Tuesday, 10 September 2024

Bills

Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (13:59): I rise to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. This is an important bill because of the important work of the institute and the work the institute does on behalf of all Victorians. It is quite important in our justice system and it is important in our health system. The institute provide vital support to the coroner as well as to Victoria Police, two very important cogs in our system, and so it is important that the agencies with which they work are on strong legislative footing. Whether this bill achieves that is another question, however. I would like to thank my friend the member for Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General, on the work he has done on this bill. As he said in the lower house:

This bill effectively seeks to reinstate the previous legislative basis. There was the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 1985. This bill seeks to re-establish the legislative basis for the governance of the VIFM in 2024. Obviously, governance standards, practices and procedures have changed quite a bit since 1985, so I understand the reason why the government is keen to update the legislative arrangements that underpin the VIFM.

The problem we have is that the legislation is the result of a 2023 review and, in the classic form of this tired, old and secretive Labor government, they refuse to release the review on which this legislation is based for us all to see and for the general public to see, but we are meant to take them at their word that all is hunky-dory. It is a pretty flawed approach to public policy to conduct a review, draft legislation as a result of the findings of that review and then keep the review secret so that the opposition, crossbench, media and indeed all Victorians cannot assess whether the government’s legislation addresses the findings of that particular review. While we approach this bill with some degree of scepticism, if this government was up-front and genuine and demonstrated good faith with the Parliament and the public about why it wants to bring forward this bill, then it would have released the review upon which this is based. It is the least that they could do, but they still have not.

There is no doubt that there are issues with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. That is not a slight on the dedicated staff that work there, but it is a slight on some failings of the government and the legislation under which the staff work. The staff at the VIFM deal with often quite sensitive and even traumatic cases and subject matter, and they handle them with skill, with care and with compassion. The issues the opposition have are with the government and in particular with how the VIFM is funded. To illustrate this, I point to a story on the ABC’s 7.30 on 5 September 2022, as my friend the member for Malvern has also highlighted. The headline is ‘Victims of violent crime forced to wait for forensic examinations in Victoria due to “dire” shortage of doctors’. I will quote a little bit from that piece because I think it is very important. It demonstrates how vital a well-funded VIFM is to Victorians. The article starts:

Victorian victims of sexual assault are being forced to wait in bloodied and soiled clothes, sometimes for more than a day, to see specialist forensic doctors.

On some nights in Melbourne, a city of 5 million people, there are no forensic doctors available to see victims of violent crime, in a situation experts have labelled “dire”.

In 2020, Grace Stewart was one of hundreds of women forced to endure the consequences of this shortage.

Ms Stewart alleges she was raped in January that year.

She says it took her hours to comprehend what had happened to her and to muster up the courage to call a rape crisis line.

For 15 hours after that, nearly 30 hours in total, she remained in the same underwear that she was wearing when she was allegedly raped.

If she wanted to see the alleged perpetrator brought before the courts, she couldn’t shower or change until she saw a forensic doctor.

That night, none were available.

“That’s something that was quite traumatic,” Ms Stewart told ABC investigations.

“It made me feel icky. It was definitely gross, because you want to try and get the experience off you.”

Victims of sexual assault need all the help that they can get from the government and to not feel abandoned when they are at their most vulnerable. Instead, in Australia’s largest city not a single forensic doctor was available on the night that Grace Stewart needed one. This is unacceptable. There is nothing in this bill that would make a difference in this situation. The government is simply not doing enough to support the institution, the bodies it works with and ultimately the Victorians who, as I outlined earlier, are at their most vulnerable when its services are called upon.

What is in this bill that is going to make a difference? What is in this bill that is going to make a change? Well, not a lot. There are so many confronting stories we will not hear about and that will not be profiled on the television news programs, but these victims exist, and they need the mechanisms in place to help them. I join my colleague Mr O’Brien in thanking Grace Stewart for coming forward to help highlight this issue, which might otherwise have flown under the radar, and indeed it still does fly under the radar too often.

We know there have been some cultural issues at the institute. The same report went on to detail that doctors at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine have lodged complaints with WorkSafe Victoria about dangerous working hours. This is a concern, given the highly technical, sensitive and compassionate work required by employees of the institute. I note that the Australian Medical Association have raised and expressed the concern that they were not sufficiently consulted on this bill – a concern which more broadly highlights the concerns of the association and others that the health side of the institute is not getting its just attention and that the institute is unbalanced in favour of its role in the justice system.

The Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) have also provided the opposition with some concerns about the bill. They pointed out that clause 34 requires that prior to the use or disclosure of information by the institute under clause 32 or 33 the institute must (1) notify the State Coroner of the proposed use or disclosure if the information relates to an investigation under part 4 of the Coroners Act 2008 and allow them the opportunity to advise if they reasonably consider that the proposed use or disclosure of such information would prejudice an investigation, and (2) notify the Chief Commissioner of Police of the proposed use or disclosure if the information relates to a criminal investigation or a criminal proceeding that has been or may be commenced and allow them an opportunity to advise if they reasonably consider that the proposed use or disclosure of such information would prejudice such an investigation or such proceedings.

To put it another way, as long as the institute has done the paperwork notifying the State Coroner and chief commissioner, it does not need to actually wait for a response in order to disclose information. This is a situation that is rife with problems in matters as sensitive as the ones handed out by the institute. Positive consent – not implied – should be the threshold. We are talking about personal information of people who have either died or suffered trauma themselves – and let us face it, that is what the VIFM deals with – and requiring that information not be used or disclosed by the VIFM without absolutely obtaining a positive affirmation that it is not going to prejudice an investigation that is being undertaken by the coroner or the police I think is the least the bill could do.

This is a matter the Shadow Attorney-General has called upon the government to reconsider, and I reaffirm that call here today. Following on from that, the LIV has also pointed out there is no requirement for the institute to gain consent from an individual or their next of kin if deceased. It seems a bit odd that the coroner is consulted and the Chief Commissioner is consulted, but the person whose information is involved, or their family members, are not. The government have said that they do not believe that this is necessary, but we are dealing with people who have died in tragic circumstances or people who have had horrific things happen to them, such that the VIFM is involved in conducting examinations. I think that respecting the individual and their right to that autonomy is a very important thing. I would urge the government to reconsider it, because I do not think the government has got the balance right in this bill.

Clause 4 outlines that a person should have regard to principles relating to professional standards, community benefits, sensitive conduct, the promotion of public health, the administration of justice, respect for cultural beliefs and recognising the diverse needs of Aboriginal communities. This is fine, but I would highlight that ‘sensitive conduct’ seems to be out of alignment with the concerns I raised earlier around the use of personal information.

Clause 8 seeks to clarify the objectives, the functions and the powers of the institute. This is also fine, but again actions speak louder than words, and there needs to be real governance reform for this to mean meaningful change. There are concerns around the fact that the VIFM’s board is appointed on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, and this is at the heart of health concerns, which I understand Ms Crozier shares and may speak on later, around the institute seeing itself as an arm of the justice system. I understand that in some other states their equivalent agencies are under the auspices of the health department, and that actually warrants some consideration and deeper thought. The government is always keen for a rebrand – a bit of spin to polish and give the impression of reform – but here, where they could do something meaningful, they stay silent. Mr O’Brien pointed out some other governance concerns we have, and I encourage members to review the Hansard record of his excellent speech.

To sum up, there are three areas that we are concerned about with this bill: (1) the need for better consultation with the medical profession (2) the rights of individuals to protect their information and privacy and (3) the lack of meaningful change in the minutiae of governance changes. We do actually have a reasoned amendment for this bill, and I ask for that to be circulated. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘the bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until the government:

(1) properly consults with the medical profession in Victoria on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine;

(2) ensures that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services; and

(3) improves safeguards for the use and sharing of personal information held by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine.’.

While governance changes are undoubtably a step forward from the 1985 legislation, there remain concerns that the VIFM is a troubled organisation. These changes will not resolve the cultural and other problems that have beset the organisation. The processes around the use or disclosure of individual information are not as tight as they could be. This bill will not fix the problems with the VIFM that were identified by the Victorian Law Reform Commission and also highlighted on the ABC’s September 2022 report.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:15): This bill constitutes a thorough modernisation of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985. It provides flexibility for the institute to adapt to new technologies and advancements in scientific knowledge. It updates the institute’s governance structure to meet best practice standards for public entities. It upgrades guidelines on the sharing of often sensitive information the institute collects, and this will allow the institute to better support public health policy and research while providing appropriate safeguards. Importantly, the bill sets out the principles that will guide the activities of the institute, and these principles recognise that the institute often deals with traumatic and difficult events that require anyone acting on behalf of the institute to deal with people affected by those events with respect and sensitivity. In particular the principles include a requirement to recognise the importance of self-determination and connection to culture, family, community and country for First Nations people.

In this speech I am going to have a look at some of the changes and the differences between the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) of 1985, when it was formed, and some of the more modern capabilities that it has now. I am also going to have a look at those guiding principles and touch briefly on a couple of examples. There have been changes in forensic medicine since the 1980s. In the 1980s forensic investigation relied on blood typing, fingerprints, eyewitnesses and hair analysis – I am not quite sure what that involved.

A member: How good your hair looked.

Jacinta ERMACORA: I do not think it was a fashion assessment. Any of us who are afficionados of detective TV shows will know how dated the shows from the 1980s are:on Columbo and Cop Shop they were stuck if they could not find any fingerprints. They could not send samples to the lab for the DNA analysis. In fact it was in 1985, the year that the original form of this bill was passed in this house, that the first DNA fingerprinting method was developed by Professor Jeffreys at the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom. Its potential for use in criminal cases was immediately recognised, and the method was used for the first time just a year later, in 1986. DNA matching led to the conviction of Colin Pitchfork for the rape and murder of two women in the UK and exonerated the person previously thought to be the prime suspect. DNA matching is just one of many new techniques now in use. Just some of the things we can now rely on are advanced imaging techniques, including 3D and virtual scanning – it may be that these will eventually displace the need for invasive autopsies; techniques for sensitive detection of tiny amounts of specific substances, such as mass spectrometry, fluorescence detection and molecular imaging; and the ability to analyse pollen and plant matter and even the stable isotypes in water to pinpoint its origins.

It is clear that the forensic techniques are going to continue to evolve at a rapid pace, and the institute needs a framework that allows for its development while providing guidance for its leaders and people on how to best serve the needs of Victorians. The range of services the institute provides is very broad. It oversees the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria, it is responsible for the majority of sexual assault testing, it undertakes teaching and research to improve public safety and it partners with the Australian Sports Brain Bank to research the impact and prevention of repetitive brain injuries in sport, along with its role in the criminal justice system. These services also continue to evolve. For example, in 2021 the institute made a submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission on the rise in technology-facilitated sexual assault. This is a phenomenon that would not have even been envisaged when the institute was first created. Again, the institute needs a framework that allows for sufficient flexibility to evolve as even more technological and scientific capabilities emerge – perhaps some we have not even imagined. At the same time, the important services the institute provides must be guided by principles that drive a people-centred approach to service delivery and a commitment to excellence in clinical and research governance and to improving public health while serving the justice system.

These guiding principles set out in the bill require any person performing a function or power at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine to have regard, as far as possible in the circumstances, to the following:

meeting professional standards relating to scientific integrity and ethics;

pursuing benefits to the community and to the justice system;

recognising the significant nature of the events to which the Institute’s services relate and the need to be sensitive and responsive to persons affected …

promoting public health and safety;

promoting the administration of justice …

On the second principle, ‘pursuing benefits to the community and to the justice system’, I just want to go there for a moment. My grandfather-in-law was incarcerated at Buchenwald concentration camp during the Second World War. He was caught providing food to Jewish people. The Nazis were running a medical experiment program. During the day many of the prisoners were injected with all sorts of substances as a form of experimentation, with no permission of the people involved or my grandfather-in-law, and in the evening, unbeknownst to the Nazi people running the camp, Jewish doctors would come in and inject antidotes, the opposite, to keep these people alive. My husband’s grandfather was one of those men. He did live to 96 years of age, I believe. That is an example of the use of medical science or science not to the benefit of the community and certainly not in compliance with the ethics and values that our community would expect to be upheld and indeed that are usually upheld. I think these principles play a really important role in providing clear guidance. They are open-ended enough to express a set of values but not too prescriptive so that new issues cannot be captured by those values.

There are a couple more guiding principles as well, and they are:

respecting the cultural beliefs of persons affected by the events to which the Institute’s services relate;

recognising the diverse needs of Aboriginal communities, including the importance of self-determination and connection to culture, family, community and Country.

The principles requiring a focus on professional standards, community and justice system benefits, public health and safety, and administration of justice are self-evidently central to the functioning of the institute. I want to briefly speak to the principles that require the institute’s execution of its functions to be people-centred and as they relate to sexual offences.

The Crime Statistics Agency in Victoria reported in 2023 that 9357 sexual offences were reported in this state. That is 26 reports every day. The ABS estimates that nine out of 10 women who are sexually assaulted do not report it. I must say they are the very same figures that existed when I was a sexual assault counsellor well over a decade ago. As well, Sexual Assault Services Victoria state that many children and men are also reluctant to come forward. We know that many aspects of our adversarial legal system disincentivise victim-survivors from reporting. We also know that all of the institutions relevant to gendered violence in Victoria have made massive improvements in their culture and practices towards women and survivors of sexual assault, family violence and other crimes. Institutions that have made those improvements include the police with their responses and procedures; the court system with the defence’s right to cross-examine, the availability of timely and experienced court support for survivors and the availability of timely therapeutic services; and of course there is the role of forensic testing as a form of evidence that assault or rape has occurred. So, whilst these institutions are in no way perfect yet, there have been improvements.

However, many women have still experienced distress during what is commonly referred to as the rape kit process. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research in New Zealand conducted some research into this very issue and their research found that the development of procedures for sexual assault testing has focused more on the effectiveness and efficiency of the testing rather than the experience of the victim. Many victims subsequently report the forensic examination to be a source of further trauma. These principles will require the institute to deal sensitively with people who are impacted by these types of traumatic events. This gives it the authority to devote resources to developing appropriate processes, research and training that improve the experience for those it serves.

The bill also recognises the diverse needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by acknowledging the importance of self-determination. The principles require that the institute as far as possible provide culturally safe and responsive services, appropriately engage with Aboriginal stakeholders and consider their cultural rights in the delivery of the VIFM’s objectives. In some regards the Yoorrook truth-telling commission is an example of First Nations led review of what happened during the colonisation or invasion period, and there is no doubt that forensic services may conceivably be relevant to some of the evidence given by some Aboriginal people to this commission.

Appropriate information sharing is another principle that this bill entails. The institute collects and creates information in carrying out its functions, in particular through its support of the coronial process, and the bill sets out clear processes for how information is to be treated. An important function of the institute is to train others involved in the administration of justice, such as our police.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I cannot see the logic in the reasoned amendment. To me, dot points 1 to 3 are all captured within this bill. In fact it deliberately focuses on enabling capability to ensure those things are captured and ensured. So, in a sense, this reasoned amendment does not make sense to me. I completely endorse the bill and thank those in the portfolio for the work that has been conducted in producing the bill to this point.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:30): I rise to speak to the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, and I do so because this is actually an important bill that we are debating today. I want to commend Mr Mulholland on his contribution and for putting a reasoned amendment to the house, which is incredibly important. I have just listened to Ms Ermacora about her reasons, and she went through them. Clearly she has no idea about the frustration within the medical profession, who have actually said that the consultation around this bill was not conducted properly, and they have raised many concerns, which I will be raising in the committee stage. I want to say that this bill should be thrown out and the government should go away and do the work properly before it is brought back into the house. It is very disappointing that the government has not properly considered all of these issues. I just listened to part of the debate, and it was going off on an absolute tangent – it had nothing to do with the bill.

This bill, as I said, is an important one. The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine was established under the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 as part of the criminal justice system, originally for the purpose of providing forensic pathology services relating to deceased persons. Since that time and since 1995 in particular its role has expanded to providing a 24/7 service to living victims of crime, assisting Victoria Police, the coroner and the courts. It plays a critical role in both the justice system and the health system in Victoria, supporting our legal, medical and scientific communities in criminal investigations as well as through research and education. The government says that it conducted a review into the VIFM act last year, and the minister stated in the second-reading speech:

The Bill implements key findings from the review and is the final plank of reform for this vital service.

Incredibly, the government will not release to the public that review. The government say, ‘We’ve conducted this review; that’s why we’re changing the law,’ but they will not release the review. And the very people that this concerns have not been consulted properly or adequately on it.

This is largely a health response. Yes, there are the issues around the criminal elements of what investigations need to be undertaken, but as has been reported and has been cited by various members, including my colleague Mr O’Brien, the Shadow Attorney-General, in the case of Ms Stewart’s horrific circumstances in 2020 – which were reported on in 2022 – she had to wait for 30 hours for a forensic examination because of the dire shortage of doctors. Yes, it is forensic evidence that is being collected about a crime that has occurred against, as I said, a living individual that this bill relates to – not under the original bill, which did not go to that extent, but since 1995 when it changed, as I have already highlighted – but this is critical. This victim of crime that I am speaking about, specifically of sexual assault, was unable to be cared for in a timely manner nor in a manner that you would have expected in Victoria in 2020 when it occurred, let alone in this day and age, in 2024.

I do recall, from my experience of working at the Royal Women’s Hospital, the Centre Against Sexual Assault unit there and unfortunately some occasions when women needed to come in to get those services. I am well aware of the issues. I have spoken to clinicians that work for the institute, and they have told me of the frustrations that they have got with this bill and the inability for them to conduct their work and get the information that they require on a client or a patient or a victim of crime that they might be dealing with. That is concerning, because they are often then flying blind, and that delays evidence. That is partly the issue that has been raised by doctors and certainly those clinicians that have spoken about their concerns. I want to thank the AMA for their input and feedback that they have provided to me. Again, in stark contrast, the government is not listening to these clinicians, who have got the expertise and are actually conducting this very important work for these victims of crime.

As with that report on Ms Stewart, who bravely spoke out – she was only one of hundreds of women forced to endure the consequences of this shortage of these forensic doctors. We need to be doing more around this shortage. Unfortunately, as we know, the numbers of crimes that are occurring in this state and the numbers of dreadful sexual assault crimes that are occurring are far too many. When there are victims coming forward that need to be attended to, cared for and supported, we need to ensure that they are getting timely services as well. That is what this report highlighted. This bill is not going to do anything to address those issues, and I think there is a very big concern with what the bill is trying to address. That is why we are moving a reasoned amendment – to ensure that the government can get the bill right. It is one thing to update a bill or update legislation that is expected to meet community standards, but when the government is not meeting that mark, then surely it does need to be properly undertaken. I say again that there are concerns that have been raised by clinicians that are involved in this very important work.

In Victoria, the VIFM – or the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine – sits squarely within the Department of Justice and Community Safety, as I have indicated. Other states have adopted a health-led approach to forensic medicine. I think it is a direct deviation for Victoria to not follow suit around the health-related aspects that this very important work undertakes in many instances – not in all cases, obviously, but in many cases – and that is why those concerns have been raised.

The AMA I understand has been raising these issues with the government for two years – how the healthcare sector plays a vital role in this work – and has been calling on the government to prioritise that. This has, as I said, fallen on deaf ears. The government is just looking through the prism of the justice and the police functions and not taking into consideration the work that is being done on the ground by forensic clinicians to gather the evidence that the police investigators, the coroner or other justice agencies then need to look at. It is very, very important work that the clinical doctors are providing to support those agencies.

What this bill does, amongst other things, is it abolishes the current VIFM council and replaces it with a skills-based board that has clinical governance and corporate governance functions, yet the selection criteria for the composition of the board does not ensure that the necessary medical expertise – again I am going to the point around the very important aspects around clinical governance and clinical expertise – is appropriate to oversee VIFM’s health-related functions which are represented. They are in fact very broad rather than seeking to meet the specific skills that are required for an institute with highly specialised purposes. If you look at the explanatory memorandum, it goes through those issues.

The other part of the bill that is concerning is that it provides for the appointment of the chief executive officer and also the role of director of forensic medicine. It provides for those two roles, but it provides that the same person may be appointed to both roles. That is curious – you can have somebody who is the director of forensic medicine but also the CEO. Whilst there is an argument to say, ‘Well, there’s no reason why the director of forensic medicine can’t have that overarching executive officer role,’ you do need to understand that there is a specific concern around the ability of that director of forensic medicine to have an approach that provides support to the clinicians in the forensic aspects that the institute is responsible for. The way the bill has been structured therefore really undermines the entire separation of those two roles: one responsible, as I said, for the forensic medical matters and the other for the organisational leadership. We do note that there are clinicians that have those leadership roles. I am not saying that does not occur and should not occur, but I am saying in this specific example for VIFM those two distinct roles should be separated to avoid any conflict of interest. It does seem like an extraordinary process, and I will be asking a little bit more about that in the committee stage.

There is no question that there have been issues within VIFM around staffing issues. That has been of concern. There have been various issues that have been raised, but that does not take away from the organisation and what it actually does. Those issues need to be sorted, and if there is anything further that can be done in relation to getting additional staffing and an understanding of what the demand is here in Victoria, I think that is an important aspect for the government to elaborate on.

I just want to make the point, in the last few minutes that I have got, that in question time two years ago I actually asked the Attorney about this issue that I have mentioned, Ms Stewart’s case, after it was reported on 5 September 2022. I asked how it was acceptable for victims to be left in bloodied and soiled clothing because no doctors were available. In her answer at that time, in question time, the Attorney said funding had been committed:

… to improve the services for these victims, including supporting VIFM to … deliver the essential clinical forensic medics and services that we want to be available more quickly … and I have certainly sought advice from the department about what we can do to ensure that for any gaps that are in the system … if there is anything more we can do in an immediate term, that is something we should do.

She went on to say that there is a medical component as part of the justice response and:

… it is a conversation that I also want to have with the health department and the Minister for Health in relation to ensuring that we have adequate services and the right people.

That was an issue I did raise back in 2022 after that report became public. I do think that since that time it is clear that the AMA still do not feel that the government has addressed those workforce shortages, that there are still some significant issues around workforce issues and that those other safe work practices that were highlighted, again in that report at the time, have had a detrimental impact on the organisation. In their correspondence to the government last year the AMA warned that their staffing profile at the time was not capable of providing the required forensic medical services to the community on a 24/7 basis.

Again, I think there are so many issues here that have been raised by the AMA, who are there speaking to their members, the clinicians who are conducting this work. I have certainly spoken to those that have come to me regarding their concerns, and I want to thank them for providing me with their feedback. I just wish the government had consulted more widely and got a greater understanding of the impacts of what this bill will actually fail to achieve in terms of supporting clinicians in doing their work in a very important area, which then supports the police in investigations of crimes that should not be committed in this state but, sadly, are being committed at too high a rate. I do therefore, again, support Mr Mulholland’s motion to move a reasoned amendment so that the government go back and do this very important work before this bill is passed in this place.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:44): I rise to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, a bill that replaces the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985, which created and was the enabling piece of legislation for the institute up until this point, and replaces it with a brand new piece of legislation establishing modern governance frameworks. There are new principles to guide the service delivery functions of this important part of Victoria’s broader justice infrastructure; it makes some important amendments with respect to the collection of information and how it is used to support broader public policy goals; and it does a series of other modernisations to governance arrangements, including by the Governor in Council. The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine is an incredibly important part of our institutions here in Victoria. The legislation provides a statutory basis for the institute to provide independent forensic medical and scientific expertise to the justice system, provides for tissue transplantation with the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria and enables both teaching and research to continue, enabling the growth and continuation of these skills and scientific research throughout the community.

The bill is an important update of VIFM’s governance arrangements and functions. It is important particularly when we have statutory authorities who exercise important functions – obviously with the great wisdom of this Parliament – to put in place governance arrangements for institutions of state. Things do evolve from time to time in public administration, in principles of public sector governance and in broader principles of governance. When statutory authorities have arrangements placed in primary legislation, as was the case here with the original act in 1985, there do come times when those best practices as they were at the time are no longer best practice, and it is important and incumbent upon governments to update and review those. That is principally what this legislation is seeking to do. It is, as I said, replacing the existing act to try and maintain VIFM’s world-leading status as a forensic medical institute and to ensure it remains absolutely focused on its core goals of providing support to the justice system but also of providing broader medical and scientific support on matters that are important to it.

The bill also comes within the context of significant support from the state Labor government to the institute over the last several years. It is not just occasional support. The government has provided significant support to VIFM: $100 million or more in investments since the 2021–22 state budget has been provided to VIFM to enable the institute to build its much-needed capability and support its essential service delivery. This has been through both infrastructure improvements and a new case management system to enable it to support its ongoing functions but also through the addition of new MRI capabilities, which have further enhanced its capacity to do the tasks that are required of it. The funding boost that has been put in place by this government to the institute since 2021–22 has also enabled VIFM to transition to a new clinical forensic medicine service delivery model across metropolitan and regional Victoria, helping to guarantee that forensic medical examinations can be available to victim-survivors of sexual assault on their terms 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These are important services that need to be provided.

As I said, it is important that governance arrangements are updated. Thirty years is a long time between improvements to governance arrangements. Lots has changed not only in how we expect governments and governance to work and how best practice is viewed but also how an institute, how an organisation – any organisation – needs to be established and performing in order to deliver the services that those in the community rely upon. It is also an important opportunity to do a strategic refresh and consolidation of the statutory objects and functions. As you would expect, as technology and forensic medicine have evolved quite exponentially it would seem in the last 30 years, VIFM itself has been added to in terms of its statutory objects and functions and has seen incremental and piecemeal change over that time. That means that when everything is just added to a little bit as things change around it, there can be rather disjointed expression and confusion from time to time about the institute’s responsibilities and priorities.

I think the other thing that we have seen in a number of instances – and we saw it in legislation which the chamber dealt with a couple of weeks ago – is that often enabling legislation and practices of institutes like this were done before we had an understanding of the importance of being able to use data for further research and the way that the connections between institutions and organisations bring together different datasets to do novel investigations of data, to use analytics functions and to understand questions more deeply. Often those sorts of things just were not contemplated thoroughly back in 1985 when the legislation was written. As both capability and practices on the analytics and research function, particularly with the use of information and data sharing, have changed so significantly in the intervening period, often the legislation is not capable of dealing with these new functions. Part of the amendments that are being dealt with in this legislation will overcome some limitations which exist in the current act in the way that data could be collected and used to support public health policy and research, which we hope will see great advances in the way that that is conducted.

I just want to spend a little bit of time talking about the important role that VIFM has played here in the Victorian community. Obviously people would be familiar with the coronial functions that the institute performs. VIFM performs a range of support services for the collection of evidence and materials which can be used in criminal justice proceedings, often in very confronting circumstances for victim-survivors. I mentioned briefly at the opening the role the institute plays with respect to donor tissue and its connection to the medical community and the research community. I think what people may not think about too often is the role that VIFM has played particularly in disaster circumstances and in quite troubling circumstances for communities. VIFM and its experts have been called in to support some very traumatic circumstances.

We obviously all remember too well the absolute horror that we witnessed here in Victoria on Black Saturday in 2009. What I think people probably have not reflected upon or do not know as much as other things that happened around those fires was the role that the VIFM played in supporting the identification of victims of those horrific fires. You can imagine the traumatic circumstances that that needed to take place in. The experts from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine identified 163 deceased people within 90 days of those events, which was a remarkable achievement from a scientific and medical perspective. But also at a very human level it was incredibly important in helping the loved ones of the victims of those fires, their family members, know their remains had been identified to bring closure to the trauma – or at least partly – and allow those loved ones and friends to grieve.

This is but one of many disaster victim identification activities that VIFM has been involved in. Representatives from VIFM were involved in the aftermath of the Bali bombings in Indonesia, the devastating tsunami that we saw across Thailand in late 2004–05 and the earthquake in Nepal. There was the work that VIFM undertook with one of our closest neighbours in Timor-Leste exposing the clandestine graves where many Timorese who resisted occupation and were slaughtered as a consequence were left buried. There was the support that VIFM gave the Philippines for Typhoon Yolanda, stretching out to Africa to support work as part of the Ebola epidemic in Liberia and also the important work that VIFM did in supporting the aftermath of the MH17 aircraft, which was shot down over Ukraine when 30 Australians lost their lives. These sorts of activities by an institute like VIFM allow us as Victorians to be incredibly proud of the role and function that this institute can play in supporting those around the world.

It is not just emergency response internationally that VIFM has been engaged in, but it has also been about capability building as well. The institute has been involved in conjunction with other agencies in the establishment of the African Society of Forensic Medicine, which was set up in the last 15 years. In a similar time period VIFM has also been involved in and supported the creation of the Asia Pacific Medico-Legal Agencies in Indonesia. It is through these relationships that we are able to support other nations with the expertise that we have and build capability in those places so that they can undertake these sorts of activities as well.

I mention these here to give a bit of a sense of the range of expertise and support that the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine has been able to provide not only to those here within the Victorian community, where it has ably served for the last 30 years, providing a range of important services, but also the role that it plays particularly in disaster-related support and difficult identification but then also the broader development task of supporting our neighbours and friends around the world who seek to have this capability established on their own.

One of the things we have touched on very briefly is the changes to the board. We have a governance structure where the VIFM council has 13 members, many of whom represent specific stakeholders. The bill will establish a new skills-based board as VIFM’s governing body with a set of criteria as laid out in the act. Hopefully this skills-based board will have a collective skill set that will enable them to govern the institute more effectively and reduce conflicts of interest in line with best practice corporate governance. The board will be accountable, under the terms of the statute, to the Attorney-General.

VIFM obviously plays an incredibly important role supporting medical research, forensic research and analysis in our justice system. It is important that the act that supports it is maintained and updated, and this legislation does just that.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:04): This bill is primarily another governance update bill. In general I like this kind of legislation. When the government are simply tweaking the governance settings of institutions, they are not expanding the size of the state, restricting freedoms or increasing taxes. While Libertarians are always considering institutions that are not really needed or ways that we can reduce the size of government, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) is not where I would start. They perform an essential function of the justice system. It would be possible to slim them down a bit by altering some other laws, though. One way would be to reform our unjust drug driving laws by adopting a regime that focuses on impairment rather than simply the trace presence of certain illicit substances. There may be other functions that could be reduced, but some of the important functions that they perform assist the police in effectively prosecuting serious violent and sexual crimes.

Concerns were raised in the other chamber about delays and other issues with forensic examinations related to sexual assaults. This is a very serious matter, and I share these concerns. It is difficult enough for a person to go through the process of seeking justice for these crimes, and if the government is making it more difficult through operating a system that puts more of a burden on victims, that is simply unacceptable. I understand that there have been recent changes seeking to improve this, and perhaps the minister can update the house on whether or not these are having the desired effect. Too many rapists get away with their crimes, and government mismanagement should not be assisting them in this. I never spoke about it during the pandemic, as I did not want to advertise to predators weaknesses in the system, but the way that forensic examinations were conducted during that period was abysmal. These matters do, however, primarily sit outside the functions of the legislation before us today.

The main concern I have with the bill before us is around the information-sharing provisions. I maintain my concerns about the digital medical information sharing scheme that the government has set up. In general, the government should not have our private information without our consent. I can see reasons why the information held by VIFM might be useful and contribute to a better understanding of influences on crime and safety, so the questions are really: who is going to get access to the data, what is the data going to be used for, what standard data protection measures are in place for handling sensitive data at VIFM and what additional safeguards will be put in place to ensure sensitive data is de-identified and that privacy is preserved? These are important matters, and I will be seeking clarification on these issues from the Attorney-General during the committee stage of the debate. I will not be opposing the bill on the second reading and will await further clarification on privacy and data protection safeguards during the committee stage.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:03): I also rise to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. This is a bill which replaces the existing act, the 1985 act, as the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine’s enabling legislation. It carries on the proud legacy of previous Labor governments in supporting this very, very important service for Victorians. The new enabling legislation that we are discussing today will help the VIFM to maintain its status as a world-leading forensic medical institution. Indeed this government already has a strong record of supporting VIFM. In 2021 we saw $93.1 million provided to the agency to build its capability and essential service delivery, which also included – as I believe some other speakers have made reference to – the implementation of some MRI capability as well as lab equipment, infrastructure improvements and new case management systems. This was further supplemented in 2023 with a further granting of $19.47 million for the VIFM to transition to a new CFM – clinical forensic medicine – service delivery model that meets victim-survivor needs and expectations and ensures a sustainable and efficient service. As a next step before us today in supporting the agency, the government has reviewed the VIFM act to ensure that it remains well positioned to continue providing best practice forensic services. The bill also implements key findings from the review that was conducted and is a key component of the funding and reforms being delivered to ensure that this vital service is fit for purpose going forward.

I think it might be illustrative to go into some of the context for what has led to us being here today. We know that in 1975 the then Attorney-General Vernon Wilcox QC established the Coroners Court Review Committee. That committee was tasked with investigating whether existing arrangements for the identification of deceased persons, post-mortem examinations, forensic toxicology and analytical services were satisfactory for the needs of the time and indeed for future needs. In its final report, which was submitted in 1977, the committee recommended that all coroner autopsies in Victoria be performed by or under the supervision of a qualified pathologist who had access to ancillary services such as toxicology, serology, histopathology, microbiology and radiology.

Consequently, as a result of that the VIFM was established in 1985 through legislation to provide forensic pathology and scientific services to the State Coroner and the Victorian justice system. Since then, significant scientific and medical advancements have shaped and grown the services that VIFM provides to the community, and today the VIFM is a world-class facility – a world-class forensic medical institute that supports coronial, criminal and other legal processes. It oversees the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria and it engages in teaching and research to improve public health and safety, and again it does so as part of an ecosystem that we are very blessed to have here in the state of Victoria, where we are one of the medical research capitals of the world. The top three are Boston, London/Oxford and Melbourne.

We are in a very fortunate spot here with the medical research industry. There are a number of very exciting things going on, whether it is at the Parkville precinct or whether it is at the Monash precinct, closer to my region – a precinct that is booming not just with the synchrotron but with the new medicines manufacturing facility that has just been opened down there at Clayton, a very exciting space for that area to be in. It is all the more reason why it is so critical that that region gets serviced by a heavy rail connection, which this government is delivering under the Suburban Rail Loop. That is a very, very important part of our city and our state’s medical research, and obviously that research – in direct and many, many indirect ways – goes through to supporting the work of all manner of public health and forensic inquiries, such as those conducted by the VIFM.

It was the Cain government in 1982 which saw the fast evolution of forensic medicine infrastructure in Victoria, most notably of course through the new VIFM implemented, as I said, in 1985. This was the basis for this institute and the act that we are now updating and modernising through its repeal and replacement today. The institute itself, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Pathology, opened in 1988. It provided Victoria with a purpose-built facility for the provision of forensic pathology services to the coroner, the courts and the wider community. It was indeed a groundbreaking step forward. John Cain Jr declared it a 20-year leap into the future. It brought together forensic, medical and scientific expertise under the one roof, and it included formal academic activities in its operations.

The VIFM also oversees the crucial work of the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria, partnering with the Australian Sports Brain Bank to investigate post-mortem examinations of people who have participated in sports – with a risk of repetitive head injury, as one such example. It engages in teaching and research to improve public health and safety for all Victorians. Touching back on the very important role that Victoria plays on the world stage when it comes to medical research, that research then goes on to help many others in jurisdictions far beyond our territory here. It engages in teaching and research to improve public health and safety and research into sexual assault to help us protect the community from this means of offending. Today the VIFM is a world-class medical institute that supports these processes. In the event of a death that needs to be investigated, they can conduct a routine screening test for 327 different illicit substances, prescription drugs and other poisons. Bloods are usually taken but hair strands and eye fluid can also be forensically examined. Cases can either be straightforward or very complex; some can be recent deaths and others cold cases.

Since its inception almost 40 years ago the institute has done an incredible job of advancing forensic medicine in Victoria and worldwide. We want to ensure that they continue to do this, which is why the reforms before us today are so important in laying the legislative groundwork for them to continue their operations and reform in the 2020s. The reforms that we have before us in the bill today will guide the VIFM to exercise its powers and functions in a modern way. These will require any person performing a functional power of the VIFM under the act to have regard to, as far as possible, the meeting of professional standards relating to scientific integrity and ethics; pursuing benefits to the community and justice system; recognising the significant value of the events to which the institute’s services relate and the need to be sensitive and responsive to persons affected by those events; promoting public health and safety in the process; promoting the administration of justice; respecting the cultural beliefs of persons affected by the events to which the institute’s services relate; and indeed, complementary to that, recognising the diverse needs of our Indigenous communities in Victoria.

We will also see a new governance structure in this act which is designed to meet best practice standards for public entities. Key reforms to this structure include moving to a skills-based governing board and introducing two key leadership roles: a chief executive officer and a director of forensic medicine. The bill enables the concurrent occupation of both the chief executive officer role and the director of forensic medicine to maintain flexibility for the board in determining the VIFM’s leadership. The move to a skills-based board is important, as it reflects the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Forensic DNA Testing in Queensland. This inquiry found that it is necessary to preserve forensic medical and scientific expertise in the leadership of these agencies to ensure that organisational decisions do not impact the integrity of forensic services. The bill requires the board to establish a stakeholder advisory group to assist in its decision-making and the performance of all its functions. The establishment of this advisory group reflects the transition from the current representative VIFM council. It will also help to ensure that stakeholders can advise the VIFM board on matters related to the act’s principles, objectives and various other functions. It will also streamline the statutory objects, functions and powers to reflect the VIFM’s growth in service delivery over time. We have seen that since its establishment almost 40 years ago the work of the VIFM has grown significantly, and it now provides forensic medical and scientific services on a much larger scale – indeed, as my colleague Mr Batchelor was recently outlining, in the work it does in supporting us through all sorts of other events as well, including those disasters when they may befall us.

The reforms in this bill outline several objects that create a framework within which the VIFM will deliver its functions. These objectives are drafted to allow for the evolution of the agency’s services over time. They are intended to be flexible enough to support the expanded scope of services whilst keeping pace with scientific and medicinal advancements and also making sure that the VIFM’s services align with those priorities outlined in the bill and the expectations that the government, acting on behalf of the people of Victoria, rightly have for it to fulfil those duties. Furthermore, another reform will also establish the VIFM’s functions to clarify the coverage of services provided by the agency, ensuring it is in a position to support the Coroners Court, Victoria Police and other public entities through its services and to clarify its role in conducting research, teaching and training, as well as supporting other entities in policy development and research. These functions are designed to align with the objectives and capture the full suite of services delivered by the VIFM. Similar to the objects, the functions are drafted flexibly to support the scope of services as they evolve over time.

One final area that I will briefly discuss too is the information-sharing framework, which will also be implemented under the bill that is before us today. Currently the collection and curation of information through coronial processes is as directed by the Coroners Court, various police investigations as requested by VicPol and other functions. The new powers under the bill before us today will allow for the VIFM to use or disclose information it holds about an individual for teaching, training and research; in order to support other entities in developing policy; and in conducting research, with appropriate safeguards. By clarifying these information-sharing abilities, it will be better positioned to support other entities with the development of public health policy and research. Again, going back to the ways in which we can export the incredible knowledge that is gained here in Victoria in the field of medical research specifically as it comes to forensic medicine, we can actually export that as one of our most burgeoning industries in fact. But also, importantly, by codifying it into the legislation we can do so in a way that locks in those safeguards for the way in which that information is used and that ensures that it is in compliance with acts such as the Health Records Act 2001 and the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014, because as we do look to the VIFM spreading its expertise and showcasing the very best of Victorian medical research and innovation, it is critically important that of course that is done in a way that is very cognisant and mindful of people’s personal information and does not involve the inappropriate sharing of personal or identifying details. So by having a legislative framework around that, we can ensure that that particular aspect of the agency’s work can be done at an expanded level but at one which will guarantee the privacy of Victorians.

There are many good aspects to the legislation before us today. I look forward to seeing further debate on this bill and look forward to voting in favour of this bill when the time comes, in perhaps the next hour or so. I do commend the bill to the house.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:18): I too rise to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, and might I first start by commending those who work so diligently in this field of forensic medicine in Victoria, and the doctors as well, who are completely run off their feet in trying to do their work in this forensic field. Having had family work in a field where they have had to look at victims of crime and consider the situation that they find themselves in and make reports, I understand the importance of this being done and done well. It has probably been said from the outset that we are looking at amendments, but we are also looking at not opposing the bill as it is at this point in time. But I must add that there are a number of little red flags here for me, and I am not sure that this particular bill is going to adequately address these issues. One of them is the number of complaints with WorkSafe, with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) having dangerously long working hours. That really bothers me, because I happen to know, particularly in the medical field – and I would say this is outside the nursing field, where they have obviously worked very hard to have very strict hours and to be paid for the hours they work – of the number of people that work in the medical profession, for example as doctors, who work an enormous number of hours, and they do not get paid for all the hours that they work.

When it comes to this sort of field, it often requires them to go above and beyond. That is why we saw the report that we did – which many of my colleagues and others in this house and this place have mentioned – about a woman that found herself waiting for more than a whole day, having to wear soiled underpants while she was waiting to be examined forensically. It is simply not good enough in a First World country and in a state like Victoria, which was once the jewel in the crown of Australia, to have a woman – or a child or any person – go through a situation where they are required to remain bloodied and soiled and stay in that space for hours and hours and hours on end because this government has failed to put enough money into this field and also to have enough personnel working in the field and to have an environment that helps them to be able to do their job and do it well. It is not that there are not people interested in working in the field of forensics but simply that this has not been managed really well.

I look at the purpose of this bill and I see a few red flags myself. For instance, it is introducing new governance and guiding principles for the VIFM. The idea of sharing information is a concern – I know that others have mentioned that as well. But also if you have a person in a role where they are only being paid for one job but are performing the role of two, in the VIFM at a leadership level, that bothers me, because that might mean that the person who needs to be doing that role is not the person doing the role or that they are overworked or the VIFM is understaffed. We are really not effecting positive change if we are introducing legislation that is going to tie this in. It could allow the VIFM – the forensic side of it – to be politicised and used as a weapon instead of actually doing the job for which it was supposed to be set up. I, for one, would hate to think that victims of the most horrendous crimes would not be able to see justice because the legislation is not addressing their needs appropriately or not addressing them enough.

Of course we do need to reform the legislation – it is out of date – and of course we do need to support forensic medicine, because clearly not enough has been done in this space to help victims of crime. It really bothers me to think that we would expect or even think it is appropriate in any shape or form to have to have people waiting for forensic examinations. Speeding up the process is extremely important, and I am not entirely convinced that this bill is adequately addressing that process. Sure, it is a start, and sure, there may be the potential for greater oversight.

It bothers me too that we are locking people into five-year contracts. If the system is not working appropriately and effectively, what happens then? I noticed that the bill allows people who are seen to be the right fit to be brought in to get the work done, but there are no parameters for the type of field or experience that they necessarily have to have. When they are dealing with such sensitive data, I would hate to think that that information could get into the hands of the wrong people simply because they were able to be employed in this field.

These are some of the little red flags that I noticed when I was reading through it. But, again, the main reason why I did want to speak is because it was only two years ago this September that we were finding out about this very brave victim who was speaking out about the fact that she had to wait for nearly 30 hours to be examined, remaining in bloodied and soiled clothes. I know that men get raped too, but for women, it is such a personal and intimate thing to have happen. And to have to stay in soiled clothes waiting for an examination, you could not be human if you did not actually feel a tremendous empathy and recognise that something significant has to be done.

I also have to take note of the fact that – and I do want to mention it when we look at this – the Law Institute of Victoria also has concerns regarding the use and disclosure of information pertaining to individuals. They do not believe that there are sufficient safeguards in this bill. I think too that the concerns about being able to have a forensic report and not have it reported to police – there is something valid in that. Maybe that data will be helpful at a different time, but I think that there is a space for that.

I also feel when I am looking at this bill that there are a number of things that come up with the data and the way that it is used, and I just felt that it was important to mention that we have not as a coalition ourselves prepared something in particular beyond our amendments for this. We are not going to be opposing this. We have not done the work that the government has recently been doing in this area and in this field, but we do see it as incredibly important. We do see it as something that needs to be addressed, and we certainly do not want Victorians to be suffering any more than they currently are.

My contribution at this point in time will be very brief, but I did want to just shout out to those who do work in this field. It is a very difficult field to work in, and what happens to people in circumstances when they are victims of crime is the trauma that they suffer does not need to be perpetuated by legislation that does not adequately address the needs of the services that we provide in this state. So I do look forward to seeing positive change. As I said, I am not convinced that this bill is going to provide enough of that positive change in the areas where it is most needed. However, I am very pleased to be able to speak on it and read about it and about what is being done. I will be looking to see in the future who is actually employed and how that is actually working – in what context and framework that is working – because that will be an indication of how well this is actually going to roll out for the state of Victoria and in particular for our victims of crime.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:28): I rise today to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. I have followed a range of speakers here in this chamber who have paid recognition to the crucial role that the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine plays in Victoria’s public health and legal systems. That is why it is important that its guiding legislation reflects the contemporary standards of public sector governance.

The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024 will replace the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 to ensure that VIFM’s approach to service delivery is people-centred and its world-leading status is maintained. The bill clarifies the functions and power of the VIFM to improve alignment with its service offerings, ensuring that the VIFM can fulfil its aims. I am delighted to say that this, the 2024 bill, does not reduce the current scope of services. It expands VIFM’s functions to clarify existing roles within forensic toxicology, teaching, data, training and research, as well as supporting the disclosure of external research for medical and policy development. Considering that the enabling legislation – my gosh – has not substantially changed in over 30 years, let me just say that the VIFM has expanded its services.

It is important that the new bill clarifies the functions, the structures and the procedures of the VIFM. Although there have been updates to the statutory objectives and functions of the VIFM on a needs basis, what has happened is that the staggering changes have created confusion over the responsibilities and priorities of the organisation. This bill before us today seeks to clarify these functions. The new bill will support the VIFM in fulfilling their roles in both the public sector and the justice system. Under these changes reforms will be made to the governance structure and the board as well as in clarifying employment arrangements. The current board will be replaced with a skills-based board to ensure it is reflective of modern governance standards for public entities and best practice governance standards. I am delighted to see that included. Additionally, the 2024 bill clarifies when and how the VIFM may use and disclose information for purposes other than the primary purpose of collection.

The bill accompanies our government’s record $100 million-plus investment in VIFM since the 2021–‍22 state budget, which has enabled the institute to build on its capacity and essential service delivery. This allocated funding has supported the addition of magnetic resonance imaging capability – that is a new one for me, but I am glad to see that that is included – infrastructure improvements and a new case management system. The additional boost in funding has also aided in its transition to new clinical forensic medicine service delivery models across both metropolitan and regional Victoria, ensuring that forensic medical examinations can be available to survivors of sexual assault on their terms at all times. We know that the Victorian institute makes a valuable contribution to the justice system. They work with the legal sector to provide independent forensic medicine and scientific expertise. This can include crucial evidence that underpins safe convictions and appropriate acquittals, and in doing so they are serving both the government and the courts. It is really important in our work to ensure that our legal system is just and that it is fair. That is why this new bill plays a crucial role in strengthening and clarifying the institute’s role in government and in the coronial and justice systems.

The new bill establishes principles that guide service delivery, and it clarifies the objects, functions and powers of the VIFM. A key difference between the old act and the new bill is the replacement of the current council of representative stakeholders with a skills-based board who will be the new governing body. In order for a person to be appointed to the board, their knowledge and experience must be within one or more of the fields relevant to the organisation, including forensic medicine or a relevant field of science. This can include commercial, operational, legal or financial matters as well as clinical governance, the criminal justice system or any other field relevant to the functions of the board. Furthermore, it is worth noting that a minimum of one board member must have the financial expertise to ensure that financial management obligations are met. The skills-based board model will ensure that there is a collective skill set for the board to govern effectively and meet the needs of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. The new bill will also ensure that the board is supported by a stakeholder advisory group who can provide advice and assistance to the board in their decision-making processes.

The bill addresses much-needed reform of the governing structures. It also includes the fact about the replacement of the council, which is currently, frankly, compromised by members who all represent specific stakeholders, and this has created some perceived or actual conflicts of interest. I know that the new governance structure is designed to incorporate some best practice guidelines for governing public entities from the Victorian Public Sector Commission. It includes some robust clinical governance principles. I will just note, as somebody who has been involved in previous government appointments, particularly around clinical governance, how very important this is with these changes, as potentially in the bill we can ensure that stakeholder interests are appropriately represented and appointees to the new skills-based board will have the experience to oversee specific matters. Changes to the governance structure include the replacement of the director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine with a chief executive officer, who will be responsible for day-to-day operations and management, as well as a director of forensic medicine, who will be responsible for providing clinical guidance to the CEO – that is the position that I just mentioned that is replacing the former director – as well as supervising research and teaching functions. There are a range of public servants working at the institute, and they will now be employed directly by VIFM, whereas the current practice is that they are employed by the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety. There are some pretty substantial changes in there that I think will make a world of difference.

The new bill also includes an information-sharing framework that will enable the institute to use and disclose information gathered in its operations to support research and policy development. The majority of the data currently collected by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine is produced to support the coronial process as directed by the Coroners Court or police investigations as requested by Victoria Police. Under the current act VIFM does not have the power to disclose data and information for purposes other than the primary purpose of collection. That makes sense when you think about it, but I have got to say it does in fact restrict its ability to contribute data to support public health policy and public health research. By clarifying the data- and information-sharing powers, we can really overcome some of the uncertainty and ambiguity that may already exist in the information-sharing processes. Under the new bill there is a clear framework to overcome current legal ambiguity; apply appropriate safeguards, which is incredibly important; and allow for the institute to extend the use of valuable information for medical and scientific research fields and public policy. Safeguards that apply to the institute sharing and disclosing information under Victoria’s information frameworks are certainly something that has been worthy of consideration and discussion in the bill contributions by members here. What we do know is the institute is bound by Victoria’s privacy and data framework, which guides the collection, use and storage of information. Furthermore, it is subject to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which requires the institute to consider rights when exercising a discretionary decision to disclose data.

Under the bill before us the institute must notify the State Coroner or Chief Commissioner of Police if the proposed use or sharing of information by the institute relates to coronial investigations, criminal proceedings or criminal investigations that have commenced or may be commenced in the future. The State Coroner and/or the Chief Commissioner of Police, as I said, are then allowed 21 days to advise the institute if they consider the proposed disclosure of information is likely to prejudice a coronial investigation or a criminal investigation or proceeding. In the case that the advice received by the VIFM identifies likely prejudice, the institute cannot use or disclose the information unless further safeguards can be implemented to eliminate the risks, in agreement with the Coroners Court or Victoria Police. These changes reflect the evolving environment and support shifts in public governance best practice and the services of the institute.

The changes have come as a result of the 2023 government review of the current action, which engaged key stakeholders including the institute to ensure that they remain well positioned to continue their world-leading status – something that we are a little bit proud of here in this state. With the new governance structures and the data disclosing, this bill will represent best practice governance for public entities. They will ensure that we modernise and continue to meet community expectations as well as support government and the coronial and justice systems.

We did not come up with this alone, of course. In developing this bill, the government consulted with key stakeholders: of course the institute itself, as you would expect; but also the Coroners Court of Victoria; Victoria Police; the Aboriginal Justice Caucus; and other relevant government departments. As I said, the Aboriginal Justice Caucus was engaged, and it is worth noting that this bill also includes a dedicated principle that recognises and reflects the diverse needs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, and the principles acknowledge the importance of self-determination, which I was very pleased to see there. It further requires the institute to respect the cultural beliefs of any person affected by the event to which the institute’s services relate. This will ensure that the services provided are culturally safe and culturally responsive and that all engagement with Aboriginal stakeholders is appropriate, with cultural rights considered in the delivery of objectives and functions. For example, this may include giving considerations to culturally sensitive ways of engaging with the families of deceased Aboriginal people.

In fact I wanted to take a moment to talk about that work, because I have previously been involved in the establishment of those protocols for the Coroners Court, as a result of some distress that had been felt by members of Aboriginal families when engaging in the Coroners Court. The appointment of some senior Aboriginal leadership in the Coroners Court and the application and understanding of those protocols in the Coroners Court is something that I am enormously proud of. Having sat in for some coronial inquiries some years ago, I will say that it is quite a distressing environment, so to see that this bill has a range of amendments that include the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and self-determination and cultural rights and responsibilities – it brings me some joy to reflect on the changes that are being made. There is in fact a possum skin cloak that exists at the Coroners Court of Victoria, where you will see some of my own words inscribed in that, giving my blessings to Aboriginal families that need to engage with the coronial court and all of the processes of that. I got a little off track there, thinking about that experience and what happened there, but I tell you, that was a very, very tough time for all of us involved.

I will go back and maybe talk a little bit about the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria with the time that I have got left and thank them for their work, including the support that they receive from the institute of forensic medicine to support our state’s legal and public health systems and ensure that safe tissues relating to medical specialists and Victorian hospitals are involved. I am just so delighted to see this bill in its entirety before us, and I commend it to the chamber today.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:43): In summing up, I would like to thank previous speakers. They have all adequately run through the purposes of the bill. Obviously this is about replacing the current Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 as VIFM-enabling legislation. We have heard a lot about the wonderful work that VIFM do in the contributions. Thank you, Ms Watt, for the engagement that you have had with the Coroners Court and the principles that you have assisted in – really important work – and the valued contribution that the Aboriginal Justice Caucus have made in that regard as well. I think just for people’s information, the Aboriginal Justice Caucus meet quarterly as the Aboriginal Justice Forum, and representatives of the coroner, if not the coroner himself usually, John Cain, are present there, just showing how connected the Coroners Court is to the needs of our First Nations people.

It is kind of an organisation, VIFM, that is not necessarily front and centre, but it does such critical work. It is often thankless and unrecognised work, but it is of enormous benefit to the public. I very much enjoy my visits to the organisation. I learn something every time I go there, and I am just fascinated by the work that they do, so it is really wonderful that we are able to ensure that legislation is catching up to that organisation to better reflect its governance.

It has also been a really good opportunity for people to talk about the organisation and indeed learn about it if they did not know before, because of course VIFM is not just limited to acting as the state morgue or even to examinations of bodies. It is a world-class forensic medical institute. It works across fields of science and medicine to support coronial, criminal and other legal processes as well as functions that benefit the Victorian community, such as the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria, and lots of scientific research and teaching in forensic medicine. Their expertise and research is valued nationally and internationally, which does contribute to Victoria’s reputation as a knowledge state. The Age today, for instance, talked about the work of Associate Professor Jen Schumann. She is the head of the drug intelligence unit, and the article went into the important work she has been doing over many years in relation to drug checking and indeed the advice that she is able to provide in relation to how you can go about that and why this is so important in terms of identifying emerging drugs and the impacts on people and in being able to provide advice to law enforcement and health authorities through that work.

The sheer breadth of the functions and services that VIFM provide makes it all the more essential that we have modern, fit-for-purpose enabling legislation that needs to keep up with the contemporary expectations of the community and of the public entities that rely on the work of VIFM, recognising and enhancing VIFM’s independence to better perform its critical role in the justice system. That is why also the government is very proud to continue to invest in VIFM’s work. Over $93 million was provided in the 2021–22 budget to build their capability and essential service delivery, including through the addition of MRIs, magnetic resonance imaging capability. It is amazing, the great work that important equipment can ensure that they are able to do. We are also investing in lab equipment, infrastructure improvements and a new case management system.

VIFM is a world-leading forensic medical institute. They do participate and are valued across the world. It was only last week that I was there when we had a meeting in relation to pill testing and the issues that are associated with the science behind testing, and the participants from VIFM joined us from Zurich, some of them, and beamed into the boardroom there at VIFM to ensure that they could share their expertise with me and the Minister for Mental Health. In that regard I do want to give a shout-out to the CEO Noel Woodford and chair Margaret Grigg, who are always really welcoming and enthusiastic to share the amazing work that VIFM do but also to help me in my work as Attorney-General in identifying the needs and responding to the needs of VIFM and how they interrelate with the rest of the justice system.

I will use this opportunity to touch on the reasons that we cannot support the opposition’s reasoned amendment. I understand that it is still being moved today despite the fact that I think a lot of the issues have been well canvassed, but I will repeat some of those issues at the outset. I do want to reiterate that this bill in its whole is largely a technical governance bill. This is not about the operations of VIFM per se, and therefore it is really about the restructuring VIFM to ensure they can continue to meet the demands of expansion and to ensure they remain at the forefront of increasingly sophisticated technological and scientific advances and continue to provide the highest quality services to the Victorian community.

Given the technical nature of the bill, the government consulted predominantly with VIFM, the Coroners Court, Victoria Police and, as we have heard, Aboriginal Justice Caucus, because it was about the governance arrangements, not necessarily how they interact with the public in an operational sense. I do however want to note that the bill establishes a stakeholder advisory group. The role of the stakeholder advisory group is to provide meaningful input and feedback regarding VIFM operational policy and effectiveness, so I anticipate that many stakeholders, particularly in the health, medical and victim-support sectors, will have the ability to have greater access to continued discussions, consultation and improvements in relation to how VIFM delivers its services. This platform, in my view, will be the most appropriate avenue to ventilate any of the feedback, as opposed to consultation, on a governance-forming bill.

The contributions also from the other place included references to VIFM’s clinical forensic model. Survivors of sexual violence of course should always have our support when they need it most, and I want to acknowledge the pain of survivors and the duty we have to ensure that in our response we do not contribute further to that pain. All victim-survivors should be supported to seek justice, treatment and support, and this is an issue that has been on my priority list for some time but particularly when we responded in the 2023–24 budget, which provided $19.47 million to boost funding to support VIFM to continue its transition to a clinical forensic medicine service delivery model. This model has supported the recruitment of additional forensic nurses and doctors to bolster the existing clinical forensic medicine workforce across metropolitan and, importantly, regional Victoria, where we had identified gaps. It guarantees forensic medical examinations can be available to victim-survivors of sexual assault on their terms 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This year’s budget continues to support these vital services, and the new model is delivering much better outcomes for victim-survivors, who are able to choose the gender of their examiner and when and where the examination will take place.

Forensic medical examinations will be available across Victoria in an improved and timely way and available to victim-survivors. This is also for victim-survivors who do not want to or are not quite ready to make a report to police. Of course there is always more to be done in this space, and we will continue to work with victim-survivors, their advocates and experts to ensure the system is delivering the services that are needed across Victoria.

The reasoned amendment also talks about safeguards. I want to put on record that the bill establishes a clear information use and disclosure framework that will overcome the current legal ambiguity, apply appropriate safeguards and allow VIFM to expand access to information that is of high value to medical and scientific research and public policy. Given the nature of the data VIFM holds and collects, there should be proper safeguards, and I acknowledge that. These should be in place to ensure that VIFM data is used and disclosed appropriately. The bill places the requirement on VIFM to consult and seek advice from the state coroner if related to a coronial investigation or from the Chief Commissioner of Police if related to a criminal investigation prior to the release of information. Both parties will have an opportunity to review the information and advise VIFM about whether the disclosure is likely to prejudice an investigation. VIFM must then either refrain from disclosing the information or make appropriate adjustments to the nature of the information such that the risk of prejudice is mitigated.

These are not the only safeguards. There are pre-existing legal obligations in the Health Records Act 2001 and the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. These provisions guide the collection, use and storage of information. VIFM is also subject to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which includes obligations on public authorities, including independent statutory entities providing services on behalf of the Victorian government, to consider charter rights when exercising discretionary decisions to disclose information. As such VIFM routinely de-identifies and aggregates data before sharing it or using it for its own research, although some research will require identifying information.

A further safeguard is that all research applications that involve the use of human tissue, data or live participants go through the VIFM human research ethics committee, which considers research applications supported by VIFM or using VIFM’s information. This group must comply with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research of 2023, which provides a thorough and rigorous consideration process. The committee must consider the protection of privacy for humans participating in research and their data.

There have been contributions from members across the chamber about the world-class nature of VIFM. VIFM provides many services and functions, from forensic medical examinations to clinical forensic medical services provided to victim-survivors of sexual assault and the donor tissue bank, which I have touched on – a fantastic and essential service that provides Australian surgeons with safe and effective tissue grafts for transplants in many areas of orthopaedic and reconstructive surgery and burn care, benefiting many patients every year. Their expertise, as I have touched on, is just so integral to the operation of Victoria’s medical and justice system, but it is also sought after nationally and internationally. Some of the recent work that I would like to highlight is capability building in autopsy and mortuary services for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Bhutan, Lebanon, Armenia and Ukraine and managing the national disaster victim identification response for the federal government, which includes international disasters.

It is undeniable that the VIFM is a top-tier institute. The staff are incredibly passionate and dedicated. They do essential yet, as I have said, understated work, but perhaps the more we talk about it, the more people will realise how great they are. They work in the support of the Coroners Court and Victoria Police in particular, but they also have a broader public benefit. As I said, they are an amazing institute – pioneers in the forensic medical and toxicology spaces – and they should have enabling legislation that better reflects the critical work they do. Hence I am very proud to, after quite some time, finally get this bill to the chamber so that we can get on and support them.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (13): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Richard Welch

Noes (24): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:03)

Georgie CROZIER: Attorney, you said in your summing-up that this is a largely technical bill, yet there has been criticism from various agencies and bodies, such as the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Law Institute of Victoria (LIV), to say that they were not consulted and that they have got considerable concerns around the bill. Could you explain to the committee why those two agencies in particular were not consulted as they had expected to be?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. Ms Crozier, as I indicated in my summing-up, this is a governance bill, and it is not intended to address operational and policy matters. So for that purpose this bill was developed in close consultation with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM), the Coroners Court and Victoria Police in particular. The bill creates a stakeholder advisory group, which is the perfect avenue for other stakeholders to provide input into VIFM’s operational policies and effectiveness. People like sexual assault services would be certainly a group that I would anticipate would be on there; LIV to a lesser degree might come and go from their views in relation to that. But in terms of police, the AMA and medical-type groups, there is an advisory body that will be set up for that. So this is more of an enabling piece of legislation that would address some of those issue. This bill does not go to the operational issues that those organisations that you have listed would ordinarily raise.

Georgie CROZIER: But I would contend, Attorney, that it does go to operational issues. You reference the police as a major stakeholder, who have got obviously a clear role to play in the forensic elements and investigations from the findings of VIFM, from the clinical aspects that are collected. Why have you highlighted the police as a particular agency where those others are not, given you just said they will be forming part of the stakeholder consultancy group that you will have ongoing dialogue with? I would contend that they are equally important in the role of this governance given even the bill provides for the appointment of a chief executive officer, clause 24, and also the role of director of forensic medicine, clause 26, so they do have particular interests given those two areas. Forensic medicine is part of that clinical aspect which the AMA have raised concerns with you about.

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, this bill is not about those matters. This bill is a governance bill. VIFM provides services to the Coroners Court and police in relation to the forensic work that they do, so those agencies are directly relevant to a governance-type arrangement, not in the service provision in the sense of how you have described it. I would argue that your contention is not correct, because the issues that those groups would raise are not governance-related issues. They would be operations-related issues, and there will be provision for those matters to be facilitated through this bill. This bill is mainly architecture to promote greater consultation for the groups that you have mentioned. Where it is relevant particularly for me and the department to have engaged with Victoria Police and the Coroners Court is in relation to the information sharing, because that is something that is outlined in the bill, so I had to make sure that the practical implementation of the bill worked for those agencies.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, who conducted the independent review that you refuse to provide and make public?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, that was an independent internal government review.

Georgie CROZIER: There are concerns about that review that you have not made public. You say this is a technical bill and you have gone through the process of an internal review, but you will not even say what the issues or the recommendations were from that internal review. You have brought this legislation to the house. You have not consulted with a large number of stakeholders. You say that there is going to be ongoing consultation with the stakeholders that have raised concerns with you regarding this bill. I think that is a flawed process, I think you have not conducted it properly and I think it is rushed, as the Shadow Attorney-General highlighted in his speech, where he also mentioned the law institute.

I want to quote this, because these are the issues that have been raised. You are saying it is a governance issue, but it goes to the very heart of these bodies that you therefore say the police, the Coroners Court and others have to deal with. The Shadow Attorney said:

The law institute also raises, I think not unreasonably, the question of: what about the consent of the individual where it is their information? What about the consent of the individual’s next of kin where the information might relate to a deceased person? If we are talking about personal information, shouldn’t there be an obligation not just to contact the coroner or to contact police to see if releasing this is going to interfere with an investigation in some way but to contact the person concerned or the person’s next of kin to ask if that is okay too, or to at least consider whether they have got a view?

Aren’t they partly governance-related issues that VIFM has to deal with?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, if you go through the clauses of the bill, there is nothing that stops some of the issues that you have raised being discussed in future operational decisions. But I think, in a direct response to the issues that you have raised, what I covered in my summing-up was that information is routinely de-identified and the safeguards in the bill are all about addressing some of the issues that you raised.

Georgie CROZIER: Did the review highlight any risks to patients or clinicians?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think I would require you to be slightly more specific to the question you are asking and to which clause of the bill you would like me to answer that.

Georgie CROZIER: I am still on clause 1. I am still raising issues around the internal review, and my question to you is: did the internal review highlight any risks to patients or clinicians regarding some of the aspects around VIFM that you say need to be improved through this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: I repeat that this is a governance bill, Ms Crozier.

Georgie CROZIER: Yes, I know it is a governance bill. But I do contend that you have not consulted widely with the stakeholders that you should have. I want to move back to a question time two years ago when I and other members highlighted the case of Ms Stewart, who had been sexually assaulted. At the time, when she was talking around the services for victims, including support in VIFM, you gave the answer that ‘if there is anything more we can do in an immediate term, that is something we should do’ and ‘it is a conversation that I also want to have with the health department and the Minister for Health in relation to ensuring that we have adequate services and the right people’. Has that been undertaken? Have you got those assurances?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, I am happy to answer the question. I did cover off on some of this in my summing-up. It is not directly related to the bill, and I know that you know that, but it is an important issue. Of course I spoke extensively to people at that time, including nurses, the nurses union, the health minister, the health department. It was not satisfactory to me to have advice that there were gaps in responses to victims of sexual assault, and we took steps and invested in a new model to address exactly that.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, given that Victoria is the only state that has this particular service under justice when other states have it under health, did the review look at that element and did you consider VIFM being moved to the health department?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Crozier, I get the question. I understand that Victoria has a unique arrangement. I think it is an appropriate arrangement, but I do not consider myself as Attorney the owner of VIFM. It was only last week that Minister Stitt accompanied me to have conversations with the staff at VIFM and we were joined by the secretary for health and the secretary for justice. Government tries not to operate in silos that prevent appropriate agencies being able to consult with people that they need to, so I just put that on the record. I do not have a territorial ownership of this organisation, but for Victoria it has sat with justice for a long time, and we have not been persuaded that that should change.

VIFM’s key role is in relation to supporting the justice system. It ensures the integrative evidence provided to courts and police, and obviously that work is particularly relevant to the Coroners Court. Most of VIFM’s key functions are justice system functions, conducting medical examinations at the direction of a coroner or in accordance with the Coroners Act 2008. The Attorney-General has a portfolio of responsibility for the Coroners Court. I can confirm that VIFM and the Coroners Court work very closely; they are physically next to each other. VIFM has a number of other functions which enable it to support the Coroners Court, including to ‘receive reports of reportable deaths and reviewable deaths, take possession of bodies and request and receive information from family members of deceased persons to assist coroners’. VIFM is also responsible for providing forensic scientific services to VicPol and other public entities to maintain the integrity of Victoria’s justice system. The VIFM board reports regularly to the Attorney-General ‘on emerging or actual performance concerns, performance against agreed standards’ and any information that is also requested by me.

As I said, I understand why people would sometimes be a little confused about why it is not under health, as there are lots of people in white lab coats and the like. I can assure you in my dealings with VIFM I have never felt that I should not be the responsible minister, considering the work that they do, but it is certainly important to have a crossover with health.

Georgie CROZIER: Clause 34 provides that before using or disclosing any information, the institute must notify the State Coroner or the Chief Commissioner of Police respectively of the proposed use or disclosure, and those entities have, as I understand it, 21 days in which to respond. It is also my understanding that the LIV have expressed concern at the use of disclosure provisions, and that the bill assumes that a failure by the CCP or the State Coroner to respond to a notification within 21 days denotes consent, as well as concerns that the tests for whether the informant should be used or disclosed is unclear. Can you comment on those concerns?

Jaclyn SYMES: I can confirm, Ms Crozier, that this particular provision was subject to a lot of consultation and there were a lot of views and a lot of hypotheticals that went backwards and forwards, so the issues or the concerns that you have expressed, particularly through the lens of LIV, were well ventilated. This is a compromise position that both VicPol and the Coroners Court believe is workable.

Georgie CROZIER: I understand that they think it is workable, but does it go to the point that failure to respond to that notification within 21 days denotes consent? Is that the intention of that clause?

Jaclyn SYMES: I was just having a conversation with the box because we have gone through a lot of this in detail ourselves. The way you have described the question – it is not necessarily about does it denote consent or not; it means that no issues were likely to have been identified and therefore not communicated.

David LIMBRICK: As I stated in my second-reading speech, I just have a few issues that I would like to get on the record around information sharing. I thank the Attorney-General’s office for providing us with some information, but nevertheless I would like to get some of these things on the record. With regard to sharing this information, what sorts of organisations are expected to want access to this data that would be shared?

Jaclyn SYMES: In general they will be scientific and medical researchers, academic or within organisations; and VIFM forensic pathologists or clinical forensic medicine clinicians undertaking research, which is a function under the VIFM act used to provide insights – for example, how to improve practice to get better evidence; how to reduce instances of certain kinds of illness, injury or cause of death; and how to improve certain technology in use in practice. It could also be sought by public policy organisations for whom the information will directly inform public policy. It could be organisations such as the McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer, VicRoads for information relevant to road safety regulation and WorkSafe for information relevant to workplace deaths.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for clarifying that and getting that on the record. Are there any organisations that would not be permitted to access this data?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, noting the range of organisations that conduct medical research and develop public policy, we did not consider that it was appropriate to place a limitation on the types of organisations applying for the release of information. For example, private hospitals may host research functions that produce research that will lead to beneficial developments in medical treatment or practice. We did not want to make it exclude private organisations on that basis. But I would point out that under clause 33(c) of the bill any information released will include an agreement with VIFM that limits the entity’s use of the information to the purpose as specified in the agreement, being purposes consistent with the institute’s objectives. It is a role that the institute takes very seriously.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the Attorney for clarifying that. Just finally, maybe the Attorney could provide some more information on some of the risks and other safeguards that can be put in place and maybe some examples of these safeguards that are in place to protect this type of information.

Jaclyn SYMES: It is a good opportunity for me to put some of this on the record, because of course safeguards are incredibly important to apply to VIFM’s information. It is inherently private and personal information, but it has such public benefit if used for appropriate purposes. VIFM is bound by Victoria’s privacy and data protection framework, which includes the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 and the Health Records Act 2011, which guide the collection, use and storage of information. VIFM is also subject to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which includes obligations to ensure that public authorities, including independent statutory entities who are providing services on behalf of the Victorian government, consider charter rights when exercising a discretionary decision to disclose information. VIFM routinely de-identify and aggregate data before sharing it or using it for their own research, although some research will require identifying information such as ages and sexes, for example.

The bill requires VIFM to notify the State Coroner or Chief Commissioner of Police of the proposed use or disclosure if the information relates to a coronial investigation, a criminal investigation or a criminal proceeding that has been or may be commenced. Similar to the conversation that Ms Crozier and I were just having, VIFM must allow the State Coroner or the chief commissioner 21 days in which to advise VIFM if they consider that the use or disclosure is likely to prejudice an investigation or proceeding. If VIFM do receive advice that that is likely, they cannot use or disclose the information unless further safeguards can be put in place to remove the relevant risks in discussion with the Coroners Court or with VicPol, as is appropriate. The safeguards will ensure that VIFM can contribute to important policy and research development without impacting any related coronial investigations, criminal investigations or criminal proceedings. It is important work that can be facilitated via the information that VIFM holds and can, as I said, in appropriate circumstances provide an immense public benefit. There is also the human research ethics committee, which I alluded to, and their work and the obligations to VIFM under that entity in relation to the advice that they provide.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Attorney, with regard to the establishment of the institute’s new board, what steps will be taken to ensure that there are members who have relevant clinical expertise to input into that board?

Jaclyn SYMES: I can confirm, Dr Mansfield, that clinical forensic medical expertise is very important and it is what you see on show when you visit VIFM. In relation to your question specifically, that type of expertise can be accommodated on the board as it is a field of forensic medicine. Clause 11 of the bill outlines the composition of the board, providing that in making a recommendation to the Governor in Council that a person be appointed to the board the Attorney-General must be satisfied that the person who is recommended has appropriate knowledge, skills and experience in one or more of the listed areas. One of the specified areas is a field of forensic medicine. The criterion highlights the importance of forensic medicine expertise on the VIFM board, and I can personally confirm that it is something that I would be looking for.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I thank the Attorney for that response and assurance. As you would be aware – and this has already been touched on by Ms Crozier – there are concerns from stakeholders about VIFM remaining within the Department of Justice and Community Safety rather than being overseen by the Department of Health, as is the case for similar bodies in other jurisdictions. What steps is the department taking to ensure that there will be a health-based, victim-survivor-centred approach to the work undertaken by VIFM, particularly in the setting of the multidisciplinary clinics?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, I did sort of cover this off with Ms Crozier, and to be honest it could sit with either in the way you have asked your question. I would not have thought that the health minister or the Attorney-General would have differing views in relation to victim-centred responses to the forensic collection of evidence. I dealt with the change in model, and I did not speak to lawyers, I spoke to nurses in my capacity as Attorney. In my time in the role no-one has expressly been concerned about me as Attorney having responsibility for VIFM directly, and as I said to Ms Crozier, both the Minister for Mental Health and the Minister for Health are always welcome at VIFM. I do not stamp the passport for other ministers to head down; there is a lot of crossover. But I think the stakeholder advisory group will be invaluable in the input that they give to make sure that anything that is not in my direct line of sight from a health perspective – I am sure that there are people that we could speak to that would always make sure that I am aware of such issues, if it is not the minister herself.

Sarah MANSFIELD: This may fall slightly outside the scope of the bill, but again I think it is similar to some of the concerns that have been aired already. Some stakeholders have raised concerns about the model of care that is used, particularly in the multidisciplinary clinics, and I am wondering if the Attorney can provide any evidence that supports the current model of care, which is a nurse-led model of care, in delivering services at those clinics.

Jaclyn SYMES: I did have this conversation with Ms Crozier, so I am more than happy to have it with you as well, Dr Mansfield. VIFM’s new model for clinical forensic medicine was all about taking a victim-centred approach to the delivery of forensic medical examinations to victim-survivors. I know that some people had views that it should only be doctors, and I was not convinced of that, particularly because I spoke to nurses who were really interested in this work. I spoke to the nurses union about ‘Is this an area that you think would be attractive to nurses?’ and I spoke to victims who – to be frank, many – said they would prefer nurses to doctors. So with that information at hand, we undertook to revise the model to use nurses as well as forensic medical officers to undertake the examinations, of course with appropriate supervision and training from senior clinicians in clinical forensic medicine. There is always going to be a role for these types of experts, but a nurse-led model was, in our view, a way to ensure greater flexibility and greater coverage around the state and to address some issues that we were unhappy about.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 61 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:34): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:34): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.