Thursday, 19 February 2026

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:00): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. From the outset, I want to make it clear that the Liberals and Nationals will not be opposing this bill. I want to particularly start off by speaking to one change that the government is moving, reversing a position they took in the anti-vilification laws debate, to enable Victoria Police to prosecute rather than the DPP. This is something that the Liberals and Nationals have been calling for. The Liberals and Nationals were pretty shocked to see a deal done to reverse this at the time. It is something that we have both moved amendments on and spoken about, in particular with hate crimes. We know that in past hate crimes have not had the opportunity to go to prosecution because of the referral to the DPP.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I do not think Mr Batchelor, if I am going to take up the interjection, understands the laws that were in place previously either where many cases were tied up in the DPP, not leading to any prosecutions. As we warned, and as I warned from this very position in this place, the government then did a deal with the Greens to prevent what the Jewish community wanted at the time, which was the police to have the power to prosecute. I am glad they have finally moved. It should not have had to take a terrorist incident where 15 innocent lives were lost for the government to realise that this was the right thing to do. It was as it was originally drafted, but unfortunately the government did a deal with the Greens to reverse that position, and we are pleased that the government has seen sense on this.

I understand that the government is attempting to brief the Jewish community that we are trying to stop or delay these changes. I want to be very clear that we are not, and I want to be very clear that we warned the government at the time of the anti-vilification debate not to do a deal with the Greens to have the DPP responsible for prosecutions. We warned about it very clearly, so it stands to reason that we would wholeheartedly support this particular amendment that is long overdue.

The incident, the terrorist attack, we saw at Bondi, affected many people and many families in our Jewish community. In fact, with the Leader of the Opposition, I attended Caulfield Hebrew Congregation the morning after that terrible terrorist attack in Bondi. The Jewish community, regardless of where you live in Australia, is like a family and many of them knew people that were directly affected. They knew people that were on the beach and, unfortunately, they knew people that had lost their lives. One of the things they told us really strongly was that there was a need for action and a need for further action on hate and on incitement and they specifically referenced this particular amendment. We are pleased that the government has also picked up this advocacy from the Jewish community and included that as part of this bill.

We are wholeheartedly supportive of these changes and will do everything possible to see them pass. I understand there may be amendments by the Greens on particular amendments. Having spoken before they have had an opportunity to table them, they have been quite public about their amendment on follow-the-money powers for IBAC, which is something that we have also been quite strong on. Of course we will support an expansion of scope. So they can move that amendment, and in particular we will support that amendment as well. I think what we have seen over the last weeks in relation to the CFMEU scandal that is engulfing this government – that is $15 billion of taxpayer dollars that has gone to bikies, that has gone to criminals, that has gone to pay strippers and sex workers. Some of the things that we are seeing on Victorian government construction sites is just awful. We need to get to the bottom of the money trail, and this is certainly a way of doing that. Should that not be successful, Victorians will not have to wait long for those powers, because the Liberals and Nationals under a Jess Wilson government will deliver those reforms that IBAC desperately needs, which they have been asking for and which they even told the Premier about in a letter responding to her referral – which she would have known IBAC did not have the powers to investigate. So yes, we will be supporting that as well.

The Liberals and Nationals do not oppose either the bill or the amendment, and that should be clearly understood from the outset. I intend to address the original substance of the bill. This legislation is commonly described as an omnibus bill. It deals with a range of separate matters across the justice system. Some of those measures might appear technical or relatively modest in isolation. Some might even be overlooked by those who are not deeply engaged with the day-to-day operation of the legal system. Often it is smaller, more technical changes that improve efficiency, remove uncertainty and ultimately make a meaningful difference to the way our institutions operate and to the experience Victorians have of interacting with them. That is certainly the case with a number of the provisions in this bill.

One key component of the legislation is the implementation of recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Contempt of Court report, which addresses legacy suppression orders. Suppression orders more broadly have been the subject of considerable public discussion in recent years, including discussion about their scope, their duration and the circumstances in which they are granted or maintained. The reforms in this bill bring clarity to the treatment of longstanding suppression orders. They provide mechanisms for the courts to manage and review these legacy arrangements effectively. In principle that is an important reform. It supports consistency across courts and ensures suppression orders can be varied where appropriate to reflect contemporary circumstances. More broadly, the issue of suppression orders is one that deserves continued policy attention, and where the bill deals specifically with legacy matters, there is a wider conversation to be had about their use. There is no doubt that suppression orders play an essential role in protecting vulnerable parties and safeguarding fair trial rights and ensuring justice can be administered properly. That is not in dispute. However, there is growing community concern about how frequently suppression orders are granted and about the circumstances in which they are relied on.

In particular there is concern that suppression orders may sometimes be used in serious criminal matters, including matters involving alleged offences of a sexual nature, in ways that limit public transparency. Based on publicly available listings it appears that a substantial proportion of suppression orders relate to allegations of that kind. The community expects transparency in the justice system, particularly when serious allegations are concerned. While there will always be legitimate and necessary reasons for suppression orders, there must also be confidence that they are not being used to shield alleged offenders from scrutiny where there is no compelling justification for it. I am not referring to any particular case or individual, but it is reasonable to observe that any mechanism capable of limiting public identification could potentially be used strategically by an alleged offender. If the same individual were charged with a different category of offence, they might not be able to rely on such a mechanism, and that raises legitimate public policy questions about balance, fairness and public confidence. The reforms in this bill, which began with legacy orders and the court’s ability to deal with them more effectively, represent a sensible step forward. They should also be seen as part of a broader discussion that must continue.

The bill also contains a number of amendments relating to the Coroners Court and death investigations. These are largely practical and non-controversial measures designed to streamline administrative processes and simplify reporting obligations. I am sure many of us will have assisted constituents who are navigating the reporting of a death within their family. Even where a death is entirely non-uncontroversial, this process can be complex, time consuming and very emotionally difficult. The reforms in this bill seek to modernise those processes so that reporting can occur more efficiently where there is no substantive concern about the circumstances of a death. They allow appropriately qualified professionals to undertake certain reporting functions and reduce unnecessary procedural burden. At a time when families are dealing with grief and loss, making those processes more straightforward is both sensible and compassionate.

The bill also introduces a range of modernising measures relating to fines and enforcement. One of the most practical of these concerns the service of notices by electronic means. The legislation clarifies that electronic service is equivalent to traditional service. This is an important step in recognising the realities of how people communicate today. Many Victorians would reasonably assume that an electronic service is already treated as valid and equivalent. In fact the law has not always been very clear on this point. This reform removes uncertainty and reflects contemporary practice.

There are also provisions aimed at simplifying the process by which individuals seek an extension of time to deal with a fine. Members will be familiar with cases where individuals have legitimate reasons for seeking additional time yet encounter cumbersome circumstances. Streamlining that process is a practical and worthwhile reform. I am sure all of us in this chamber have dealt with many constituents coming into our offices speaking about fines, wanting to be guided through the process and thinking that MPs somehow have influence over the process. I am pleased that there is a more streamlined approach, particularly with those seeking an extension, seeking a delay, on particular fines. My office is in Meadow Heights in the northern suburbs. It is one of the most mortgage-stressed suburbs in Victoria. It is quite a low socio-economic area, so I think we can understand the kinds of people that come through my office door seeking assistance and needing an extension of time for a fine or trying to dispute a fine. These are the kinds of people we should be helping, because for a lot of folk in places like Meadow Heights and places like Greenvale a fine is crippling, and having more time to deal with that I think is most compassionate.

There are some more substantive elements of the bill. It is also important to acknowledge the feedback that has been provided by stakeholders. The Law Institute of Victoria, as it consistently does, has examined the legislation carefully and provided detailed commentary. The institute brings together a broad cross-section of the legal profession and provides valuable scrutiny of proposed reforms. It often does so with very tight timeframes, sometimes reviewing legislation overnight and providing considered feedback. That contribution should be acknowledged and should be appreciated by all of us. The law institute has observed that while this bill is presented as an omnibus measure, some provisions involve substantive policy change rather than technical amendment. That observation is not framed as opposition to the bill but rather an acknowledgement of its breadth. To quote the institute:

… the status quo necessarily strains Supreme Court resources and impedes access to justice …

I think quite often legal processes are established in ways that leave some victims feeling that their access to justice – for want of a better term – is limited, and suppression orders are a clear example of this of course. The institute have expressed support for the measures, as mentioned earlier. They also emphasised the importance of recognising that there will be practical issues arising from these reforms when they are put into effect that simply cannot be anticipated in the day-to-day operation of the courts. Again, to quote the institute, it:

… recommends that the Judiciary is consulted to confirm whether existing court and tribunal practice notes and forms provide sufficient direction and requirement to notify affected parties to an application of suppression order review.

The institute has also raised concerns about the false information offence in the fines context, particularly in relation to disadvantaged individuals who may provide inaccurate information for complex reasons. While the Liberals and Nationals do not share the same concern overall, it is appropriate to note that the issue has been raised and that it has been raised in good faith.

The Community Advocacy Alliance has provided feedback regarding the Coroners Court amendments, particularly in relation to the practical operation of certain powers and their interaction with the role of the Chief Commissioner of Police. To quote them:

This gives the same power to an interested party as the Chief Commissioner of Police, which basically makes the new power a moot point. Our comment is that it is just window dressing and not a substantial new improvement in power and unlikely to bring justice to offended parties.

The bill also provides for the continuation of the Drug Court beyond its pilot phase, transitioning into an ongoing component of the County Court. Without this change, the Drug Court would otherwise cease operating within a relatively short period. The continuation of that jurisdiction raises legitimate questions about long-term funding and operational certainty or uncertainty. Those are matters that should be addressed transparently.

Now turning to the amendments to the original bill made by the Attorney-General in the other place relating to the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in incitement matters. As I discussed earlier, these amendments reflect the government’s recognition that aspects of the existing hate speech framework have not operated as intended. Under the previous arrangements certain prosecutions required the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions before proceeding. In practice, that requirement has created a significant procedural hurdle. To date there have been no findings of guilt for incitement offences under the relevant provisions, and that reality does speak for itself.

While multiple factors influence enforcement, the additional layer of approval has certainly contributed to delays and barriers. Once again Mr Batchelor has failed to realise that these arrangements of incitement offences to the DPP existed before the anti-vilification laws as well, so immature interjections trying to make a political point do not really make sense, since it was –

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Mulholland has made a personal comment that I take offence to in relation to why it was that he and his party voted against the anti-vilification laws. I would ask that he withdraw.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): There is no point of order. Please continue.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Mr Batchelor was seeking to interject once again, and so I thought I would clarify for him and perhaps give him a bit of a history lesson about these particular arrangements that actually existed prior to the government’s anti-vilification laws. We know it was a particular advocacy item, a longstanding advocacy item, of our Jewish community even prior to Bondi that these matters should be dealt with directly by Victoria Police. We think that is appropriate given the track record of no arrests or offences under these particular arrangements – no finding of guilt for incitement offences under these relative provisions before and after the anti-vilification laws. And we would note that, at the time, we told the government – I stood in this place and told the government – not to do this deal with the Greens. They originally had planned to have the set of arrangements go to Victoria Police, and to give the government credit, they gave good reasons for that that made sense. They gave good reasons for that, and then they went and did a deal with the Greens. I remember asking Ms Symes questions in committee – which you can go and read in Hansard – on why the government had changed its position, and answers were not really forthcoming.

As I said, there have been no findings of guilt for incitement offences under the relative provisions, and it is important to acknowledge the broader context. Acts of incitement and hate are not abstract concepts; they occur in real communities and have real consequences. Members of Parliament of all sides have spoken about deeply troubling behaviour in our communities, including acts of intimidation and discrimination and open expressions of hatred. Our country and our state are still recovering from the terrorist trauma of Bondi, the ultimate act of hatred, which took 15 innocent lives, and there is little value in having offences on the statute books if they cannot be enforced in practice. The laws operate in a way that allows wrongdoings to be addressed promptly and effectively. Where they do not, they must be amended. The government has now moved to change that framework, and we support that. These changes respond to concerns previously raised about enforcement barriers and inconsistencies in how offenders of different ages might be treated. The principle should be that serious conduct is addressed appropriately regardless of the technical procedural obstacles.

It is fair to say that these changes represent an acknowledgement by this government that the previous model did not function as intended, and the government has indicated that earlier compromises were made to secure the passage of legislation. Whatever the history, what matters now is the system is being corrected. More broadly, the issue is accountability. Victorians expect that acts of incitement, discrimination and hatred will attract meaningful legal consequences. The changes move the law closer to meeting that expectation.

In summary, the bill contains a range of practical reforms that modernise processes, clarify legal arrangements and reduce unnecessary administrative burden. It improves the management of suppression orders, streamlines death reporting processes, updates fine enforcement mechanisms and continues the operation of the Drug Court. The amendments relating to incitement provisions strengthen the enforceability of existing laws. For those reasons the Liberals and Nationals will not be opposing the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill.

I will have more to say later on a number of amendments. There is one particular amendment from the Greens regarding lowering the definition of corruption in regard to IBAC. We are not in a position to support that, but we would seek leave to have that looked at by the Integrity and Oversight Committee of the Parliament for further investigation. In regard to the Greens amendments on public hearings of IBAC, naturally you would expect that we are supportive of that. It was this government that really shifted the goalposts on that in 2019. It was the Liberals and Nationals, when we set that up, that struck the right balance. This goes a long way to moving IBAC in the right direction. Of course, as you can see from this week and the public statements from the Leader of the Opposition Jess Wilson, the next Premier of Victoria, we are quite supportive of follow-the-money powers for IBAC to give it more power to do what the Premier asked it to do, which was to look into corrupt payments, bribes and kickbacks on construction sites. This would give IBAC the power to do that. I will leave my contribution there, and I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (16:28): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. This is an omnibus bill which covers a range of matters, including suppression orders and open courts, coronial processes and death registration, the fines system, guardianship and administration, animal cruelty offences, the Drug Court, procedural changes for courts and related processes and changes withdrawing DPP consent requirements on the ability to charge people under anti-vilification laws. I make the point that this is a wideranging bill covering changes to a significant number of acts. The Greens, as has been referred to already in debate, have a set of amendments that provide for additional powers to the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission. My colleague Dr Mansfield will speak to those amendments later, and I will speak to the remainder of this bill.

This bill creates a mechanism to review, vary or revoke legacy suppression orders made before 1 December 2013 where those orders continue under repealed provisions or common law. Too often victim-survivors have decisions made about them without them. Where a victim-survivor wants to speak or tell their story or name their experience, they should be safe to do so. In relation to these provisions, I do note that legal specialists have contacted us with queries about the safeguards that will be in place so the victim-survivors will not be drawn into adversarial processes that they did not initiate. I will be seeking some clarification on the operation of these sections from the minister during the committee stage.

This bill also streamlines coronial processes and death registration, which will reduce the number of expected natural cause deaths reported to the Coroners Court simply because an eligible doctor is not available, and creates pathways for doctors who have reviewed clinical records to notify a probable cause of death. We understand the intention of these changes is to reduce unnecessary coronial referrals and, most importantly, to spare families from additional delay and distress in circumstances where coronial investigation is not required.

The bill also amends the Crimes Act 1958 to extend the bestiality offence and create new offences relating to animal abuse material. The Greens of course have a strong track record of supporting greater animal welfare laws and clear criminal offences that target exploitation and cruelty, and the emergence of animal abuse material reflects the ways that technology continues to evolve and facilitate harm whilst normalising cruelty.

The bill also extends the operation of the Drug Court division of the County Court by removing the sunset limitation, ensuring the Drug Court can continue to operate beyond April 2026. The Drug Court is a therapeutic and problem-solving court; it is not a soft option. It is structured, supervising and demanding and requires engagement with treatment, compliance with conditions and ongoing oversight. It recognises what evidence has shown for decades: if we want to reduce reoffending and improve community safety, we must address the causes of offending, including substance dependence, instability, trauma and lack of support.

The bill includes procedural updates for courts and road safety processes, including modernising filing and notice procedures. We note and hope that there is investment in clear alternatives for people who might still have difficulty accessing online systems, including people with disabilities, limited English or low digital literacy. The bill also includes amendments relating to acting appointments and delegations and the guardianship and administration framework.

This bill also makes changes in relation to fines, and it expands deemed service and expands online platform methods of service for certain documents, where service can be treated as effective when information becomes accessible to a person on that platform. I note generally that the infringement system is already a pipeline from minor misconduct and can snowball into major life disruption. The system currently too often functions as a penalty for poverty. When a person is homeless or moving between short-term accommodation, such as couch surfing, sleeping in their car or escaping family violence, missing a notice can create a snowball effect, which the system currently can treat as their fault. Where a person is living with a disability, chronic illness or mental distress, they can, in missing one deadline, see the system escalate fines, and this is something that we need to address over the longer term. Where a person has limited English or limited digital access, the system is not forgiving, and it is designed to move forward regardless of whether a person truly understands what is happening in relation to escalation of their fines.

In broadening deemed service and extending service via online platforms, it is important the government is very clear about its intent. I will be seeking some clarification from the minister in committee on this topic to address concerns that have been raised with us by stakeholders, particularly around deemed service and expansion of service pathways. If digital pathways are the future, and technology is taking us in that direction, the government must invest more in safeguards to ensure fairness. This Parliament has heard time and time again from community legal centres, financial counsellors, advocates for people experiencing homelessness and disability and people who have lived through this system about the need for those kinds of investments and supports.

The Greens have significant concerns and do not agree with the government’s step to use this miscellaneous omnibus bill as a vehicle to remove the requirement for the Director of Public Prosecutions’ consent before police can commence certain vilification prosecutions, except where the accused is under 18. This amendment has been moved in the lower house to enable the government to do so in this omnibus bill. DPP consent safeguards exist for a reason, and the Greens, as has been stated, negotiated with the government to ensure that they were retained for a reason. DPP consent provides consistent oversight to police decision-making, and the consent safeguard ensures that these serious offences are used for serious cases with a reasonable prospect of prosecution.

The consent safeguard ensures independent assessment of whether a prosecution is in the public interest, and it provides a check on the risk that these offences become a blunt instrument. The government, when we passed these laws recently, agreed that this was an important safeguard and are now making a backflip on a commitment that they made in an untrustworthy fashion to reverse that commitment that they agreed to during those negotiations. When the Parliament criminalises speech, particularly where the offences are intended to protect communities that are already targeted, safeguards in that context are not a technicality and should not be a bargaining chip. They are the difference between targeted protection and unintended harm. Inconsistent enforcement, overpolicing and laws being turned against the very people that they are meant to protect are what we are seeking to prevent through the requirement to retain DPP consent.

We well know and have seen more evidence recently – more evidence based on years of reporting of these trends – that many communities in Victoria do not experience policing as neutral. Many communities live with being overpoliced, profiled and targeted. When you expand police charging power you must build in safeguards that prevent those powers being used in ways that could chill people’s right to political protest, silence political communication or indeed intimidate marginalised people. We have seen recently the government’s expanded stop-and-search powers continuing to be used in a way that targets marginalised communities. We are still strong in our belief that the DPP consent is a strong safeguard that prevents misuse of these laws and makes sure that charges that are brought have a reasonable chance of prosecution and are in the public interest. We think those are safeguards that are sensible and balanced and should be retained. It is why the Greens fought for and secured DPP consent as a safeguard in the laws that we – as Mr Batchelor has repeatedly said during the debate, though he has not been on his feet yet – passed last year.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Katherine COPSEY: Mr Batchelor will make his contribution soon – his formal contribution. I will leave my comments on the bill there. As has been foreshadowed, my colleague Dr Mansfield will speak to the amendments that the Greens will seek to bring to this bill to strengthen our integrity agencies and give powers to IBAC that have been long advocated for. I will leave my contribution there.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:38): The anticipation precedes me. I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, a bill that contains a range of measures to amend various acts in the justice portfolio to help the operation of various elements of that portfolio. I thought that it was probably worth remarking at the beginning of my contribution today that I spent a portion of Mr Mulholland’s contribution asking him why the Liberal Party voted against anti–hate speech laws in Victoria. Despite repeated attempts to get Mr Mulholland, as the lead speaker for the opposition and the lead speaker for the Liberal Party on this bill, to explain to this chamber and to explain to the Victorian community why last year the Liberal Party voted against the criminalisation of hate speech in this state, he refused to do so. The Liberal Party cannot explain – they do not have the words it seems – to explain to multicultural communities, to LGBTIQA+ communities and to different faith communities why they voted against laws last year that criminalised hate speech. Mr Mulholland, as the first speaker for the opposition in this debate, shirked that. But there will be more speakers, we hope, from the Liberal Party and from the National Party who will be able to stand up and tell the chamber and the people beyond the chamber, whether they are in the Jewish community, the Islamic community or the gay and lesbian community or wherever they are, why they voted against laws to criminalise hate speech in this state – because ever since they voted against the anti-vilification laws that the government proposed and passed last year, ever since they sat down when they had the opportunity to stand up against hate speech in Victoria, they have turned their back on communities that they, when they get out of this chamber, wander around pretending to care about.

The Liberal Party turns up to multicultural and multifaith events and to Midsumma and pretends to care about those groups in our community who are on the receiving end of hatred and vilification, yet when they are in here they vote against laws to provide greater protections. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking, and their cowardice is astonishing.

There are opportunities before us today for other members to do what the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place have failed to do again and again, which is explain why they are opposed to laws in Victoria that criminalise hate speech. All they have got to do is stand up and explain why they voted against those laws. Until they do, I will not stop asking, because the communities that we speak to who feel they are on the receiving end of hatred in this state deserve to know why the Liberal Party does not stand with them when it counts and why the Liberal Party refuses to vote for laws to try and protect them but will walk out of these chambers and pretend to care. The Liberal Party has a job to do to explain why they are against more protections against hate speech in this state and why they are against laws to make our communities safer. They have refused to do it.

They have the temerity and they have the hypocrisy to stand up in this place and say that they are on the side of, for example, as Mr Mulholland did, the Jewish community, to say that they are standing with the Jewish community. If they were, then they would stand up when it counts. At no greater time has it counted than in the last 12 months when the Liberal Party had a chance to vote in favour of toughening anti-vilification laws. When the Liberal Party had the chance to vote in favour of the criminalisation of hate speech, they sat down. They did nothing. They voted against it. They voted no to the criminalisation of hate speech laws, and they have never explained why. Why don’t they take the opportunity today to get up and correct the record? If they are so sure about why they were right to vote against Labor’s anti-vilification laws, they have got the opportunity right now to put their position on the record and explain to the community why they are against the laws that criminalise hate speech in this state. Until they do, until they have got the guts to stand up and explain themselves, we will not take their attempts to care seriously.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: No-one should. It is a pretty simple question, and it is a pretty simple task. If they fail again, I think it underlines how gutless they are and how all of the purported attempts to call on the government to do more to tackle, for example, antisemitism – the faux outrage that they are willing to express outside this Parliament. What they will not do is actually stand up when it counts. Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal.

There is an amendment in this bill before us today to ensure that the capacity is in Victoria’s anti-vilification framework for Victoria Police to bring charges directly without going through the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is a necessary amendment to stop delays. Let us be frank, it would not be on the statute books today if a different vote had occurred last year.

The rest of the bill is important, and I will spend some time talking about that. I will get to some of the other matters which have been mentioned by the first two speakers in the course of the debate shortly. But the bill, importantly, introduces a range of other changes to justice-related matters, including amendments to the Open Courts Act 2013, implementing recommendations of Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court report to enable applications to lower courts and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to revoke legacy suppression orders. Legacy suppression orders of course are mechanisms that have been put in place but heavily impact the right of victim-survivors to speak out. The bill will introduce transitional provisions into the Open Courts Act to allow lower courts and VCAT to review legacy suppression orders made prior to the commencement of the act in December 2013. Many of the orders, when they were put in place, operated indefinitely.

Currently applications to vary or revoke pre-existing orders can only be made to the Supreme Court under its inherent jurisdiction, which of course is an exceptionally costly process, strains the resources of the court and hinders access to justice. The amendments will address this problem and implement recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Contempt of Court report. It will allow persons with a sufficient interest in a pre-existing order, including victim-survivors of a sexual offence or a family violence offence and news media organisations, to apply to the relevant court or VCAT to review the order. The court or VCAT will be able to confirm, vary or revoke a pre-existing order. This is another in a series of changes that we have made to better support victim-survivors of sexual assault, sexual offences and family violence.

The bill also introduces reforms in relation to the offence of bestiality, which is going to be expanded to include the sexual touching between a human and an animal in addition to the penetrative acts to which the offence currently applies. Currently there are a range of issues related to the construction of the current offence. Expanding the offence will address a gap in the legislation to criminalise further forms of sexual engagement between animals and humans. Existing veterinary, agricultural and scientific research exceptions will continue to apply. In addition to that, animal husbandry practices for genuine agricultural or veterinary purposes will not be criminalised by the reforms.

There will be further amendments to complement the animal abuse material reform in the bill. Those reforms will amend the Crimes Act 1958 to introduce new offences through criminalising the production, distribution and possession and accessing of animal abuse material. They are intended to disrupt and deter the supply of animal abuse material in and connected to Victoria. Obviously the acts are illegal, but the possession, production, distribution and accessing of content depicting bestiality and animal abuse is not technically prohibited. These reforms are necessary to address a gap in the legislation to better protect animals from exploitative behaviours, respond to stakeholder advocacy to enhance the protection of animal welfare in the state and address the prevalence of online material depicting serious harm to animals. Under the new offences animal abuse material may take the form of audiovisual, photographic images, computer games or electronic material that depicts and describes animal abuse. It can also capture AI-generated or edited animal abuse material so long as it is realistic.

The bill will also amend various other acts, such as the Coroners Act 2008, to enable the Coroners Court to streamline investigation, finalisation and reporting procedures. It will amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to enable more doctors to register deaths and clarify their death reporting obligations. It amends fines and tolling legislation to make minor fines-related amendments to other acts to strengthen fines enforcement by correcting minor anomalies and inconsistencies, and to make minor procedural improvements.

One of the other elements to the amendments in the bill will be to the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 to clarify the powers and acting arrangements of the Public Advocate.

There are amendments to the County Court Act 1958 and the Sentencing Act 1991 to extend the operation of the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Courts. On that, I think the impact that these courts have had has been significant and really positive across the justice system. The bill amends the two principal acts mentioned, to enable the Drug Court to continue to operate after 26 April, and provisions that currently enable that act. The Drug Court operation is scheduled to sunset on 26 April, and the amendments will ensure that offenders pleading guilty to drug and alcohol related offences in the County Court will have access to the therapeutic pathway provided by the Drug Court.

There are a series of amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986 to allow the Magistrates’ Court to improve efficiency through the expanded use of its case management system to manage administrative functions. The amendments will enable the court to automate the receipt of documents, including reports on the execution of search warrants, notices of applications relating to interlock conditions and notices of appeal against immediate licence suspension and disqualification.

Mr Mulholland in his remarks and Ms Copsey in her remarks made reference to as yet uncirculated amendments relating to integrity matters. I would have liked to address some of those issues in this contribution, as someone who takes a keen interest in these matters as a member of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, but they have not been circulated, and so I cannot at this juncture. I think that is disappointing.

Katherine Copsey interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: They have not been provided to me, Ms Copsey. I think it is challenging on such a complex topic to not be given a good opportunity to work through them, but I am sure we will get to that later in the course of the debate.

There is an opportunity in the remainder of this debate for anyone from the opposition to get up and explain to the Parliament and to the people of Victoria why they voted against anti–hate speech laws in this state. If members of the Liberal Party cannot explain why they voted against anti-vilification laws last year, then we cannot take anything they say seriously about the need to stop hate speech in the state of Victoria.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:53): I am pleased to rise this afternoon and make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. In doing so, I certainly want to frame my contribution around a specific area of interest to people in rural and regional Victoria, but I will put on record some of the content of the bill. It is an omnibus bill, and it looks to amend the Open Courts Act 2013; it looks to streamline coronial processes; it looks to enable more medical practitioners to report deaths directly to the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages; it looks to address procedural operation issues in terms of fines, enforcements, infringement and tolling; it looks to provide ongoing operations for the Drug Court division in the County Court; it looks to make procedural improvements to applications and appeals under the Road Safety Act 1986; and it looks to make consequential amendments across multiple acts.

The part that I wish to spend a little bit of time on today is the part that expands bestiality offences and creates a criminal framework for animal abuse material. From the outset, I just want to identify that clauses 65 and 66 to 68 will be the focus of this contribution. In doing so, I just want to put on record that particularly I and the Nationals, as well as the Liberals, want to ensure that cruelty to animals is diminished, stamped out and has no place in our community in Victoria, whether it occurs in a personal sense or whether it occurs online, and that offences that can be introduced to stamp this out are warranted and necessary.

Where I can make a contribution is on the whys and wherefores of the legislation to make sure that there are no unintended consequences from these new laws in practice. I will be putting on record my questions to the government. Hopefully they can be answered in the committee of the whole, where I am happy to elucidate those questions.

The policy is sound, but the language has more acts and broader circumstances. Now, more acts and broader circumstances can mean a huge variety of activity, and I just want to drill down to ensure that these acts are not unintentionally creating uncertainty for a whole range of people – farmers for one, livestock and transport handlers and saleyard operators, veterinarians and vet nurses, animal welfare inspectors, researchers, media and documentary producers, because of course not only is it the physical aspect but it is the digital aspect of transferring footage or photos or content for media. And also whistleblowers – we need to make sure that they are not captured in this – and animal handlers that professionally handle stock in a commercial sense, whether that is livestock or wildlife, our natural fauna, in terms of looking after them and healing or improving the lives of our natural fauna. Handlers work with animals that are diseased or have injuries and they help out with calving or lambing, and the list goes on. These people are doing an honourable thing to ease the suffering of animals, and we need to make sure that this new legislation does not capture those good-faith operations. We must ensure that these laws stop cruelty without sweeping away legitimate agricultural and animal health practices and putting them at risk.

A critical point requiring clarification is around the expanded offences requiring intent and whether any elements operate on a strict liability basis. So if somebody has an intent to heal, like in a vet operation, that is well and good. But what happens if the intent is not there? What does that look like in terms of this legislation? Now, I know there are already sections in the Crimes Act 1958 that continue to protect legitimate agricultural, veterinary and scientific procedures. But we just want to drill down into those to make sure that people will not be unfairly disadvantaged. Also, we want to make sure that there are scenarios, for example, in the new digital section, clauses 66 to 68. What about receiving unsolicited footage of suspected cruelty? What about forwarding on material to the authorities? What about documenting an injury for an animal health or compliance purpose? What about storing images automatically on our phones, which can happen? We can be sent them and they can be stored. These are some of the things for which a defence is helpful, but relying on a defence after the fact still exposes people to investigation, seizure of devices and stress. So again, we need that clarity around what will be in and what will not be.

In terms of risks and overcapture, without clear operational guidance in the legislation and then following and implementing that, will there be training for enforcement officers? Will there be procedural lines for police and prosecutors?

Some of these sorts of issues I think need to be addressed to provide that clarity, to provide that confidence and to make sure that, as I said, there are no unintended consequences. We certainly support a stronger implementation of preventing cruelty against animals – that is an absolute must – but we do not want these unintended consequences.

If I go to just a couple of points in that, I note some of the things that have happened in my time in this place relating to animal cruelty. Depending on which side of the political landscape you are sitting on, I would have thought that going onto the Gippy Goat farm in 2019 at the start of that year, taking and apprehending an animal, putting it in the car boot, the back of a four-wheel drive, taking it away from its herd and putting a nappy on it could well be described and contained within this legislation. I hope that this will deter some of those animal activists that actually pretend to be saving animals and protecting animals when they are clearly operating outside the realms of good animal care. They are doing this to prove a point and their own political agenda, rather than ensuring animal health and wellbeing. Angel being stuck in a nappy sitting in someone’s house may well be caught up in these new bestiality laws. In the past we have seen various animal activists take footage of farmers’ land, their farms, their farm yards. A farmer may well be supporting a cow to give calf, to give birth, and they may drill down and take photos of that or footage of that, and then look to incriminate somebody. These things are just not on. They are not acceptable, and we need to make sure that this bill does not capture those.

The other thing that I just would like to go to is some of the discussion in the pig inquiry. I was not on that pig inquiry, but I know my colleague Mrs Broad was on that. I also think Dr Heath was on that. They came out with some very important positions and their concern that the whole inquiry was quite biased, quite agenda driven and not based on science, and indeed many of the overall recommendations had that flavour, by my colleagues’ concerns. There are a couple of main things that I just want to touch on in that. One is that the main inquiry made recommendations about installing CCTV in piggeries and in abattoirs. The Liberals and Nationals minority report opposed that, calling it ideologically motivated and said – which it does – that the industry already adheres to some of the highest, best practice operations and animal handling. I just want to put on record that this is not acceptable, but I also want to understand what that does look like in terms of this bill. The other one goes to the phasing out of CO₂ and stunning and developing alternatives. The main inquiry recommended that, and in particular the Liberals and Nationals certainly opposed that, citing that these are extreme restrictions and did not offer any scientific basis in the cause of that.

There ends my contribution. I want to congratulate Mr Mulholland on covering off on some of the other very important issues in that bill. I hope that the minister, when the minister comes to the table, can outline and diminish the concerns of farmers, veterinarians and animal handlers to know that they will not be captured in this and provide some examples of what would be in and out of this part of the legislation.

Finally, I find it quite offensive that we listened for about 10 minutes out of 15 minutes –I was going to call it tedious repetition – to the former speaker relating their pious position on this in terms of a former bill at a former time. If a government member wants to go back, they can go back and read Hansard and all of the Liberals’ and Nationals’ contributions on bills and ascertain our position, which was very clear. It was very clear at that time and very clear during any media releases and other things.

Let us stick on the bill, and there is my contribution. I do not oppose the bill, but I would like some further clarification around the animal handling section within it.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:06): I also would like to speak briefly on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. As has been pointed out by other speakers, this is an omnibus justice bill that makes a number of changes to a number of different acts on different things. I will go through a few of those things, but I will start by saying that the Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill.

Among the things that this bill does – and I will not go through all of them – there are changes to the way that documents are served for fines. We did have some concerns about this, but after consultation with the government’s advisers we believe these are okay and we do not object to them. Another thing that the bill does is enable the Drug Court to continue operation past April this year, which is very important. That adds some measure of timeliness to this bill; it needs to pass. There are also changes to the Coroners Act 2008 – things around GPs can register deaths, if this bill is to pass, and other changes around reporting of deaths after coronial investigations.

One of the other significant things that this bill does is around changes to things around bestiality, content sharing and possession of what is called crush material. I must admit I was ignorant of this before this came into effect, and I wish I remained ignorant of it. But suffice to say if anyone is concerned that this is a free speech issue it is not, because this is involving the transmission of material created from a crime. We already have laws against that. I am supportive of laws prohibiting transmission of materials, which is creating a crime. Therefore I am very supportive of these changes, and I hope that they are very effective in stopping this awful conduct that apparently exists. Some of the other things that the bill does include some changes also around Fines Victoria to nominate websites for the process of serving documents. I spoke briefly about that.

But suffice to say the other major thing, which was something that came late in the game, was changes to the way that the anti-vilification laws work. Initially the Libertarian Party opposed this bill when it first came through Parliament. In response to the Bondi attack the government wants to change the way that prosecutions are handled under the criminal components of the bill, as this was amended originally when it went through the upper house so that only the DPP could initiate charges under this bill. Those charges will be able to be initiated by police. Although I oppose both the criminal and civil aspects of this bill, whether it is initiated by the DPP or the police, that is not a hill I am going to die on. Therefore I will not be opposing this bill. In fact I am very supportive of some aspects of it.

I would like to speak as well to an amendment that I am proposing to this bill. If I could please circulate that amendment now.

This amendment was the product of consultation with someone who is an expert and works within the sex work industry. It was brought to our attention that it is possible at the moment for registered sex offenders to work within the sex industry, and in fact we have evidence that this is occurring now. I thank the government for their consultation on this. We have consulted very much with the government on this. I do not want to put words in the government’s mouth – the government can speak for themselves – but the impression I got is that they share my concerns with this and rather they differ with the approach on how to deal with it. However, I feel that this is something that is rather urgent, and therefore I have made the decision to proceed with this amendment. What this amendment does is effectively copy other prohibitions in the sex offenders registry where they are prohibited from other industries. It is effectively a cut and paste of that into the sex work industry to prohibit them from working within that industry. Many people who work in the finance sector will know that it does not like people who commit financial crimes to work in the finance sector. Similarly, we believe that if someone has committed heinous sex crimes and is on the sex offenders register they should not be working with vulnerable people in the sex industry. The people that we have spoken to about this and consulted with about this think that this is a good thing to put in, and therefore we would like to proceed with that amendment. But I will have more to say about that in committee stage. Apart from that, I commend this bill to the house.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:12): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. Again, there is a mixed sampling of legislative reform included in this bill – very important, each individually – and a package of reforms in this legislation before us today. I am pleased to give some remarks in varying detail, depending on how much time I have, on various different parts of it. Having appreciated the chance to listen to some contributions already today, I will draw in some responses where I am able.

This is a broad set of practical reforms which will improve how Victoria’s justice system operates day to day. It will modernise court processes, remove administrative barriers, strengthen protections across multiple areas of law and ensure that our legislation reflects contemporary practice, technology as well as community expectations. At its core this is a bill that is about accessibility, efficiency and giving the public every bit more confidence that they should have in the rule of law in this state. Through the various reforms in this bill we will make important improvements to how different systems function, including improving the review processes for suspension orders; strengthening open justice principles; streamlining coronial investigations and death certification processes; modernising fines enforcement and court administration; strengthening guardianship and public advocacy arrangements; addressing serious criminal conduct, including animal abuse and vilification offences; and continuing therapeutic justice initiatives within our courts, amongst others.

While several of these reforms are relatively minor, relating to procedural aspects of the judicial system and various processes, there are of course some more substantial reforms included, including those that deal with forms of offending which are difficult to put into words in some cases but offences that we certainly have a moral duty to address. Bills like this are what happens when you have a government that is committed to getting on with the job and continually evolving, refining, assessing and readdressing legislation, as any good government does. We do take these matters seriously, and the reforms included in this bill should lead to a stronger justice system for all. I acknowledge the Attorney-General, her office and indeed the department for their work in bringing this bill together before us today.

I do want to start with one of the most unpleasant things that we could talk about, frankly, in this place, and that is one of the reforms that we are making in relation to the Crimes Act 1958 that will provide better protection for animals from exploitative and disgusting behaviour. As it stands, acts of bestiality and animal abuse are illegal. The issue that this bill will be addressing is that instances of possession, production, distribution and access of material that depicts these acts is not already prohibited. This is a clear gap in the law. In some regards it means that the law and therefore the protections for animals from abuse are only half-working. I acknowledge the extensive attention that this has been given by the government and my colleague Ms Purcell, who raised some of these matters in recent times and has contributed towards the inclusion of these measures in this bill.

This bill will introduce new offences that are intended to disrupt and break the process and deter the supply of bestiality and animal abuse material that is in any way connected to the state of Victoria by ensuring that these targeted laws apply to those who create such content as well as anyone who consumes it. Like Mr Limbrick, it is not really something that I want to dwell or focus on in any detail, but I think it is important to outline what this bill will do. The offence that will be introduced in this bill will apply to material that relates to acts of an animal being crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled or otherwise killed, tortured or subjected to serious injury. The indictable offence of production or distribution will carry a maximum five-year term of imprisonment, while the possession and access offences carry a maximum three-year term.

There can be no mistake, this kind of serious offending, serious abuse and possession of abuse material is in no way acceptable and will and should be treated with the full force of the law that this law will now warrant. As part of that, the bill will amend section 54A of the Crimes Act to expand the offence to prohibit sexual touching between a human and an animal, in addition to penetrative effects to which the offence currently applies. This addresses a gap in our legislation to criminalise those non-penetrative forms of sexual engagement between humans and animals. The existing exceptions relating to veterinary, agricultural or scientific research purposes will continue to apply to the expanded bestiality offence. I am very happy to now move on to some other aspects of this legislation, because I do not think any of us want to be dwelling on that.

This bill removes the requirement for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent before police commence prosecutions for serious offences by reforming section 195Q of the Crimes Act 1958. We are removing this step which does have the potential to delay proceedings. It will also enable police to commence a prosecution for a serious vilification offence unless the accused person is under the age of 18 years – consistent, for example, with the approach of the Nazi symbol and Nazi salute offences. This safeguard ensures children’s unique characteristics and vulnerabilities are considered before deciding to proceed with a prosecution, enabling those authorities to address an act on serious hate conduct, which in turn will better protect communities, particularly those vulnerable communities that are too often the target of those forms of abhorrent and hateful conduct. The reform will strengthen community safety, protect communities and, by tackling hate speech promptly, improve social cohesion in our community. People should not have to wait for procedural hurdles to be cleared before our justice system addresses hateful acts which can make our community feel like they are under attack.

I am very pleased to see that members of the opposition have indicated that they will support this. I note that this is a very similar form of legislation to that the government originally brought in as part of the anti-vilification legislation a bit over a year ago. Whilst opposition members were not prepared to support the legislation at the time, just as they were not prepared to support the bill as a whole, I am at least pleased to see that they will now support this small change. That does not take away from the fact that no matter what they might try and say when they come in here, we have an opposition in this state which is not only prepared to vote against the interests of intersex Victorians – making them more extreme today than One Nation – but is continuing to say one thing out of one side of their mouth while they go through their actions. Those actions speak very, very clear volumes about what they truly think when they voted against those anti-vilification reforms.

We saw it again yesterday in their refusal to acknowledge attacks on people across Melbourne that have been occurring. Frankly, if you are not prepared to support looking into gay bashings without trying to dilute them into everything else and you try to vote against that, you cannot turn around and say that you stand against hate speech or hate acts, especially when you voted against the anti-vilification laws that protect not just queer people of course but people of all different racial and religious backgrounds and people with different backgrounds of disability. To come into this place and pretend to lecture anyone else when you were the ones who, through your actions, actually voted against those anti-vilification laws, those hate speech laws, is quite frankly astounding.

But on this side of the chamber we will continue to stand with all communities no matter what racial background they are, no matter what religious background they are and no matter what sexuality or gender they are, because that is what we believe in. Frankly, Victorians will quite clearly see through the shameful political opportunism of those opposite who seek to take a very narrow inquiry into a specific issue and broaden it up and conflate it with every other issue that they can find, perhaps in order to justify or deflect from their own actions and their own votes in this place, as little as 12 months ago, to undermine anti-hate protections in this state. It is perhaps indeed to deflect from efforts or statements from other members of their own party who have brought them into disgrace by their disgraceful acts and comments about members of different multicultural communities in this state and in this country. But on this side, we are consistent; we are standing against hate and against vilification. We say that not just through our words but through our votes as well, and we will continue to do so.

This bill also acts to implement recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court report to allow lower courts and VCAT to review legacy suppression orders made before the Open Courts Act 2013 commenced. Whilst the Open Courts Act 2013 consolidated the general powers of the Supreme, County, Magistrates’ and Coroners courts and VCAT to make suppression orders and closed court orders, this consolidation does not address legacy suppression orders. I seem to have lost the interest of Mr Mulholland; I am sorry. It is perhaps not quite as exciting, this part of my speech. In contrast to the suppression orders issued after the passage of the Open Courts Act, most legacy suppression orders are still in force today and will likely continue to operate indefinitely. This stands in contrast to the principle of open justice, which exists for the benefit of victim-survivors of sexual and family violence and the general public. The bill will allow the lower courts and VCAT to review legacy suppression orders made by that court or tribunal. These are referred to as ‘pre-existing orders’ in the bill.

Further, where there is an appeal of a substantive proceeding, the appellate court will now be able to review the pre-existing order made in the lower court or tribunal and make any order that that court or tribunal could have made under the Open Courts Act. The amendments make changes to largely mirror existing suppression order review provisions in the Open Courts Act. This ensures consistent treatment of pre-existing orders and post-commencement suppression orders made under the act. It will allow a court or VCAT to review a pre-existing order on its own motion or on application by the applicant for the order or a party to the proceedings concerned, including the victim or alleged victim in a sexual offence or family violence offence criminal proceeding, the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General of another state or territory or the Commonwealth, a news media organisation or any other person who the court or tribunal considers has a sufficient interest in the review of the order.

This bill will empower victim-survivors of family and sexual violence offences to take control of their story. Making this relatively straightforward change is actually a very, very important piece of legislative reform. It will require the court or VCAT to revoke a pre-existing order if the victim-survivor gives permission for the revocation and is 18 years of age or over and if it is otherwise appropriate in all the circumstances for the pre-existing order to be revoked.

Open justice, whilst an important principle, is not an absolute one, and nor should it be, which is why this will ensure that in various instances – such as when a revocation of a suppression order will result in the disclosure of another victim or alleged victim in the same proceeding who does not consent to the disclosure, where the victim is under 18 years of age or where the revocation of the order would not be appropriate – this then will not take place.

There are also reforms to the Coroners Court, with a new process allowing certain natural cause death investigations to be finalised sooner. Where no further investigation is required, coroners may discontinue the inquiry once the cause of death is identified, and a medical practitioner supervised by a pathologist will register the cause of death. This reform will bring greater efficiency to the system and thereby enable families to receive closure more quickly during a difficult time.

Similarly, through the amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996, the bill clarifies doctors’ ability to notify the registrar of a person’s cause of death where they can form an opinion on the probable cause of death. This amendment aims to clarify doctors’ existing obligations to notify the cause of death rather than vary them, and it will also amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to enable doctors who have reviewed a person’s medical history and circumstances of their death and satisfied themselves of the person’s probable cause of death to notify the registrar of the cause of death.

I note that Mr Limbrick has circulated an amendment to this bill so far, and I understand that there may be other amendments circulated by other members at some point too. In accordance with Mr Limbrick’s presumed expression of the government’s view on this, I can confirm the government will not be supporting this, which is not in any way to say that it is not a very interesting point to raise. It is certainly of good intent, and there will actually be a statutory review of the relevant legislation, I believe, in a period that will be as early as December this year, which time the government considers to be a more appropriate juncture to thoroughly consider this reform. Despite the fact that we do think it is in broad terms a very good idea, we will not be in a position to support it today. I commend the bill to the house.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:27): I was not going to speak on this bill until Mr Batchelor used his opportunity to make some incredibly outrageous remarks not only about the opposition but particularly about a Jewish member of our party David Southwick. He spoke about how Jess and David are both not friends of the Jewish community and that any way that they turn up would be sanctimonious. I wrote some things down as he said it. He spoke about how Labor are the only ones who stand for the multicultural community and anything that we do that goes and stands with the multicultural community is disingenuous. He went as far as to point the finger at Mr Southwick in particular. What an absolute disgrace to say that Mr Southwick does not stand for the Jewish community. It is just staggering, mind-blowing arrogance that has just become a benchmrk of the government. He also said that Jacinta Allan and her party are the ones that do. I just think what an incredible thing to say when under Jacinta Allan’s watch the two people that he was talking about have had hate speech written across the stairs of Parliament as recently as last week. How absolutely ridiculous. And I am actually glad Mr Batchelor has come back in.

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, Dr Heath, either unintentionally or deliberately, is misrepresenting remarks I made in the chamber.

Renee Heath interjected.

Ryan Batchelor: Because you are misrepresenting them.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): There is a point of order on foot. I will deal with the point of order.

Ryan Batchelor: In my contribution I made reference to the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place, referring to Mr Mulholland. Dr Heath does not understand the difference or misheard what I said. Fair enough. I did not in my contribution criticise by name Mr Southwick, and I do not think that that misrepresentation should be allowed to stand on the record.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I would ask Dr Heath to continue.

Renee HEATH: Thank you. I just took extreme offence to that, particularly when Mr Batchelor was talking about the people that stand with the Jewish community and was putting words in their mouths. And Mr Batchelor –

Ryan Batchelor: Further to the point of order, Acting President, I take offence to Dr Heath misrepresenting what I said in the chamber. I did not name Mr Southwick either by title or by name, and I ask that she withdraw the accusation that I did.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I would ask Dr Heath to continue on, please.

Renee HEATH: Thank you. What made this more and more pressing is that it was not long ago, in the wake of the Bondi massacre, that we stood – a lot of us were in here. Mr Batchelor attended the service where the Jewish congregation were grieving the loss of 15 innocent people, and so many people warned about this happening. When they introduced Mr Southwick, people clapped. There was a standing ovation and genuine gratitude. Unfortunately, when they introduced the Premier, there were boos throughout the whole place. I want to say that was uncomfortable for me, but it was in that moment that I began to realise that the inaction by the government, that have taken this state from being one of the most successful multicultural communities on earth to one where hatred has been paraded – that is the reality. If Mr Batchelor could not hear the boos that were pointed towards the Premier, then I think, my gosh, that is absolutely staggering. The government do not get to talk about the individual multicultural communities. The government do not get to say how they feel, especially when they are met in moments like that – it is just the reality of it. So I think that there has to be a realness here, that we have stood against hate – strongly.

Ryan Batchelor: You haven’t voted against hate.

Renee HEATH: We have. This is absolutely jaw-dropping hypocrisy. I think that it is interesting that this whole time, Mr Batchelor has tried to put words in our mouths, but this is a place for debate. Sometimes that means that what Mr Batchelor says is going to be pushed back on, especially when there have been moments where his government have been booed and jeered at because they have failed to stand up for particular minority groups in this state. That is the reality.

Now, let me just see if there is anything else that I would like to cover on this. This government has unfortunately presided over a timeframe where there has been hate paraded on the streets. So you cannot claim that you were the champion of harmony, that you were the champion of minority groups, when your actions have said otherwise.

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, I might ask that you ask the President to review my speech and Dr Heath’s speech when Hansard is available to clarify whether the misrepresentation that was in Dr Heath’s speech was accurate or not.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Mr Batchelor, I will have a discussion with the President and see about the referral.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (17:35): I rise to make a short contribution to the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. I understand my colleague Ms Copsey spoke to many aspects of the bill. I am going to speak largely to the amendments that the Greens will seek to introduce to give IBAC greater powers to investigate corruption, and I first kindly ask the Clerk to circulate these amendments. Just for the record, these amendments were shared with members of all parties, including the government, around midday on Tuesday, just to make that clear. We could certainly add other members to our mailing list if they would like to receive our amendments.

Victoria’s IBAC has always been seen as a toothless tiger because it does not have sufficient powers or jurisdiction to investigate much of the corruption that occurs in this state. In summary, the Greens amendments seek to give IBAC some really sharp new teeth so it can finally investigate public and political corruption that has increasingly plagued Victoria under this Labor government. These powers are long, long overdue in this state. As former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich said just yesterday on radio, these are powers that were given to the New South Wales anti-corruption commission decades ago. The fact that we are even debating introducing them now in Victoria is scandalous.

The amendments will bring IBAC’s powers in line with the New South Wales and federal anti-corruption commissions, and they will acquit the key recommendations from the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s recent report into the adequacy of IBAC’s legislative framework. The state Labor government has incredibly serious integrity questions to answer right now, and every Victorian deserves to know the truth about what has been going on under its watch. The fastest way that Victorians can start receiving these answers is to strengthen IBAC as per the Greens amendments today.

I will now briefly summarise the three amendments I will be moving. Our first amendment seeks to expand IBAC’s jurisdiction so that it can investigate corrupt conduct beyond just serious indictable or common-law criminal offences, because the truth is that so often IBAC simply does not have the ability to investigate the full gamut of alleged misconduct. Just this Monday IBAC, in a rare public statement, said it did not have the legal powers necessary to investigate the Big Build allegations the Premier referred to it in writing in 2024. Former IBAC commissioner Robert Redlich said that if the Premier did not know IBAC did not have the power to investigate when she made the referral, then she should have known.

But the truth is that Victorian politicians of all sides have long been in the habit of referring matters to IBAC, including their personal conduct, because they know full well IBAC is a toothless tiger which is prevented under its legislation from investigating these matters. IBAC referrals are fast becoming the oldest trick in the Victorian politicians’ playbook in how to pretend you are taking a corruption scandal seriously without actually taking it seriously. The Premier has been hiding behind her IBAC referral for 18 months in an attempt to suggest she has taken the appropriate action to root out Big Build corruption, but the ruse was spectacularly exposed this week. IBAC called her bluff on Monday – it was a stunt referral she knew would go nowhere. As mentioned, this is certainly not the first time a Victorian politician has hidden from accountability behind an impotent IBAC referral, but it should be the last time.

Under its current laws IBAC can only investigate corruption that constitutes a serious criminal offence or serious common-law offence like misconduct in public office, bribery or perverting the course of justice. A lot of corruption is not necessarily an offence but still amounts to a grievous breach of public trust, things that, if Victorians knew about them, would damage their confidence in government and public administration, and conduct and behaviours that literally can cost Victorians billions of dollars. This includes jobs for mates, giving contracts to donors, allocating funding to marginal electorates instead of communities in need, or, to draw on the recent Big Build allegations, the infiltration of a union by outlaw motorcycle gangs or union and underworld figures operating a black market where bribes are paid by select labour hire firms to secure the union’s formal EBA endorsement.

A lot of the conduct exposed by the media and in other jurisdictions’ reports in regard to the Big Build allegations is not necessarily illegal or an indictable serious criminal offence, but this is the same corrupt conduct that may have cost Victorians $15 billion to $30 billion.

Our first proposed amendment will expand the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 beyond indictable and serious common law offending. This amendment may be familiar to the house, as all non-government Legislative Council members voted in favour of these expanded powers in 2023, when the Greens introduced its Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2024. The expanded definition means IBAC could investigate matters involving a serious disciplinary offence, misconduct worthy of termination, or other wrongdoing in breach of the public’s trust. This will allow IBAC to investigate the full breadth of alleged Big Build misconduct and ensure it can respond robustly to the corruption scandals to come. If the changes in this amendment look familiar, then yes, this is the very same change that was in our private members bill that was passed in this place, unanimously, by all non-government members in late 2023. I do not think any of us would dare claim that what IBAC needed then is not needed now.

Importantly, this amendment that IBAC can apply these new powers retrospectively, and to matters where it may have been previously decided that it did not have the legal jurisdiction to investigate, means that they could now apply these powers to actually investigate Big Build corruption as per the Premier’s referral 18 months ago. The Premier wanted to pretend that IBAC would investigate Big Build corruption. These amendments mean that IBAC should now have the powers to investigate this corruption for real.

Our second proposed amendment will seek to empower IBAC to follow the dollars across publicly funded projects in the private sector. To get to the bottom of the Big Build scandal, IBAC must be given the power to investigate the corrupt conduct of third-party and private subcontractors – like dodgy private developers, bikies and CFMEU officials – where that alleged misconduct could impair Victorians’ confidence in public administration.

Our amendments will also give effect to recommendation 14 of the Integrity and Oversight Committee report into the legislative framework for IBAC, that the Victorian government give IBAC greater powers to explicitly authorise someone who has made a complaint to IBAC to communicate to someone else about IBAC’s response to that complaint – for example, that IBAC has decided to dismiss or investigate the complaint. Under the current law, complainants can only make such a disclosure in very restricted circumstances. This amendment would grant IBAC the discretion to, amongst other things, authorise complainants to disclose this information to support their own wellbeing – for example, disclosing this information to a therapist.

The Greens’ third and final amendment will seek to amend the IBAC act to remove the bar on IBAC holding public hearings, except in what IBAC considers to be exceptional circumstances. The requirement of exceptional circumstances sets an overly high bar for opening up IBAC hearings to the general public. IBAC itself suggested this requirement places an additional and unnecessary constraint on its ability to inform the public about its work and promote accountability. Unless this amendment is passed, were IBAC to be given the powers necessary to investigate the full scope of alleged Big Build corruption it may conduct its hearings and investigations behind closed doors. In the current circumstances with regard to corruption in Victoria, now more than ever, the public must be able to see IBAC working to hold public officials accountable and upholding integrity in this state. Victorians also have a right to witness the evidence given to IBAC so that they can make an informed choice in the lead-up to the next election. I want to emphasise that this amendment will not remove important safeguards on public hearings, including maintaining IBAC’s discretion to hold private hearings where necessary to protect the identity of whistleblowers or to protect the reputation, safety or wellbeing of a witness.

In closing, let me be clear: if the Allan Labor government opposes these sorely needed amendments, we can only conclude that the government does not want the Victorian public to know the truth about the depth and breadth of the Big Build corruption. We as a Parliament can decide today to start giving Victorians these answers on the full extent and cost of what has been going on. I urge all members to do the right thing for Victorians now and in the future by supporting all of these amendments, and I commend them to the house.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:45): I rise to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. The bill contains various legislative reforms to support the effective and efficient operation of the courts, including the Coroners Court, VCAT, the Office of the Public Advocate and fines enforcement. The bill will amend the Open Courts Act 2013 to implement recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court report by allowing lower courts and VCAT to vary or revoke legacy suppression orders made prior to that act. It will amend the Coroners Act 2008 to enable the Coroners Court to streamline and investigate finalisation and reopening of procedures. It will amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to enable more doctors to register deaths and clarify their death reporting obligations. It will amend fines and tolling legislation and make minor fines-related amendments to other acts to strengthen fines enforcement by correcting minor anomalies and inconsistencies and make procedural improvements. It will amend the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 to clarify the delegation powers and acting arrangements of the Public Advocate. It will amend the Crimes Act 1958 to expand the existing bestiality offence and introduce indictable offences that prohibit producing, distributing, possessing and accessing bestiality or animal-crush material. It will also amend the County Court Act 1958 and the Sentencing Act 1991 to extend the operation of the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, and it will amend the Road Safety Act 1986 to enable the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to carry out certain administrative functions under the Road Safety Act more efficiently.

This bill will introduce a transitional provision in the Open Courts Act 2013 to allow the lower courts and VCAT to review legal suppression orders made prior to the commencement of the act in December 2013. These are referred to as pre-existing orders in this bill. The Open Courts Act consolidates suppression order powers of the courts and VCAT; however, it does not include provisions to review pre-existing orders. Many of these orders operate indefinitely. Currently applications to vary or revoke pre-existing orders can only be made to the Supreme Court under its inherent jurisdiction, which is a costly process, strains the resources of the court and hinders access to justice. The amendments will address this problem and implement recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court report. The bill will also allow persons with a sufficient interest in a pre-existing order, including victim-survivors of a sexual offence or family violence offence and news media organisations, to apply to the relevant court or VCAT to review the order. The court or VCAT will be able to confirm, vary or revoke a pre-existing order.

With regard to the Coroners Act reforms, the bill will introduce a new discretion for coroners to discontinue investigations into certain reportable natural cause deaths which do not require further investigation once the cause of death is identified. Where the discretion is available and exercised, a coroner will direct a Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine pathologist or an eligible medical practitioner to notify the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages of the cause of death. This will avoid the need for the coroner to make findings into the death and remove the need for the court to provide the registry of births, deaths and marriages with particulars of the death. This will reduce investigation finalisation times, providing families with closure sooner. These amendments will acquit recommendation 4 of the Coronial Council of Victoria’s 2020 Review of Reportable Deaths in Victoria report and recommendation 1 of the 2024 Coroners Act statutory review. The bill will limit standing to apply for coronial findings to be set aside and for the reopening of investigations and allow the Coroners Court to set aside findings and reopen investigations on its own motion. This will promote efficiencies and assist the court in its duty to promote public health and safety and the administration of justice.

[The Legislative Council report is being published progressively.]