defamation, and the complainant, the person who made the report, would still retain their immunity?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is correct.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for clarifying that. One concern that has been discussed within my team about the potential unintended consequences of this is that for people in a workplace environment who may suffer some sort of sexual harassment. It may incentivise them to skip going through any sorts of workplace procedures and to go straight to the police, because they are afforded full immunity on defamation for that. Does the government believe that this will encourage people to skip those workplace procedures and go directly to police in these sorts of cases?

Jaclyn SYMES: No, we have not considered that as an unintended consequence, because what we are doing is we are responding to a known problem of a barrier for victims of sexual violence or harassment who are concerned that their reporting to police to seek a criminal justice response might result in them suffering a counterdefamation act. It is pretty narrow. Police still have the same standards to investigate a complaint and the like. I take your point, but we have got no advice to suggest that that would be a consequence.

David LIMBRICK: I will go to my next question, which is around the Crime Statistics Act 2014 section: why have the reasons under the Crime Statistics Act (CS act) for the Chief Commissioner of Police declining to provide law enforcement data information to the chief statistician not been adopted for the reasons the court CEO can decline to provide court data to the chief statistician?

Jaclyn SYMES: We have used the police reasons as a basis, but we have consciously not replicated it because of the ability to receive different information from police versus courts, and police often have got active investigations and the like, whereas we think that courts are well placed to provide the information that is set out.

David LIMBRICK: My final question is: what is the reasoning behind clause 78, where advanced copies of IBAC reports are sent to the Premier and the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS)?

Jaclyn SYMES: Our intention to add the Premier and the secretary for DJCS is to match what is pretty much custom and practice. The issue with the current ability of IBAC to at their discretion provide advance copies to the relevant minister – they come to me – is it is kind of a hangover from when IBAC was under the remit of the Special Minister of State and the SMOS was the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and the Attorney was Justice. We are catching up with what is usually followed by IBAC but not always. It is up to them about their advance copies and the like, but it is custom and practice to give it to the relevant minister, so therefore it makes sense for the relevant minister’s department to be in a position to help prepare any briefings that might be a result of that and because DPC get a copy under the legislation, bringing in the ability for that to also go to the Premier. There is no intention for any compulsion. It is really just matching up ministers and the Premier with the relevant departments.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (10:24)

David LIMBRICK: I move:

Clause 7, page 8, line 25, omit “data; or” and insert “data.”.

2. Clause 7, page 8, lines 26 and 27, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

3. Clause 7, page 9, lines 9 to 16, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(5) A Court Chief Executive Officer may refuse to give the Chief Statistician a copy of applicable court data required by the Chief Statistician if the Court Chief Executive Officer considers that giving a copy of that data would, or would reasonably be likely to –

(a) prejudice the fair trial of a person or the impartial adjudication of a particular case or disclose data that is of such a nature that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege or client legal privilege; or

(b) disclose, or enable a person to ascertain, the identity of a confidential source of information in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law; or

(c) endanger the lives or physical safety of persons engaged in or in connection with law enforcement or persons who have provided confidential information in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law; or

(d) be incompatible with the rights of any person under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

(6) Any data provided by the Court Chief Executive Officer to the Chief Statistician under this section is taken to be crime statistics data for the purposes of standards issued, amended or reissued by the Information Commissioner under section 92 of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014.”.’.

These amendments are related to the standards through which the chief of Victoria Police may decline to provide law enforcement data and to the reasons the court chief may decline to provide applicable court data and require the chief statistician to comply with existing privacy legislation and principles from the Crime Statistics Act 2014 and regulations. They also apply privacy standards set by the information commissioner for crime statistics data to applicable court data.

I would like to thank the Attorney-General’s office for her consultation on these amendments. It is my understanding that the government does not support them, but nevertheless I think that this is an important privacy protection that I wish to move at this time.

Jaclyn SYMES: I concur we have had constructive discussions in relation to this and I understand the position that Mr Limbrick is attempting to put forward, but the government, as he has correctly identified, will not be supporting his amendments. As I said in response to a question that Mr Limbrick posed, we have not sought to replicate the provisions that apply to Victoria Police. We have a bespoke approach to the courts, because court data is different. They hold different information than police, and the functions of police and courts are obviously different. The current protection in providing discretion for court CEOs to refuse to provide data which could prejudice the fair trial or impartial adjudication of a case is sufficient in our view to meet any of the concerns that Mr Limbrick has. The intention of this is to ensure that there is monitoring of the justice system but indeed to provide government and policymakers with the ability to test law reform and to meet gaps and the like. I have experienced it when we are trying to respond to problems that have been brought to our attention. It has been difficult to stack up or correlate those complaints or those concerns with accurate data. We think it is going to make a big difference to informing broader policy outcomes but also accountability to the Victorian public.

In relation to suppression orders and refusing to provide information about them, it is the government’s intention that the reform provides a clear framework to enable confidential, protected sharing of applicable court data between the CEO of the court and the chief statistician. Mr Limbrick’s amendments, in our view, would unnecessarily narrow the range of data available, which would undermine the aim of improving statistical linkage and monitoring of the justice system. We believe the change is unnecessary because there are existing safeguards on sharing and security which have been carefully considered in the development of this legislation. The chief statistician will receive identified data from the courts, as occurs currently from Victoria Police. Identified data is provided in a highly secure manner to a very small number of authorised personnel only, who clean and deidentify the data. Only deidentified data is provided to other staff in DJCS for the analysis. Any information that is publicly reported by the chief statistician is reported as a deidentified aggregate statistic, and even smaller counts of data are further aggregated to maintain the privacy of individuals. This is a standard procedure which has been applied to Victoria Police law enforcement since the commencement of the CS act and will apply to applicable court data should this legislation pass the Parliament.

Evan MULHOLLAND: We want the Crime Statistics Agency Victoria to have maximum data to give the fullest picture of crime for similar reasons to the Attorney. As good as the intent of these amendments is, we will not be supporting them.

Katherine COPSEY: In a similar vein, we understand the intent of the amendments being put forward but appreciate the Attorney’s outline of the protections that are in the bill and the transparency that is affected, and the Greens will not be supporting the amendments.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (4): Jeff Bourman, Moira Deeming, David Limbrick, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (33): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 8 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (10:35)

David LIMBRICK: This amendment is rather simpler in that it is our belief that the definition of ‘online service’ as outlined in the bill should be changed. We have changed it to what we think better matches the publicly accepted interpretation of what social media is. I move:

4. Clause 14, page 13, lines 9 to 22, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“online service means a website, application or other scalable technology that allows a user to create, share, or publish content online or participate in social networking via means of a conduit service;”.

Jaclyn SYMES: At the outset – and I think this is applicable to all of Mr Limbrick’s amendments to the defamation reforms in this bill – I would just put on record again that defamation reforms were developed by all jurisdictions and approved by a majority of the Standing Council of Attorneys-General following extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public. The digital intermediaries part of this bill was led by New South Wales. New South Wales and the ACT have already passed and commenced these defamation reforms, so any variation to the model defamation provisions could undermine the objective of uniformity of defamation laws across Australia. Inconsistency is of course quite problematic in the space of digital intermediaries and publications of online content, which it goes without saying operates across state borders.

Mr Limbrick’s proposal in this first amendment is around the definition of ‘online service’ to instead mean:

… a website, application or other scalable technology that allows a user to create, share, or publish content online or participate in social networking via means of a conduit service.

We understand that this alternative definition has been proposed so that the definition of online service better reflects a publicly accepted definition of ‘social media’, for example. However, the proposed definition of online service in the bill was deliberately not intended to be a definition of social media. The variation to the definition as described as an online service would be a narrow definition and maybe have unintended consequences. A specific reference to a conduit service, for example, may unintentionally narrow the definition to exclude other online services defined in the bill, including a caching service and storage service, as is outlined in clause 15. The inclusion of the terms ‘create’ and ‘publish’ may unnecessarily complicate the definition, particularly where the definition of a digital intermediary already means a person other than an author, originator or poster of a matter – that is, not the creator or publisher of content. So, Mr Limbrick, for those reasons we will not be supporting your amendment in relation to the definition of online service.

Evan MULHOLLAND: For similar reasons as the Attorney-General, although there is very good intent, the opposition will not be supporting Mr Limbrick’s amendments.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens appreciate the intent of the amendment but also consider that consistency is desirable, especially in relation to online matters.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (4): Jeff Bourman, Moira Deeming, David Limbrick, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (33): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (10:46)

David LIMBRICK: I move:

5. Clause 18, lines 18 to 25, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(c) if the plaintiff gave the defendant a written complaint under this section about the publication –

(i) the defendant provided a response to the plaintiff giving reasonable grounds for the defendant’s belief that the publication is not defamatory; or

(ii) reasonable access prevention steps, if steps were available, were taken in relation to the publication –

whether before the complaint was given or within 7 days after the complaint was given.”.

6. Clause 18, line 32, omit “after “(1)(c)” insert “(ii)”.

7. Clause 18, page 22, line 19, after “plaintiff” insert “reasonably”.

These amendments I believe are the most important amendments that I am proposing today. The reason is I am concerned about one of the potential unintended consequences of this bill, and that is the vexatious use of complaints to service providers. One could quite easily imagine online campaigns to say that everything that they did not like was defamatory, and we know that many social media companies are very risk-averse and will therefore take down anything that someone says is defamatory whether or not it is obviously not defamatory. What these amendments do is provide a mechanism through which the social media company or other intermediary can provide a response to the plaintiff saying that they believe that the complaint is obviously not defamatory and that they will not take it down. We believe that this will stop an unintended consequence which may result in a chilling of free speech, and that is why we are putting forward these amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES: The intention of Mr Limbrick’s amendments is not disputed by the government, but I just want to take people through the purpose of the digital intermediary defence as is currently drafted in the bill. Clause 18 inserts a new section into the Defamation Act 2005 to provide specific defences for digital intermediaries against a defamation claim. The bill provides that it is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the digital intermediary can prove they were a digital intermediary in relation to the publication – for example, a person who administers an online service and is not the author, originator or poster of the matter; can prove that at the time of publication they had an accessible complaints mechanism for the plaintiff to use; and can prove that they took reasonable access prevention steps before or within seven days of a written complaint being given to them – for example, taking steps to prevent access to the content by blocking it, removing it et cetera. The new defence is similar to the existing defence of innocent dissemination but is specific to digital intermediaries to overcome problems with how that defence applies to them.

Obviously Mr Limbrick’s intention is to prevent digital intermediaries being overly cautious in removing or preventing access to online content that may not be defamatory, and he has given examples of his concerns about vexatious participants and the like. I confirm that we certainly support that intent, but we do not think that this drafting has struck a reasonable balance of the harmony of laws, and again, the harmony of laws across the states is something that we do not want to abandon. We are concerned about the proposed expansion of the defence as proposed by Mr Limbrick, because it would require a digital intermediary to make an assessment and provide grounds about whether content is defamatory. This is a matter for the courts – digital intermediaries are not equipped to make this assessment and should not be expected to. We also think it is difficult to envisage circumstances where a belief on reasonable grounds that a publication is not defamatory would be reasonable where a court determined that the publication was defamatory.

The current defence as drafted, in response to the proposition that it would encourage vexatious complaints to remove content that may not be defamatory – we do not believe that that is going to be a major concern for this reason: digital intermediaries can already moderate content published on their platforms or via their service and already may remove or prevent access to that content. These reforms in some way piggyback off what is already existing practice. The new defence as currently drafted in our bill does provide greater clarity and certainty to digital intermediaries about their liability and responsibilities when potentially defamatory content is published online.

Mr Limbrick, thank you again for constructive conversations about this. We are not at odds; we just think that what we are doing is appropriate and are a little bit concerned about what you are proposing. But again, there is merit to it, and I would point to the agreement at the Standing Council of Attorneys-General that this suite of defamation legislation be reviewed after three years.

Evan MULHOLLAND: In similar comments to the Attorney, while the intent is there and I understand the intent and the reasoning for this, the opposition will not be supporting Mr Limbrick’s amendments. Requiring the platform to contact a person posting a defamatory post to get their view is not really practicable and will likely cause more issues. I will leave it at that. We support the intent and understand what Mr Limbrick is trying to do, but we will be opposing the amendments.

Katherine COPSEY: Similarly, the Greens understand the intent of the amendments that have been moved but accept the desire for consistency and the existing protections that are covered in the bill.

David LIMBRICK: On this point I disagree with the government. I believe that this mechanism will be abused. The circumstances outlined by the Attorney where a platform provider would have to make an assessment – anything that is complex, I believe, would follow the guidelines as set forth in the legislation. What I am referring to are things which are obviously not defamatory. If I say online that the sky is blue and someone puts in a complaint against my comment that the sky is blue and says that it is defamatory, it is my belief that online platforms will default to removing me saying that the sky is blue, and I think that this is clearly open for abuse. I acknowledge that there is a desire for harmony of legislation, but harmony of what I believe to be a bad part of legislation is not a desirable outcome, and therefore I disagree with the government on this point.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (4): Jeff Bourman, Moira Deeming, David Limbrick, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (32): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 19 to 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 (11:00)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

Clause 50, page 50, line 4, after “64(6)” insert “of the Freedom of Information Act 1982”.

This is an administrative amendment picked up by the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to clarify a reference to the FOI act.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 51 to 77 agreed to.

Clause 78 (11:01)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

1. Clause 78, line 4, before “After” insert “(1)”.

2. Clause 78, line 8, omit “Safety; and” and insert ‘Safety; and”.’.

3. Clause 78, line 9, omit all words and expressions on this line.

4. Clause 78, after line 9 insert –

‘(2) After section 162A(3) of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 insert –

“(4) The IBAC may give an advance copy of the report to the Premier before the report is transmitted to the Parliament.”.’.

These amendments were explained in my speech on the second reading. This is more of a measure supporting integrity. We do not believe it is appropriate for the Premier to receive a heads-up about IBAC reports prior to this Parliament and prior to the general public. If we truly believe that our integrity agencies are at arm’s length, as has been stated by the government, then this adds an extra integrity measure to that by keeping them at arm’s length. On a hypothetical, what is to say the government might not drop a significant story separate to the IBAC report on the day of a particular release of an IBAC report or be given time to massage the media messaging?

On a separate note, of a particular IBAC report and different reports we have seen claims that they were somewhat ‘educational’ and other descriptors, and this would give the Premier time to peruse the report before all members of Parliament. I think members of Parliament but also the general public should be given the opportunity, if our integrity agencies are truly independent, to view them at the same time as when they are tabled.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting these amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES: I am just a little concerned about the way Mr Mulholland has characterised this amendment. He has also characterised IBAC as some kind of agency that should be able to get the government and hold them to account. When it comes to IBAC, they are responsible for preventing and exposing public sector corruption and police misconduct. Their reports are really important for community confidence, and they are really important for government to respond in an appropriate way. As I have identified previously as the responsible minister for IBAC, the legislation does provide for IBAC to give an advance copy to me already. So on your statement that everyone should get it at the same time, I am not sure why you have just decided to try and exclude the Premier and not the Attorney.

It is always open to IBAC to determine for themselves whether they do provide advanced copies. What we are proposing to do is pretty much catch up with custom and practice. As I think I explained in a question to Mr Limbrick, at the moment it can go to DPC and the Attorney. We are adding in the relevant minister for DPC, which of course is the Premier, and the relevant department for the Attorney, which of course is the Department of Justice and Community Safety. What happens currently under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 is that IBAC, if they intend to transmit a report to Parliament, can provide to the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Premier an advance copy of the report at least one business day prior to the report being transmitted to Parliament. As I said, the amendment in the bill seeks to reflect proper practice; it clarifies and updates the section to reflect that. The Attorney-General is the minister administratively responsible for the IBAC act. By adding the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety it is enabling the Attorney-General, whether it is me or someone else, to be appropriately briefed on the contents of a special report just prior to it being tabled in Parliament. This is longstanding practice. As I have said, the amendments enable the briefing of the Premier as the leader of the government, noting that section 162A already provides for an advance report to be provided to the Premier’s department. I would point out that section 162A(3) of the IBAC act provides IBAC an appropriate discretion not to provide an advance copy of a report if it considers that in all the circumstances it would be inappropriate to do so.

As I indicated in my summing-up, this is not an overly problematic suggestion; it is just unnecessary and clunky and does not reflect custom and practice. I think you are trying to make it out to be something that it is not. We think that our amendments will actually create better administrative practice that is reflective of IBAC’s practices. We will not be supporting your amendment, but nor do we fear it.

Katherine COPSEY: Similarly the Greens do not consider that this amendment is necessary. The discretion is available currently to IBAC to determine whether advance copies are required. I would just echo the concerns raised: I do not think it is appropriate to question the independence of these processes based on whether or not this amendment rises or falls. The Greens will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (15): Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 79 to 91 agreed to.

Clause 92 (11:14)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

5. Clause 92, line 21, omit “the Premier,”.

6. Clause 92, lines 27 and 28, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

7. Clause 92, after line 31 insert –

‘(3) After section 25AAB(4) of the Ombudsman Act 1973 insert –

“(5) The Ombudsman may provide a copy of a report to Parliament under section 23(6) or 25 to the Premier before the report is transmitted to the Parliament under section 25AA.”.’.

I will not go through them again, but the same points apply to these, being Ombudsman reports.

Jaclyn SYMES: Taking Mr Mulholland’s lead, my response substitutes ‘Ombudsman’ for ‘IBAC’.

Katherine COPSEY: For similar reasons as outlined for Mr Mulholland’s previous amendment, the Victorian Greens will not be supporting this one or the remainder of Mr Mulholland’s amendments.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 93 to 104 agreed to.

Clause 105 (11:15)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

8. Clause 105, line 10, omit all words and expressions on this line.

9. Clause 105, line 22, omit ‘so.”.’ and insert “so.”.

10. Clause 105, after line 22 insert –

‘(4) The Victorian Inspectorate may give an advance copy of the report to the Premier before the report is transmitted to the Parliament.”.’.

These are similar to points that I have raised but substituting in Victorian Inspectorate reports.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 106 and 107 agreed to.

Clause 108 (11:16)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

2. Clause 108, page 85, lines 24 to 26, omit all words and expressions on those lines and insert –

‘(k) disclosure for the purposes of making a complaint to the Integrity and Oversight Committee; or

(l) disclosure as is otherwise authorised or required to be made by or under this Act.

Note

See also sections 39 and 40 of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012.”.’.

This house amendment is off the back of advice from the Integrity and Oversight Committee to ensure that they can accept complaints about the Victorian Inspectorate, which will be renamed Integrity Oversight Victoria, in very limited circumstances in relation to the committee’s monitoring and review function. The intention of the offence provision is not to displace this function. To ensure that the intent of the offence is clear we are proposing a house amendment to clause 108 of the bill to be made to explicitly provide for an exception to the offence of disclosure to the IOC for the purposes of making complaints about the Victorian Inspectorate.

The IOC can also receive, handle and investigate public interest disclosures about the Victorian Inspectorate. The Public Interest Disclosures Act is clear that a disclosure is not bound by the 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 these protections in the Public Interest Disclosures Act, so the proposed house amendment references the relevant rights under the Public Interest Disclosures Act in sections 39 and 40 to ensure that this is clear.

I take the opportunity to thank the IOC for their consideration and feedback on the integrity measures contained in this bill.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will be supporting these amendments. We thank the IOC for their feedback and the government for taking on board the ability to clarify their functions to receive complaints.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Likewise, we thank the government for moving this and agree with it, and the opposition will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 109 to 115 agreed to; schedule 1 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (11:19): I move:

That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (11:19): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

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