Thursday, 19 March 2026

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (15:57): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. This bill contains a really important change, and it is something that I have been advocating for for a really long time. Many in this place might be shocked to know just how weak our bestiality laws are when it comes to the sexual abuse of animals. As we have seen in the past, our laws have actually worked against the victims to instead protect the depraved sickos that seek pleasure from sexually abusing animals. That changes now with this bill. This is to ensure that every animal in Victoria can be safe, because for too long they have not been, like Olivia the pig, who I have spoken about in this chamber before. In February 2024 hidden cameras at Midland Bacon piggery in northern Victoria caught a worker committing a horrific sexual act against a pig who was confined in a farrowing cage. Currently in Victoria the definition of ‘bestiality’ is shockingly weak, and it does not capture all forms of sexual abuse against animals. Olivia’s case was the case that highlighted exactly why we need urgent reform, because this man clearly committed multiple forms of sexual abuse in the vision. However, without going into all of the details, only his final act of penetration was considered illegal under our existing laws.

Under this bill the offence of ‘bestiality’ will be expanded. While it is currently only a crime to penetrate an animal, these expanded laws will make it illegal to sexually touch an animal to ensure all forms of sexual violence are captured. It is an uncomfortable conversation, but it is a necessary and long overdue change. On multiple occasions I have asked the government to update these laws to be consistent with other states, and this change will align Victoria with the way in which bestiality is defined in Tasmania, South Australia, New South Wales and the ACT. I want to thank the former Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes and the current Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny for working with me to make this hugely important change over a number of years.

This was one of the most horrific acts of cruelty that I have personally ever come across. We know that there are people not only committing these sexual acts on animals but also watching vile content of it. An open-source investigation in 2020 found over 3000 videos available for sale to people in Australia. These included videos of crushing and killing kittens, puppies, dogs, baby chicks, snakes, rabbits, pigs, mice, ducklings, fish and insects. This type of content is known as ‘animal crush’ or ‘animal snuff’ videos, which are deemed to be extreme so-called porn and fetish videos, but they are nothing more than sick, depraved visions of animal abuse. It typically involves a woman, often wearing high heels, crushing an animal to its death. Up until now there has been no specific offence in Victoria that makes it illegal to possess or distribute bestiality or animal crush footage and images, and this bill also makes accessing this kind of sick content a crime.

I want to give you one example of why this change is so important. One of the worst bestiality offenders in the country, Adam Britton from the Northern Territory, was slapped with a 10-year-and-five-month jail sentence after he pleaded guilty to 60 charges of bestiality, animal cruelty and possessing child abuse material in August 2024. But authorities were unable to charge or convict him for the creation and sharing of bestiality materials due to the lack of such laws in the Northern Territory. It is really, really important to also note how these laws can often intersect with our child protection laws, because we know that people who abuse animals often abuse children too, and they often start there. So these laws being expanded also have the potential to capture paedophiles. There is one case of that right here in Victoria. We saw the horrifying case of childcare worker Joshua Brown, who has been charged with a raft of offences. But something that many people missed in this story is that he has also been charged with 12 counts of bestiality. While I am pleased to have these changes here, in order to truly combat bestiality, we do need nationally consistent laws, because we know that in its current form abusers are free to travel across borders and continue their crimes. I do want to credit the government for working with me on this, and I hope this change can now lead to advocacy on their part in pushing for federal reforms as well.

As this is a miscellaneous justice bill, it makes many different changes to many different pieces of justice legislation, and there are a few other areas in particular I would like to note. The bill also makes changes to the Coroners Act 2008 to enable streamlined investigation finalisation procedures. It does this by clarifying the pathway for an investigation to be either discontinued or later reopened. These changes implement recommendations 1 and 5 of the Coroners Act statutory review, and I urge the government to improve resourcing of the Coroners Court to advance the speed of coronial inquests, which currently have frankly utterly disgraceful delays. Too many families are being forced to wait for far too long to gain a sense of justice, peace and understanding of their loved one’s death.

I would also like to briefly touch on the amendment moved by Mr Limbrick relating to registered sex offenders working within the sex industry. I understand the reasoning behind this amendment, and all people working in or engaging with the sex industry deserve to do so safely. I want to make clear that although I do agree with the intention of the amendment, I am worried about the effects of rushing a change of this significance. I am also concerned, as stakeholders have raised, that introducing industry-specific employment prohibitions and giving more opportunities for police intervention in an industry that has only just been decriminalised and has historically been overpoliced may have unintended consequences. However, the statutory review of the decriminalisation framework is approaching, and I encourage the government to consider all steps to improve the safety of sex workers and their clients in this process.

To summarise, I am really pleased to finally see the passage of these long-overdue changes, particularly the ones in relation to bestiality and crush reform. This is something that, as I said, is so incredibly vital not just to protect animals in vulnerable positions across a range of households and industries but, more broadly, to protect people too. We know that if we can act early on animal abuse, particularly sexual abuse towards animals, we can be preventing other crimes and stopping escalation. These laws are a long time coming, and while we can never change the horrific abuse that animals such as Olivia endured, today we can ensure that there is justice for any other animals that are subjected to this cruelty in the future. I commend this bill to the house.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:05): I rise today to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. This bill takes a wide range of existing pieces of legislation and amends, modifies and modernises them to better reflect the needs of the Victorian community. The unifying theme of the amendments to these various bills is supporting the courts and justice systems to operate smoothly and efficiently. The pieces of legislation which this bill’s proposed changes will affect are the Open Courts Act 2013, which has been affected by the changes which will allow the lower courts and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to revoke legacy suppression orders; the Coroners Act 2008, which has been changed to create new investigation finalisation pathways for certain natural causes of death; the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996, which has been changed to allow for more doctors to register deaths; the Infringements Act 2006 and the Fines Reform Act 2014, which are being changed to strengthen and modernise fines enforcement; the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, which will change to provide greater clarity about the delegation powers of the Public Advocate; the Crimes Act 1958, which will be amended to expand the definition of ‘bestiality’ and to outlaw the production, distribution, possession and accessing of sexualised and sadistic animal cruelty material and also in order to change the consent framework relating to the Director of Public Prosecutions and serious vilification offences; the Road Safety Act 1986, which will be amended in order to better facilitate smoother and more efficient administrative processes; and the County Court Act 1958 and the Sentencing Act 1991.

In order to give a sense of the breadth of what the bill manages to cover, I am going to briefly outline each of the provisions relating to the many different pieces of the legislation which we are seeking to amend. First of all, this bill seeks to implement recommendation 131 from the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Contempt of Court report 2020 by allowing the lower courts of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to revoke legacy suppression orders or alter them as the case may require. We are preventing outdated orders from remaining in place beyond when they are reasonably necessary. Many legacy suppression orders do not have an end date or were made according to the provisions of the courts act, which has since been repealed.

Suppression orders can be important to protect the integrity of a trial in particularly sensitive cases. Sometimes it is necessary for details to be kept from publication for various reasons – for example, if the publication and public disclosure of the details of a case might prejudice the administration of justice, might have security implications or might jeopardise the safety of someone who is involved in the case. These are all very good reasons to keep people from discussing or publishing the details of these cases in the broader public. But equally, there are situations where, years later, it may become appropriate for these issues to be discussed publicly – for example, if a victim of a crime which occurred years ago is hoping to share their experiences and tell their story. Sometimes sharing these stories is important in helping people to cope with the trauma which they have faced and helping them to overcome the challenges and adversity which has come their way. In particular this bill intends to support the victim-survivors of sexual and family violence in this way. Where outdated legal orders are preventing them from doing that in situations where there is no compelling reason why the details of the case should continue to be suppressed, this bill will help people to have those orders removed.

This is important in upholding the principle of open justice and is an important part of ensuring that the public can have faith and confidence in the court system. In situations where details of a case need to be suppressed during the trial itself, it is still important that later down the track, scrutiny and accountability within the court system can be maintained. This matters because victims of crime need to be able to know that the court system will protect them. Additionally members of the public need to be able to know that if they were ever accused of a crime, they would receive a trial which is fair. That is a basic civil liberty which is fundamental to the rule of law as we know it in Victoria. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:09): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. Like any omnibus bill, this bill makes many changes of various sizes in a wide range of areas across our justice system. To say that this bill has been a journey is probably a bit of an understatement. What was once your standard omnibus bill then included amendments to what happens with the Director of Public Prosecutions as well as IBAC amendments, and it seems that those will now no longer be part of this bill. So what I will do in my contribution today is just focus on the parts of the bill that I know will be established and substantiated today.

I will begin by discussing what passed in the lower house. This amendment provides that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not required for police to commence a prosecution for certain criminal vilification offences, unless the accused is under 18. This will apply retrospectively from September last year. However, we know that this part of the bill is now redundant. In the face of delays of the passage of this bill, the government successfully passed the Crimes Amendment Bill 2026 last sitting week in a rush to make these changes. As I said in my contribution on the crimes bill, I was proud to be part of the changes to the anti-vilification laws passed by this Parliament. We supported the Greens amendment for prosecutorial consent because it provided real and necessary checks and balances on these new powers, making sure that they were not misused by police to, among other things, crack down on peaceful protesters. The change as it is before us today, and as it was already passed in the Crimes Amendment Bill, is and was unjustified. It lacks evidence and is clear political posturing.

Before turning to the substance of the bill, I would also like to acknowledge the amendments moved by Mr Limbrick to introduce a prohibition on people charged with sexual offences working in the sex industry. This actually took me back a little bit to my former role as the general manager of Eros Association, where I did a lot of work around sex work law reform. While I do appreciate that these amendments may be well intentioned, stakeholders were not consulted on this prior to circulation. It is so important that sex workers and those that represent sex workers speak to their own experiences, particularly when it comes to regulations and laws that impact the work that they do. Those that I have spoken to are concerned about the implications of such an amendment and how it would treat sex work differently to other adult personal services. The decriminalisation of sex work was shaped by the understanding that sex work is work. This understanding, alongside the aim of reducing stigma and harm, would also be undermined by subjecting the industry to separate criminalisation. We would like to see this issue considered as part of the broader review of the decriminalisation of sex work, and we will be asking questions during the committee stage to seek assurance that this review will commence as soon as possible.

Turning now to the substance of the bill, it was great to see that this bill will extend the operation of the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, which would otherwise cease operating within the next month. These kinds of courts have been proven to be effective in supporting offenders to address the causes of addiction, reduce recidivism and reduce harm. As someone who recently had the experience of finding out that I was the subject of a fine that had been lost in translation – can you believe, a fine from 2011 that I did not know about – it was also great to see that the changes in this bill to improve the fines system in Victoria are going to have a positive impact in that respect. In particular I was pleased to see the removal of the requirement for traffic or toll fine recipients to meet certain evidential requirements when applying for an extension of time to deal with the fine on the grounds that they were unaware that it had even been issued, much like me in my circumstance. Anyone can miss a fine for a number of reasons. Those without a fixed address, dealing with mental health issues or with English as a second language are often at greater risk and are unaware that their fine may have been served. While our fines system could very much still be improved, this change is a positive step in the right direction. A simple fix would be just that when you go to register your licence, it pops up that you may have fines. That would be easy.

Before concluding, I would also like to commend the changes in this bill to expand the existing bestiality offence and introduce indictable offences that prohibit producing, distributing, possessing and accessing bestiality or animal crush material for a sexual or sadistic purpose. Again, reflecting on my time at Eros Association, this has been a long time coming. It is something that I myself have advocated for reform on, both federally and at a state-based level, and I am so proud of the work. I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of my colleague Georgie Purcell in securing these changes. It is shameful that these laws did not exist already, but this wrong will now be fixed thanks to Georgie’s advocacy.

While this bill has been hotly contested, we expected these contested elements would not be dealt with today for various reasons, so what is left for us to consider are a series of improvements across the justice system. Accordingly, we can support this bill.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:16): The legislation before us, the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, is an important bill that makes many necessary reforms carefully, precisely and in response to independent advice. This bill strengthens the effective operation of our courts, supports vulnerable Victorians and removes inefficiencies that have been holding the system back. I do thank the chamber for their patience. I understand that many were anticipating debate a lot earlier in this place in relation to this bill, but we have had the opportunity to conclude the debate, and obviously we will have a committee stage to go. But I think it is important that it is before the chamber and to have everyone in the chamber’s support for the broad reforms, as they are about efficiencies and improvements to the system.

Before I continue I would like to also state for the record that I have a house amendment to remove part 8A from the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill, because these reforms have already passed and commenced. The part 8A provisions were in the Crimes Amendment Act 2026, which passed on 5 March and commenced on 12 March 2026. The provisions relate to the way that serious vilification offences are prosecuted, and I ask that my amendments be circulated now.

As I was saying, this is about improvements to the system, about efficiency and about removing matters that hold the system back. It implements recommendation 133 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 Contempt of Court report by allowing lower courts and VCAT to review legacy suppression orders made before the Open Courts Act 2013. That means victim-survivors of sexual and family violence will no longer be forced into costly Supreme Court processes to vary or revoke indefinite orders. It improves access to justice and reduces strain on our courts. It reforms the Coroners Act 2008 to streamline investigation, finalisation and reopening processes, giving families closure sooner and acquitting recommendations from the Coronial Council of Victoria and the 2024 statutory review. It clarifies doctors’ obligations under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996, enabling notification of a probable cause of death. This will reduce unnecessary referrals to the Coroners Court while preserving the integrity of death certification. It strengthens fines enforcement by correcting anomalies, modernising electronic services and improving procedural clarity across the Infringements Act 2006, the Fines Reform Act 2014 and related legislation. It clarifies delegation powers and acting arrangements under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, ensuring the public advocate can act swiftly for vulnerable people; expands the existing bestiality offence in the Crimes Act 1958 to prohibit sexual touching between a human and an animal; and introduces indictable offences targeting the production, distribution and possession of and access to bestiality and animal abuse material.

These reforms include clear exceptions for legitimate professional, journalistic and artistic conduct and attract penalties consistent with equivalent offences. The bill also ensures that the County Court Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court can continue operating beyond April 2026. This bill will preserve a therapeutic pathway that promotes rehabilitation and reduces offending. Amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986 allow the Magistrates’ Court to manage administrative functions more efficiently for expanded digital processes. This bill acquits recommendations from multiple independent reviews. It improves access to justice. It supports families in grief. It strengthens protections for animals. It protects vulnerable people and ensures those who spread hate face justice properly, which already passed in March. These are practical reforms, grounded in evidence and community need.

Before I conclude I do want to address some of the amendments that Mr Limbrick has circulated, and I think it is appropriate, as some of the other contributors have discussed –

A member interjected.

Enver ERDOGAN: Well, I just want to state the government’s position that we will not be supporting Mr Limbrick’s amendment. I do want to thank Mr Limbrick for his really positive engagement. I understand he engaged with the government, with the Attorney-General’s office, in good faith, so we are not opposing this amendment on any sort of ideological basis; we just acknowledge that there is a genuine need to consider how to balance the rights of individuals to engage in legitimate forms of work with the need to protect people who are accessing these services. I know as the Minister for Corrections I always talk in this chamber about how employment is an important protective factor, so therefore prohibiting a registrable offender from engaging in lawful employment is potentially going to have adverse community safety outcomes, which we do not want. So the government’s position on Mr Limbrick’s amendment is that in its current form we cannot support it, and we feel the substance of the issues raised by Mr Limbrick is better considered as part of a planned statutory review of the Sex Work Decriminalisation Act 2022.

I note Ms Payne also reflected on this issue and asked about a timeframe, but I can confirm – it might assist and maybe save some time during the committee stage – that the government is happy to commence that review by the end of the year, which is the earliest statutory timeframe. I think that is something that I can state on record: by the end of this year we will begin that review into the Sex Work Decriminalisation Act 2022. That answers your question as well, Ms Payne, and clarifies the government position for Mr Limbrick. In light of all that, I commend the bill to the house, and I look forward to the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora) (16:21): I have considered the amendments on sheets SMA60C, SMA61C and SMA63C circulated by Dr Mansfield, and in my view they are not within the scope of the bill and would require passage of an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 to be considered. Dr Mansfield has advised that she is not proceeding with her instruction motion. Therefore the amendments on sheets SMA60C, SMA61C and SMA63C will not be considered in the committee of the whole.

I have considered the amendments on sheet DL73C circulated by Mr Limbrick, and in my view they are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. I remind the house that an instruction to a committee is a procedural motion.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:22): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments and a new clause to amend the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 to prohibit registrable offenders working in commercial sexual services or sexually explicit entertainment employment.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Clause 1 (16:25)

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I have some queries about the operation of the elements of the bill that interact with fines and would just like to seek some clarification on the government’s intent to assist stakeholders who may have some confusion about the intended operation of these. With regard to the online platform as a mechanism to communicate to fines recipients, does Fines Victoria currently send the majority of its correspondence to fine recipients by post? Noting that express consent is required to send correspondence via email under the Fines Reform Act 2014 and that Fines Victoria does not ask fine recipients for consent, this can raise problematic issues for people, for example, experiencing housing instability.

Enver ERDOGAN: From the outset I say yes, most fines-related correspondence is sent by post – I can confirm that – and that is in accordance with the requirements of the legislation. On the second point you raised, about service by electronic means being more convenient for people, I think it is more convenient for many young people as well. We get a lot of students, workers and people that are in more dire situations, as you explained, such as homelessness and other tragedy. The bill seeks to support electronic service of fines documents, as we agree that for many people electronic service is more convenient than post. The amendments in this bill strengthen existing provisions that allow electronic service, such as by email or SMS, for fines-related notices, in particular where the recipient is 16 years or above, has consented to receiving notice electronically and has provided the address used for electronic service. So, yes, this bill seeks to achieve that purpose and goes a long way to doing that.

Katherine COPSEY: In terms of changing to electronic options, direct email is more accessible than an online portal for most people, so stakeholders have raised concerns as to why the government is not keeping pace with other industries in proactively seeking to send correspondence to fines recipients by email. What is the cost spent by Fines Victoria in sending correspondence out by post, and how much could be avoided if consent for email correspondence was sought and received?

Enver ERDOGAN: I appreciate your detailed interest in the cost of postage. We know that it has become quite expensive to send mail by Australia Post, especially registered post, so I do appreciate that. I do not have at hand the detailed cost that the department spends in relation to postage in particular. As you know, it would go through the broader budget. It sounds like a really good Public Accounts and Estimates Committee question, to be frank.

In relation to the use of electronic service, I totally agree we should be adopting that. I think many times you see across government services that digitalisation can take a bit longer than what is happening out in the community, and I think this is an example. That is why this bill goes a long way to strengthening provisions that allow electronic service. I do love the comparison you are making between portals and just direct email in terms of convenience for consumers or the public or however you want to frame it, because that is a question that was on my mind, and it comes across with a lot of government services. From what I understand and as I have been advised, the amendments enable an online portal to be used by enforcement agencies and other fines system stakeholders that are not themselves the recipient of an infringement or court fine. Therefore it is envisaged that it is not just for the individual, but potentially if someone is represented by a solicitor, then, for example, the solicitor could access the online portal, and when they are representing them, it would just be an easy transfer of documents and information between the parties. I think that is what is envisaged here by Fines Victoria, and that is why the use of the portal is an important component. But I do also agree with your point that there should be a greater use of email – it is quicker, efficient and less costly to the public.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, if you could just confirm: my understanding from discussions around this bill is that the amendments do not enable the portal to be used to provide information to serve notices on or communicate directly with fine recipients. Is that accurate?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will need to clarify that, Ms Copsey.

Ms Copsey, you are correct.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, the explanatory memorandum suggests that an enforcement warrant could be applied for prior to a notice of final demand (NFD) even being served in relation to a particular fine. Stakeholders have asked my office to seek clarification: what is the government’s intention here? Is this amendment intended to enable an enforcement warrant to be applied against a fine defaulter who is subject to an enforcement warrant on one or more fines to escalate any other fines to enforcement warrant stage and therefore to expose that person to sanctions and other enforcement activities sooner, with their time to exercise their options to expiate their fines then being reduced? Is that what the government is seeking to do?

Enver ERDOGAN: Before getting to the detail of the question, Ms Copsey, because it is an important issue, I just want to frame it here that a lot of these reforms are not about removing people’s rights, so to speak, but they are about making it easier for the person to deal with all their unpaid late fines and warrants at the one time. For a lot of people, we know there is a lot of delay involved in court systems – 28 days for this issue, 21 days additionally – and it creates an increasing kind of burden on recipients. So the broad frame in which we have made some of the reforms in this bill is about making it easier for the person to deal with their unpaid late fines and indebtedness at the one time. That is the overarching goal. This amendment is intended to allow the director to progress enforcement when people have multiple unpaid fines that are already at the warrant stage and at the notice of final demand stage. These people have a number of fines that they have not dealt with on time. Specifically, it deals with cases where somebody already has at least one enforcement warrant and an additional notice at the final demand stage has been issued but not yet expired. There is no intention to remove the requirement for service of a notice of final demand. Rather, it will be clarified that noncompliance with the notice of final demand, once it is served, will not be a prerequisite to progressing the fines to warrant stage. So it makes it easier to progress them all at the one time and hopefully have them dealt with at the one time, as we know that is a common issue in the justice system.

Katherine COPSEY: There have also been some concerns raised by stakeholders seeking to understand deemed service in relation to nominated addresses. Stakeholders have raised concerns that the proposed amendments to section 181 would mean that service is deemed to occur when Fines Victoria posts material to an address that the fine recipient nominated in the last 12 months, even if the person no longer lives there or there are circumstances where the person never received the correspondence because of, for example, homelessness or crisis accommodation and the timeframe in which they were inhabiting was limited or they were leaving an address through family violence. In these situations, though the person never physically received the correspondence, they would be unable to apply under the person unaware provisions to recover the options that they have lost due to having no way of receiving the correspondence. Has the government considered the impact of these amendments on vulnerable Victorians in these circumstances? What is the intent here, and how can we prevent negative impacts from the deemed service provisions?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the government’s intention is to ensure that the same existing provisions and protections that exist apply in these circumstances where someone provides their own address, because currently there are provisions where we can rely on VicRoads, and we would say that this change should result in more notices being sent to the correct address. Sometimes the address that someone provides is more correct than the VicRoads address. But of course, in the circumstances you have provided where in the last 12 months someone may have changed address, which is quite common, we do not want them to be disadvantaged. There are existing protections where a notice is taken to have been served even if returned undelivered. It will remain open to the fine recipient to apply for review or an extension of time on the grounds that they were unaware of the fine. Those are the existing protections. They will still apply even if they provide their own address. But we believe that sometimes relying on their own address should mean that more notices are being sent to the correct address.

Katherine COPSEY: The proposed amendment to section 106 speeds up an already quite short process, which could have significant impacts on some fine recipients, especially those who are experiencing barriers to engaging with the fine system due to circumstances like family violence, homelessness, mental health challenges or disability. What is the rationale of the government? Are you seeking to shorten the timeframe for enforcement activity? Can you provide some clarification about the intent there?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is important to state that this amendment only applies to people who have multiple unpaid fines that are already at the warrant and NFD stage. These people have a number of fines that they have not been able to deal with on time. Specifically, it deals with cases where somebody already has at least one enforcement warrant and additional NFDs that have not expired yet. The intent is that the amendment will remove the legislative ambiguity and allow for timely and fair enforcement for the person’s total indebtedness. That makes it easier for the person to deal with all their unpaid late fines and warrants at the one time with the help of the sheriff. I have got an example here: if a person has five warrants and two further fines at NFD, it makes no sense for the sheriff to deal with the five warrants today and then have to go back in two weeks time once the NFDs have progressed to warrant. This allows the sheriff to assist the debtor with the totality of the debt and will mean people are able to leave with, so to speak, a clean slate after engaging with the sheriff – again, dealing with issues at the one time. I think it is a good reform for the public and good for the justice system – it just makes it more efficient. If the amendment was removed, doubt on whether the sheriff could help the person with their total indebtedness would remain, so we will just remove that ambiguity to resolve these issues in one go. That is the example.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, stakeholders have also raised with my office concern – I understand the intent that you have just spoken to – that this will mean the government will need to engage in more enforcement activities sooner, including through the sheriff. I think you have just touched on this, but do you expect that this will result in increased costs or resourcing requirements for the sheriff? What do you expect the practical impact will be?

Enver ERDOGAN: My understanding of the provision is that it will be applied selectively, and it is not anticipated there would be a significant impact on the cost of the sheriff’s enforcement activity, because it is only for people with those multiple unpaid fines. Therefore we are not expecting a big impact on the costs for the sheriff’s office to enforce this.

Katherine COPSEY: Now I just have a few questions in relation to the open courts provisions of the bill. Minister, why does the bill not have a requirement that media must demonstrate public interest necessity before involving a victim-survivor in suppression order matters?

Enver ERDOGAN: Media organisations are generally more likely to appear as a contradictor on an application for a suppression order being made. Similarly, they also play an important role in making applications for review of existing suppression orders that may no longer be required or appropriate. We would say, moreover, this change is about consistency across the system. New section 37, which has the provisions regarding who can make an application, is modelled on section 15(1A) of the Open Courts Act 2013. It is about bringing consistency. Regarding your specific question about the demonstration of public interest, I think news media organisations play a key role in reporting on matters that are important to the public, and it could be against the principle of open justice and disclosure of information to legislate a requirement that they demonstrate public necessity. We think that might be a too high threshold in the circumstances, and there is the consideration of the risk of harm to those who may be notified of the application. We think in this situation, and for the openness and transparency of the justice system, it is a needed change.

Katherine COPSEY: The concern here is that victim-survivors may be drawn into adversarial processes that they have not initiated. Parties that can apply under new section 37 include media, attorneys-general and any other parties or persons with a sufficient interest. What safeguards has the government considered, which you can point to, so that victim-survivors are not drawn into an adversarial process that they did not initiate under this?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think your concern is one that I also share. It is very clear in these reforms that there is no requirement that the victim-survivors engage with the application to review a pre-existing suppression order. The provision in the bill merely gives them the opportunity to appear and be heard in applications that may affect them. I do understand that it is quite retraumatising for many victims to appear before these kinds of hearings or any hearing in relation to past offences, and therefore it is not a requirement that they engage. They are provided the option, because many victims do want to have a say in relation to matters, especially after a period of time has passed. It is about providing that option, and these amendments enabling the lower courts and VCAT to review pre-existing suppression orders are modelled on section 15 of the Open Courts Act. So again, it is trying to bring consistency across different pieces of legislation that deal with these matters.

Katherine COPSEY: Given that there is potential for victim-survivors to be drawn back into matters that have caused them trauma in the past, why did the government choose not to include elements that require trauma-informed processes, independent support or legal assistance and consideration of safety measures, for example, like the ability to have remote participation in a hearing or other mechanisms to ensure privacy and protections for victim-survivors?

Enver ERDOGAN: The amendments enabling the lower courts and VCAT to review pre-existing suppression orders are modelled on section 15 of the Open Courts Act, which already provides a mechanism to review suppression orders made under that act. The court or tribunal may, at its discretion, allow victim-survivors and other parties to participate in a review hearing remotely. I think there is that discretion for the courts or a tribunal that does exist. We do not believe that we need it to have a separate clause but instead to bring it into a consistent model where that court has that discretion. We know that in Victoria there are existing support services for victim-survivors and victims of crime, including the Victims of Crime Helpline, the victims and witness assistance service and the victims of crime commissioner. Legal support may also be available from Victoria Legal Aid, the Women’s Legal Service Victoria and many other community legal centres. There are existing supports, but it is up to the court or tribunal to decide if someone wishes to participate or attend a review hearing remotely, so they have got discretion.

Katherine COPSEY: Is there going to be increased funding and resourcing to the community legal sector or any of the entities that you have just named to ensure that advice and support for victim-survivors is available in order to understand the consequences of consenting to revocation of an order?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think these amendments are modelled off the existing suppression order review provisions in section 15 of the Open Courts Act 2013. These provisions do not appear to be used frequently, so we are not expecting, again, a significant increase in demand for services. But there are existing supports, such as the Victims of Crime Helpline and victims and witness assistance service. Our view is that these provisions are not necessarily being used all that frequently, and therefore we are not expecting a drastic change in demand for them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions on clause 1, Minister, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests all your remaining amendments.

Enver ERDOGAN: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, lines 32 to 34 and page 3, lines 1 to 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

Amendment agreed to.

David LIMBRICK: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 3, after line 12 insert –

“(ga) to amend the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 to prohibit registrable offenders working in commercial sexual services or sexually explicit entertainment employment; and”.

This amendment was actually brought to me by Matthew Roberts, who is here at the moment. He is a policy expert in this area and also happens to be a sex worker himself. It has come to our attention that when sex work was decriminalised in Victoria there was what I would consider to be a loophole in the laws in that there is no prohibition whatsoever on registered sex offenders working in that industry. I have worked in the finance sector, and if you have committed financial crimes, you are not allowed to work in the finance sector. I think if you are a registered sex offender – and when we are talking about registered sex offenders, we are talking about serial rapists and paedophiles, like quite serious offences – I think it is appropriate that they are also prohibited from working in the sex work industry.

Contrary to comments made by Ms Payne earlier, Matthew has actually consulted widely. He has consulted with various units of Victoria Police, including SOCIT, the sexual offences and child abuse investigation team. He has consulted with brothel owners; female and male sex workers, both gay and straight; clients of sex workers, both male and female; the head of Project Respect; RhED, resourcing health and education – I am not sure what the D is for; and various mental health workers. Suffice to say that we could not find anyone outside of this Parliament that thinks that keeping these registered sex offenders working in the industry is a good idea.

I acknowledge the consultation with the government, but we have not been able to come to an agreement. I note that sex work decriminalisation is due for review soon, and I accept that the government is going to have a lot of things in the review. This may be one of them, and maybe there are other things. But I think where my view differs is I see this as urgent. This is not a theoretical concern, this is a real concern. We have registered sex offenders working in the industry right now. There is at least one documented that has been reported on in the media. Considering that there are upwards of 14,000 registered sex offenders in Victoria, it would be reasonable to assume that there are many more. I think that this is an urgent issue that needs to be taken care of immediately or as soon as possible. I am disappointed that we could not come to some way of doing this sooner with the government, but nevertheless I am convinced that this is important and we need to move forward with it. Therefore I have move my amendment.

Enver ERDOGAN: I want to just reiterate that the government will not be supporting this amendment for the reasons I outlined in my summation to the bill. But what I will do is again thank Mr Limbrick. It is clear he is very passionate, and he has engaged with the government in good faith. On this issue today, on balance, the government does not agree with this amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting Mr Limbrick’s amendment and are quite perplexed as to why other members in the chamber would not be supporting this amendment and have not really explained why that might be the case. But I thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this amendment to the chamber. I know he has done extensive consultation on this particular amendment, and it makes a lot of sense. I thank him for bringing it to the chamber, and the Liberals and Nationals will be supporting it.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment today for similar reasons to those outlined briefly by my colleagues Ms Payne and Ms Purcell recently. We thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this matter to the attention of the chamber and thank the government for the pathway that they have indicated is open to consideration of these issues. The limited engagement that we have had indicates that there is a diversity of views amongst the sex work community on this issue. Therefore I think the path that the government has outlined around consideration of this as part of the broader statutory review into decriminalisation is a good one to ventilate the issue further. I welcome the confirmation by the minister today that that statutory review will be proceeding in a timely fashion to continue the important work of decriminalisation of sex work in Victoria.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 76A and part heading preceding clause 76A (16:58)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister’s amendments 2 and 3, which have already been tested, propose to omit a part heading and a clause.

Clause and part heading negatived.

Clause 76B (16:58)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister’s amendment 4 proposes to omit the clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 77 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (17:00): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (17:00): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

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