Tuesday, 10 November 2020
The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 11.04 am and read the prayer.
Announcements
Acknowledgement of country
The PRESIDENT (11:04): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament.
COVID-19
The PRESIDENT (11:05): Members, I would just like to remind you of the arrangements in the house in regard to COVID-19. You all know that entry is from this side and the exit is from there. There is to be no gathering in the chamber. Masks are compulsory unless you have a medical certificate. When it comes to a members statement, a constituency question, an adjournment matter or a second reading of a bill, they all can be incorporated. If there is a division, you should all stand in your place. This is just a reminder, and I am sure you know most of it.
Members
Ministry
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:06): I wish to update the house that the Governor has, on the advice of the Premier, withdrawn the commissions for the special COVID-19 ministerial portfolios, effective yesterday, 9 November 2020. The portfolios and ministers representing list has been updated to reflect these changes.
Business of the house
Standing and sessional orders
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:07): I move, by leave:
That standing, sessional and temporary orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the following to occur:
1. Order of business today
The order of business today will be:
Messages
Questions
Answers to questions on notice
Constituency questions (up to 15 members)
Formal business
Members statements (up to 15 members)
Government business
At 10.00 pm adjournment (up to 20 members).
2. Order of business on Wednesday this week
The order of business tomorrow will be:
Messages
Formal business
Members statements (up to 15 members)
General business (up to 6 hours, excluding divisions)
At 10.50 am sitting suspended to recognise Remembrance Day
At 12.30 pm questions
Answers to questions on notice
Constituency questions (up to 15 members)
General business (continues)
Statements on reports, papers and petitions (30 minutes)
Adjournment (up to 20 members).
3. Sitting of the house on Thursday
The sitting of the Council, on Thursday, 12 November 2020, to commence at 10.00 am.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Cladding Safety Victoria Bill 2020
Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Education and Training Reform Amendment (Regulation of Student Accommodation) Bill 2020
Worker Screening Bill 2020
Royal assent
The PRESIDENT (11:08): I have a message from the Governor, dated 4 November:
The Governor informs the Legislative Council that she has, on this day, given the Royal Assent to the undermentioned Act of the present Session presented to her by the Clerk of the Parliaments:
31/2020 Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020
32/2020 Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2020
33/2020 Education and Training Reform Amendment (Regulation of Student Accommodation) Act 2020
34/2020 Worker Screening Act 2020
Questions without notice and ministers statements
Remembrance Day
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (11:09): My question without notice is to the minister for veterans affairs. Minister, tomorrow, as we know, is Remembrance Day, and veterans and communities would normally be marking the occasion by gathering at 11.00 am for a short ceremony and a minute’s silence. This year is different because of COVID-19, and everybody understands that. However, how is it fair that only 10 people are allowed to gather for Remembrance Day outside at a cenotaph and yet 50 can gather outside for funerals or 50 can gather outside for religious ceremonies? On what health advice is this unfair treatment of veterans based?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:10): I thank Mr Finn for the question. I am, too, disappointed that we are currently trying to deal with a global pandemic, and I think the strides that have been made recently by our state are something that we should all be pleased with and something that we need to try and do our best to protect.
I think the crux of Mr Finn’s question is around people gathering around a memorial, particularly in a park open to all the public. The chief health officer did make advice around those sorts of gatherings. Mr Finn mentioned funerals and other activities or other ceremonies. At those ceremonies there will be a register of everyone that has actually been present at that particular ceremony. With the ceremonies Mr Finn is talking about—and I do share the disappointment with everyone that this is the case in dealing with a global pandemic—traditionally a lot of people from a lot of areas will turn up to those ceremonies where there is no control to actually register who they are. It is quite disappointing, and I share that disappointment. As I said, with the way that this state is currently tracking, let us all be more than hopeful that this is not an issue that we are going to have to deal with into the future.
Compounding this issue is that a lot of the ceremonies that are around memorials are organised and obviously attended by a lot of older veterans, and unfortunately that age group is a group that is more susceptible. If unfortunately they do pick up this virus, there is much more of a chance of a tragic outcome for them. So it is not easy. It is not easy dealing with a global pandemic. None of us wants to be in this position, and I would say we all are very keen, and rightly so, to show our respects at these sorts of memorials and days. I have got to say that that is important, but there is a lot more around veteran welfare that we can put our minds to as MPs as well. So I respect people’s frustration and disappointment, but we have to deal with this global pandemic through health advice.
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (11:13): I concur with the minister when he says that we sincerely hope that we never have to face this again, but tomorrow we do. Minister, did you speak to the Premier or the chief health officer on this matter and put the case for veterans? If you did, what evidence did they offer, and if you did not, why not?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:13): The answer is yes. I spoke to a number of people in the days previous to Sunday’s announcement, and the substantive answer I got was the actual health advice and the evidence around not being able to register who is actually at these—
Members interjecting.
Mr LEANE: I appreciate the chorus. I have answered the question, and you will join me in future months when I come out and talk about veterans welfare and whose responsibility that is and how the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is the worst type of insurance company in the world and treats veterans with disdain. So let us all jump on board. First questions for veterans, probably, from the opposition ever, so thank you for that., but I am looking forward to your support in the future.
Crown Casino
Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (11:14): My question without notice is to the minister representing the minister for gambling regulation. Given that counsel assisting the Sydney casino licence public inquiry has submitted that Crown is unfit to operate a casino in New South Wales, has the minister sought a briefing from the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation into whether Crown should continue to hold a licence to run Crown Melbourne?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:15): I thank Mr Hayes for the question. I understand it was directed to the minister for consumer affairs. I will make sure that Mr Hayes gets a response, in line with what is prescribed in the standing orders, from that minister.
Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (11:15): My supplementary is to the same minister. If Crown is not fit to operate a licence in Sydney, how can it be fit to run a casino anywhere in Australia?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:15): I will also make sure that Mr Hayes gets a written response to his supplementary question from that particular minister.
Ministers statements: LaunchVic
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:15): The Andrews government recognises that connecting our local startups to government procurement opportunities is one of the most logical and impactful ways that we can ensure our Victorian startup ecosystem is supported and continues to grow. But the benefits do not stop there. Our entrepreneurs are among the most innovative in the country, and by working more closely with this sector we can ensure that our government has access to the best new solutions. This is exactly why our startup agency LaunchVic established CivVic Labs, a bespoke accelerator program that brings startups and government together to solve public sector challenges and provide startups with more government procurement opportunities.
Just last week we announced that Victorian startups have secured contracts with a combined value of $500 000 with the Victorian government to develop technology solutions in the important areas of workplace safety, transport and education. The three startups will each receive a contract of between $150 000 and $200 000 to work with various government departments to apply their innovative and agile thinking to solve public sector challenges.
WorkSafe Victoria has contracted Ignition Immersive, who will use virtual reality to improve safety in the construction industry. Cheer Me is working jointly with the department of education and the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions to address physical inactivity and obesity in Victorian teenagers—adapted during the pandemic to also be an at-home challenge app that teens can use to stay occupied and active. She’s a Crowd will assist the Department of Transport with crowdsourced spatial data to help planners understand and enhance the user safety, mobility and satisfaction of women and girls using the state’s transport network.
These latest procurement contracts bring the total government procurement investment in Victorian startups through CivVic Labs to nearly $1.5 million since the program commenced in 2019. These contracts provide vital capital for startups to continue to develop their products, build successful companies and create jobs.
COVID-19
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:18): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, gyms operate as a business, and they have been smashed throughout COVID. On Sunday it was announced that they could reopen but needed to have a COVID-safe marshal in place. The Premier and the chief health officer could not provide the details, when they made the announcement, of who the COVID-safe marshal would be and who would pay for it. In fact, apart from the announcement, they had no details about the marshals that would need to be in place for a gym to reopen in less than 24 hours. Minister, what support is government providing for gyms to be able to operate and have a staff member as a marshal, as required by the directions, instead of them being able to take classes with their clients?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:18): I thank Ms Crozier for her question about the safe reopening of gyms across Victoria. I take a moment to recognise the great work that many gym owners and operators and their staff have done to continue to support their members and their clients to stay fit and active, even while closed as the restrictions have required. There have been all sorts of different solutions to keep people active and to keep people connected to those businesses, which is of course very important for business sustainability—creating a continued link between member and gym. Certainly gyms across regional Victoria have had an opportunity to be open for a short number of weeks longer than those in Melbourne, but it is great to be able to see people being able to re-enter the gyms. They are a really important part of people’s health and wellbeing, both physical and mental, but they are also very social places for a lot of people, and being able to reconnect with people that they attend the gym with is also a really important feature of this.
In terms of Ms Crozier’s question about the support that is being provided and has been provided to gyms and to others in the fitness industry, I would refer Ms Crozier to the very significant numbers of grants and programs. Depending on the business structure, there will be different programs that will have been available to support gym owners and operators. For instance, the Business Support Fund would have been able to be accessed by most and the commercial tenancy relief scheme will have been able to be accessed by most. There will be others. Depending on the nature of their business structure, they would be able to use the sole trader grants program—though most I think will be Business Support Fund—and the many other programs. And of course income support has been provided through this period of closure by the federal government through their JobKeeper program. But we will continue to work with the fitness industry and all other industries, with our small business community and indeed with larger businesses as well to ensure their safe and successful reopening.
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:21): Minister, the government has had nine months to prepare for businesses to reopen and operate in a COVID-safe way, yet your government gave businesses such as gyms less than 24 hours notice in what they were expected to do to comply. It is very unreasonable in terms of the decision-making process that your government has undertaken for so many businesses right across the COVID crisis. It appears that your government has little to no understanding that every day a business does not operate it is at greater risk of closure and further costs are incurred. Could you outline to the house how many of the gyms agree with the marshal process that is in place?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:22): I do not believe the government has data on the opinions of gym owners and operators.
Ms Crozier interjected.
Ms PULFORD: I do not believe that we have data on opinions of people who operate gyms, but certainly there is extensive consultation with industry every day. Before she asks what the opinions of a really disparate and large group of people are and for me to guess what variety of opinions there are, I would hazard a guess that there would be a fairly strongly held common view that we open safely and we open once and that we do not risk a further period of closure and impact on businesses. But Ms Crozier’s question really was about the time between decisions and announcements. (Time expired)
COVID-19
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:23): My question is for the minister representing the minister for police. On Melbourne Cup Day I decided to attend a human rights rally outside Parliament House to witness what was going on. The police linked arms and surrounded various groups of around 400 people, including me. Using a planned tactic called kettling, they moved in and forced us to stand shoulder to shoulder for 3½ to 4 hours. I have since learned that the chief health officer did not authorise this, although we were fined for not following his directions. My question is this: what is the name of the person who authorised these tactics?
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:23): I thank Mr Limbrick for his question. I will refer the matter to the minister for police for her answer.
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:24): I thank the minister for referring that on. My supplementary question: also at the rally, police filled buckets that they borrowed from the pub with water, dipped their gloved hands in the water to fill cups and handed them around to protestors. Can the minister please name the person who authorised this?
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:24): Again I will refer the supplementary question to the minister for police.
Ministers statements: local government elections
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:24): I am happy to give an update on the update of the update that I gave about the local council elections. It is great that this month marks 100 years since the first woman councillor, Mary Rogers, was elected to Richmond City Council. I think that is very relevant because I am happy to update the house that the gender balance of female councillors in the outcome of the elections, with two more to be declared, is tracking at 43.5 per cent, well over the recent 2016 increase. It is tracking at about 5.5 per cent more.
I suppose that puts us in a great place compared to other state jurisdictions. No jurisdiction has reached 40 per cent of that gender balance. Tasmania and Western Australia have come close, with 39 per cent; Queensland, 37 per cent; South Australia, 35.5 per cent; Northern Territory, 34 per cent; and New South Wales, with 31.2 per cent, brings up the tail. So I suppose, as far as gender balance in councils goes, Victoria has the gold standard.
I want to congratulate groups like the Australian Local Government Women’s Association, which did some great work around this. I think their online Zoom cocktail parties encouraging female candidates were a great initiative, and there are a number of other groups to support this. Our goal is by the next election to have 50 per cent representation of female councillors, and I am sure we can do that. I am sure we can even in the future have similar representation to the upper house frontbench, where they just let one bloke hang around.
China trade
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:26): My question is to the Leader of the Government and Minister for Agriculture. Minister, since the house last met, the situation for Victorian agriculture and aquaculture exports has become dire, with produce stuck rotting at entry points to China, and there is great uncertainty facing Victorian exporters as they make decisions as to whether to proceed with shipments, and I therefore ask whether you or the Premier have activated the dispute resolution clauses within the Belt and Road Initiative signed by Victoria with the Chinese Communist Party.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:27): I will start by just reiterating in this house that Victoria enjoys a very important relationship, a beneficial trade relationship, with China, and we do value that ongoing relationship. Obviously the Victorian agricultural sector has benefited from the free trade agreement from 2015, and China is Victoria’s largest trading partner. I visited China before I was a minister, actually accompanying the former agriculture minister, and the opportunities that China presents for farmers were just so stark upon my visit. Upon becoming agriculture minister the conversations I had with farmers and producers in Victoria were that they really value the relationship that Victoria has with China because they want to sell their food to people in China, who really value the produce that we produce.
In relation to Mr Davis’s question, conflating trade issues with the Belt and Road agreement, the agriculture sector is effectively one paragraph within the Belt and Road agreement, which is just a facilitation document to bring people to the table to have conversations. Importantly I would note that we are still waiting for formal advice on any of the trade restrictions at the moment, particularly the impact on Victorian produce. I am paying close attention to wine, obviously. There are no formal restrictions on our trade at the moment, but there obviously is cautionary action being taken by some of our importers. I had a briefing only yesterday from the commissioner to greater China, and I and my other agricultural colleagues from around the state have been begging the Minister for Agriculture federally to convene an Agriculture Ministers Forum to get a further briefing at the federal level. I would say that the federal bureaucrats have been good in sharing information with Agriculture Victoria and Global Victoria, but at the ministerial level we are still waiting for the Minister for Agriculture to set that date so that we can have further conversations about supporting Victorian agriculture and Australian agriculture accessing markets around the world, including China.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:29): I take that to be a no—that the dispute resolution clauses have not been activated by you or the Premier—and I therefore ask: have you picked up the phone to relevant Chinese provincial officials to protect Victorian exporters?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:29): Mr Davis, I have not personally made a phone call to any of the officials in China, but as I can repeat, I had a briefing yesterday from our official, the commissioner to greater China, Brett Stevens, who is located in Shanghai. He is currently having lots and lots of meetings on the ground there, and he is the appropriate port of call for me at this time.
Horseracing
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (11:30): My question is for the Minister for Racing in the other place. Seven horses in as many years have been killed at the Melbourne Cup. Like many, I watched on in horror as Anthony Van Dyck’s leg flapped while he slowed to a stop in the final 400 metres. An independent equine vet has since said the four-year-old clearly suffered:
… a race induced catastrophic skeletal injury associated with extreme pain and suffering.
He stated:
The usual humane response would have been to euthanise the stallion, there and then, on the track, without inflicting any further pain …
by loading him onto a float. He has called for an investigation into the ethical nature of this decision as a possible violation of animal welfare. Minister, why was Anthony Van Dyck loaded onto a float with such a severe injury when this decision would not have been made at any other race meeting?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:31): I thank Mr Meddick for his question, and I will seek a written response from the Minister for Racing for Mr Meddick.
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (11:31): I thank the minister for forwarding that on. Minister, can we also ask then, as many believe that the decision to further distress a seriously injured horse was made purely in the interests of the racing industry’s public image and not animal welfare: will you support an independent veterinary investigation to determine this?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:31): I thank Mr Meddick for his supplementary question. I will seek a written response from Minister Pakula.
Ministers statements: COVID-19
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:32): I wish to update the house on how the government is supporting our regional tourism industry as we take those important steps towards recovery. I know that this year has been exceptionally tough for regional tourism operators and the staff that they employ. The impacts of bushfires and COVID restrictions have significantly impacted domestic and international visitation, and as we head towards summer and as public health restrictions ease, including the removal of the ring of steel, there is a wonderful opportunity for Victorians to explore our world-class local attractions.
Over the weekend the government launched Visit Victoria’s new Stay Close, Go Further marketing campaign. The campaign highlights experiences and opportunities through taking a break locally, helping to support those country jobs in the tourism industry. Visit Victoria is working closely with regional tourism boards to encourage Victorians to explore their backyard. Country Victoria has an incredible array of experiences. I know most of us in the chamber know this, but I am sure there are plenty of people that do not, and they should. We have natural assets, creative industries, food, wine and Indigenous heritage to explore.
The campaign is in addition to the significant investment for shovel-ready tourism experiences through the $2.7 billion building works package, which is helping the tourism industry bounce back bigger and better than ever before. The investments are creating local jobs through construction but are also about making sure that our tourism assets offer the very best experiences for visitors in the years to come. Projects include the $1.1 million walkway at Paynesville, $6.2 million for trails for hikers and bikers in Timboon and $11.3 million to upgrade visitor facilities, cultural experiences, lookouts and trails at the Tower Hill Wildlife Reserve. And of course this is in addition to the important investment that we have made at the Budj Bim World Heritage site. Both investments recognise the enormous potential for our state to embrace, celebrate and learn more about our rich Indigenous culture, which is particularly fitting in this NAIDOC Week. I encourage every Victorian to travel, stay and spend locally, particularly in regions affected by this year’s bushfires, helping to support our tourism and local country communities to recover.
China trade
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:34): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, I refer to the serious and developing trade impact of the Chinese Communist Party’s decision to blockade Victorian goods at entry points into the People’s Republic of China, and I note this will be of serious concern to any Victorian small business involved in exporting to China. I therefore ask: is any assistance or advice available to help impacted Victorian small businesses through the Victorian government business offices in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Chengdu, Nanjing or Beijing, or are they left to fend on their own?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:34): I thank Mr Davis for his question about the work of our trade and investment offices across China, and I would confirm for Mr Davis that that is indeed what they do.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:35): So they are assisting small businesses that are impacted by this dispute?
Ms Pulford: That’s what they do.
Mr DAVIS: Good; thank you. Will you raise the threat posed by the Chinese blockade with Minister Pakula to ensure there is a specific package of support available to any Victorian small business impacted by decisions of the Chinese Communist Party to blockade imports from Victoria?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:35): Mr Davis, I am not sure if you are directing that question to Minister Pakula as the minister representing, but what I would certainly indicate is that our government is, unlike the opposition, acutely aware of the importance of trade with China to businesses large and small across Victoria across so many sectors of the economy. I am conscious of Ms Symes’s answer, but from four years in the agriculture portfolio I could not agree more with her comments about just how very important a successful and collaborative trade relationship between Australia and China is. I would also remind the member that the responsibility for international trade agreements predominately sits with the federal government, and whilst we do everything we can in business support—
Members interjecting.
Ms PULFORD: Exactly. So we have a very significant footprint in China— (Time expired)
Murray Basin rail project
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (11:36): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Minister Symes. Minister, the vital Ouyen intermodal freight terminal project has the capacity to deliver very significant benefits for farmers and the agriculture industry more broadly in our shared electorate of Northern Victoria. This is particularly through substantially reducing the paddock-to-port costs of transporting export-destined products like almonds, citrus, wine grapes, hay, wheat and barley to Melbourne. However, the stalling of all activity on the Murray Basin rail project has also now severely compromised progress on the intermodal. I therefore ask: what specific actions have you undertaken as agriculture minister to help facilitate renewed progress on the Ouyen intermodal, particularly in the weeks since the government’s public confirmation on 20 October that it is no longer prepared to commit to the full completion of the Murray Basin rail project?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:37): I thank Ms Maxwell for her question. Of course it is an important issue. I was up in that region recently, in the past couple of weeks, meeting with people who are growing our almonds and growing our citrus—fantastic producers up in that region contributing a lot to our local economy and employing a lot of people.
I would take issue with some parts of Ms Maxwell’s question. We are not a government that have walked away from our commitment to the Murray Basin rail project. In fact stage 2 works did upgrade the 109-kilometre section from Murrayville to Ouyen, allowing Murrayville to connect to the reopened Mildura line and importantly to be able to transport that important agricultural produce as well as mineral sands. The upgrades have allowed Ouyen farmers rail access to the Portland port for the first time.
The initial proposal, as has been well socialised, was not fit for purpose and does not reflect the current freight and passenger rail networks. That is why we have committed to putting a further $48 million on the table, and that will bring the total investment for the project to over $800 million. The revised scope will see freight from Ouyen and a number of other regional towns delivered sooner and more efficiently thanks to the ongoing commitment from our government and indeed our transport infrastructure minister’s commitment to this project.
Unfortunately, as we know, we are very disappointed that the federal government once again let Victoria down by refusing to fund anything for this project and indeed to start to make up the ratio which we would expect for projects of national significance. This is particularly concerning given that I know the local Nationals member, Anne Webster, and also the Deputy Prime Minister have previously been advocates for this project. So we were a little bewildered as to why there was no federal government funding in the budget, and we will continue those conversations with the federal government so that we can get the appropriate funding to keep this project going.
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (11:40): Thank you, Ms Symes, for that answer. Ms Symes, I am wondering whether you would commit right now to joining me in meeting with the key proponents of the Ouyen intermodal, at the earliest available opportunity that we could schedule that meeting in, to discuss that project further with those stakeholders?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:40): It is not my practice to say no to invitations to meet with local constituents, particularly in my electorate. I certainly meet with farmers and producers all the time—probably my favourite part of being the Minister for Agriculture is the people that you get to meet—so I am certainly able to have conversations with our constituents involving local issues. But when it comes to the actual details of the project, proponents have been engaged through the appropriate department, which is the Department of Transport, and I would encourage those conversations to continue. If you would like to have a conversation about broader issues, I am more than happy to set up a meeting and engage in that. However, we might want to do that on Teams, because I was only up there three weeks ago and I do not think I will be able to get there before the end of the year again.
Ministers statements: Geraldine Atkinson and Lionel Bamblett
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:41): This week is NAIDOC Week. This year’s theme is ‘Always Was, Always Will Be’, recognising that First Nations people have occupied and cared for this continent for over 65 000 years. I think it is fitting during NAIDOC Week to share with the chamber the 2020 recipients of the Lynne Kosky Memorial Award for Lifetime Achievement in vocational education, those being Geraldine Atkinson and Lionel Bamblett. Geraldine and Lionel have dedicated their lives to expanding opportunities for First Nations people through education and training. Geraldine has been the elected president of the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Incorporated, VAEAI, since 1999. In this role Geraldine has been instrumental in developing and formalising key policies and strategies in Koori education and training in Victoria—strategies such as the Wurreker strategy and the Marrung Aboriginal education plan. She continues to play a pivotal role in making sure our government places Koori students at the centre of education and training policy and decision-making.
Lionel has been general manager of VAEAI since 1985. He started at VAEAI with one member, and now VAEAI is thriving. In his role as general manager Lionel has provided advice to successive governments to improve education and training opportunities for Koori people in Victoria. He was instrumental in establishing two Aboriginal-controlled training providers in Victoria. Lionel has been a fierce advocate for protecting Aboriginal languages, and I am proud of the work that we have done with him and VAEAI to introduce the VET qualification in teaching an endangered Aboriginal language. We are a better government and a better state for Lionel’s and Geraldine’s work. Congratulations to Lionel and Geraldine, and I wish everyone a wonderful NAIDOC Week.
Questions on notice
Answers
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:43): I have 48 answers to questions: 1953, 1956, 2137, 2140–1, 2287–94, 2302, 2305, 2312–13, 2341, 2615–17, 2622, 2681, 2712, 2715, 2739, 2743, 2796, 2908, 2918, 2942–3, 2964–79.
Questions without notice and ministers statements
Written responses
The PRESIDENT (11:43): Regarding questions today: Mr Hayes, the question and the supplementary, two days, for Mr Leane; Mr Limbrick to Minister Tierney for the minister for police, two days, the question and the supplementary; and Mr Meddick to Minister Pulford for Minister Pakula, two days, the question and the supplementary.
Constituency questions
Northern Victoria Region
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:44): My constituency question is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. For several years I have been joining with the Whittlesea community in calling on the Andrews Labor government to commit funding to complete an upgrade to the Whittlesea police station. The station was built in 1860 and is too small to properly house the current gazetted staff. There is nowhere for members of the community to have a confidential conversation with a member at the station. There is no proper disability access, no facilities to interview suspects and no separate male or female or disabled toilets. Prior to the 2018 state election the member for Yan Yean promised that the Whittlesea police station would receive an upgrade, but two years later its police members and the local community continue to wait for action. Paint is peeling from the walls and yet even a recent request for painting was denied. Will the minister provide a commitment that the upcoming 2020–21 state budget will include funding to complete an upgrade of the Whittlesea police station?
Western Victoria Region
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11:45): My constituency question is to the minister representing the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. In September this year a serious accident occurred when a train and car collided at the Inverleigh level crossing. The Fuller Road level crossing has no boom gates, lights or bells; the only safety measure in place is a stop sign. According to locals this crossing should have been considered for upgrading by the state government five years ago. The Terrier Road action committee stated at the time that locals were desperate for upgrades but their calls for help were unanswered. Approximately 16 trains travel through the Fuller Road crossing daily, and it has been reported that when there is poor weather, such as fog, a stop sign just does not work. My question is: can the minister explain why this request for a safe level crossing has been ignored, and can the minister advise when the Fuller Road crossing will have additional safety measures implemented to ensure the safety of road users?
Northern Metropolitan Region
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (11:46): My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and concerns the roundabout on Dalton Road and Settlement Road in Thomastown in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region. Residents have told me it is a nightmare to navigate, and one resident said they fear for their life as they try to enter that roundabout. During the week it is congested with those trying to get to and from work, and on the weekend it is congested with those accessing Bunnings, Harvey Norman, the Good Guys and all those other businesses at the local homemaker centre. I have raised this roundabout issue in the past, but all we have got to show for it are some repainted lines on the road. The question I ask of the minister is: will the government in the upcoming state budget replace that dangerous roundabout with traffic lights or fund other safety measures on this dangerous roundabout so drivers in Melbourne’s north can get home and to work safely?
Western Metropolitan Region
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:47): My constituency question is to the Minister for Health in the other place. My constituent asks whether the COVID-testing site could be moved from Shorten Reserve in West Footscray to the Footscray Hospital or the Victoria University site to reduce traffic. Those accessing the pavilion are told to park in surrounding streets. This immediately places an unnecessary burden on resident parking and sporting teams such as the Druids Cricket Club finally being able to do what they love to do after months of lockdown. Community testing is part of our COVID norm and likely to go on for months. More thought needs to be given to how this impacts the community and the surrounding area. I would hope that the minister could move that site immediately so cricket can commence and local residents can enjoy the local park.
Western Metropolitan Region
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (11:48): My constituency question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. An article came to my attention just yesterday which reports that huge swathes of our suburbs are in danger of becoming virtually unlivable, with residents jumping from aircon to aircon via a car with aircon to avoid the searing heat. Green cover should be managed as critical infrastructure alongside communication, transport, water and the electricity network, RMIT Centre for Urban Research Associate Professor Joe Hurley said. What concerns me greatly is that green cover in Wyndham, which includes Werribee, is the lowest in Australia. Jostling for the position of lowest in Australia are Melton, Maribyrnong, Hobsons Bay and Hume. This is an enormous worry to those of us who live in that part of the world, and I ask: what is the minister doing to ensure more trees are planted in Melbourne’s west?
Northern Victoria Region
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11:49): My constituency question is for the Minister for Health. Grace Presbyterian Church in Wodonga has a small congregation and has been without a permanent pastor since the end of 2019. With all the restrictions around COVID-19 they have been unable to fill this vacancy. Ordinarily when a congregation has no pastor they will have a lay pastor who will fill the role of leading worship services, delivering sermons and offering pastoral care. Under current chief health officer orders religious gatherings may now take place following restrictions on numbers and space. Outlined in those orders is the requirement that a religious practitioner be present and that the practitioner be employed or engaged under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. An unpaid lay pastor does not fall into this category, and so the church, in virus-free regional Victoria, cannot meet. This government needs to trust Victorians to follow their COVID-safe plans, including religious groups. Minister, will you change these restrictions and allow church groups like this one to meet safely, even if they do not have a pastor meeting the requirements of the tax laws?
Eastern Victoria Region
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:50): My constituency question is for the Premier. With four active coronavirus cases statewide and a 14-day rolling average of 0.4—and Gippsland has been COVID free for over two months—eastern Victorians have done a magnificent job to achieve a COVID-free status. However, many constituents are suffering from COVID fatigue and have had enough, quite frankly, of wearing masks, particularly in open spaces and during outdoor pursuits. By contrast, from the very start the New South Wales government adopted an optional mask policy with health recommendations to wear masks in populated spaces where people were unable to physically distance. The Nationals have repeatedly sought your health evidence on mask wearing, but you continue to refuse to provide this. Premier, when eastern Victoria opens to New South Wales on 23 November, will you commit to an optional mask policy?
The PRESIDENT: Ms Bath, it should be related to your electorate.
Ms BATH: President, I have had correspondence, emails, phone calls and people coming into my office. My electorate is Eastern Victoria Region, and it is Gippsland.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. That is clear enough.
Northern Metropolitan Region
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:51): My constituency question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. The Bell Residents Group has produced a rather annoying—you may have heard it, President—earworm video to the tune of Go West. It is an appeal from residents around the Bell Street station, currently under construction, and they would like to see the location of the entrance to the new car park go to the west. The current plan, which residents believe is poor, has the car park entrance on the east side. My constituents claim in song that moving the car park entrance to the west will provide drivers with easier access from Bell Street and would also be a better decision for cyclists and pedestrians, providing much safer walking routes from the precinct. My question to the minister is: will the government consider going west with the car park entrance to the new Bell station to keep the local area safer for children and reduce noise for residents?
Eastern Metropolitan Region
Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:52): My question is to the Minister for Education in the other place, and my question is: will the government commit to a significant increase in school funding through the upcoming budget in the electorates of Ivanhoe, Box Hill and Mount Waverley? At the last election, the Liberals took a policy of significant additional school funding for a whole range of schools that desperately need it in my electorate: $6 million for Glen Waverley Primary School, $8 million for Mount Waverley Secondary College, $8.6 million for Banyule Primary School, $5.5 million for Box Hill High and additional further significant commitments in Ivanhoe, which is so under-resourced. The government has said that this upcoming budget will be a spendathon. We also know that, noting today is the day when VCE exams start, our students have been so disadvantaged by such a long statewide lockdown. Indeed OECD experts say that the harm done to students from lockdowns like ours may well be permanent. In this context, the government must commit to a significant increase in school funding in my electorate.
Western Victoria Region
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11:53): My constituency question is for the Premier. Victorians endured immeasurable pain in the second wave and the authoritarian lockdown that came in response. In particular, the ring of steel has kept families apart. Many in my electorate in Western Victoria have been unable to see their relatives in Melbourne, and vice versa. Sunday’s announcements relating to 22 November were referred to as ‘the last step’. No family in my electorate should be separated on Christmas Day due to the maximum of 10 people inside a home. Premier, will you allow further easing of restrictions on private gatherings to allow families in my electorate to have a normal, not just COVID-normal, Christmas?
Eastern Victoria Region
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:54): I raise a constituency question for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and it relates to the grade separation of Jetty Road and the Mornington Peninsula Freeway on the beautiful Mornington Peninsula Freeway. The lifting of the so-called ring of steel has already seen traffic flows on Peninsula Link and the Mornington Peninsula Freeway increase significantly, and the old queues and bottlenecks were formed yesterday at Jetty Road and the Mornington Peninsula Freeway—and that will continue over summer. The government has done nothing to address this issue, despite $70 million being on the table from the federal government via federal health minister and member for Flinders Greg Hunt’s policy commitment at the previous federal election. It is time for the Andrews Labor government to act to fix this enormous traffic gridlock, which really is a state government project only, and make the most of this significant federal government offer of funding that is on the table. The time to act is now. The time to fund this is in this month’s state budget.
Northern Victoria Region
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (11:56): My question is to the Minister for the Coordination of Health and Human Services: COVID-19. Many people in my electorate are experiencing difficulty in accessing treatment from dermatologists as a result of the COVID-related border shutdowns. There are shortages of dermatologists at the best of times, but these have now reached crisis point, especially considering that treatments for conditions like melanomas and other skin cancers are typically urgently needed. The Victorian government’s rules around the compulsory wearing of masks are also adding to the number of skin-related conditions and complaints requiring treatment. So I ask: what representations has the minister made to his New South Wales and South Australian counterparts about enabling cross-border exemptions for dermatologists and their patients, and what have been the results of these in relation to increasing the availability of these professional services?
Petitions
Following petition presented to house:
Licensed waterfrontages
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council to clause 49 of the proposed Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which removes the existing prohibition on camping on licenced water frontage.
Victorians hold serious concerns about the environmental, social and economic impacts that this will cause, including:
1. fire risk from unattended or inappropriate campfires;
2. biosecurity risk from incursion by vehicles, peoples, animals or litter and risk to farmers adherence to quality assurance schemes that allow access to international markets;
3. risk to animal and waterway health from pollution of land and water from human faeces and litter;
4. disturbance of animals, especially during birth and when vulnerable to mismothering;
5. illegal removal of vegetation and firewood;
6. trespass through private land to access licenced water frontage to collect firewood and hunt;
7. risk to road users and stock when gates left open allowing stock onto public roads;
8. impact on property values;
9. financial burden on landholders due to increased management requirements;
10. safety and wellbeing of animals, family members, workers and guests due to firearm use and trespass; and
11. liability of landholders under Victoria’s workplace manslaughter legislation.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to remove clause 49 from the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 or amend the clause to implement a permit system managed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, that limits the number of campers or campsites permitted on the river frontage, requires landholder permission, manages accountability and biosecurity through mandatory registration, prohibits animals and firearms and mitigates the risk to road users and stock when gates are left open allowing stock onto public roads.
By Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (3168 signatures).
Laid on table.
Committees
Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
Alert Digest No. 11
Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:57): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I lay on the table Alert Digest No. 11 of 2020 from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, including appendices. I move:
That the report be published.
Motion agreed to.
Papers
Board of Inquiry into the COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Program
COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry: Interim Report and Recommendations
The Clerk: Pursuant to section 77(3)(c) of the Inquiries Act 2014, I lay on the table a copy of the COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry: Interim Report and Recommendations, November 2020.
Papers
Tabled by Clerk:
Duties Act 2000—Treasurer’s Reports of—
Concessions and exemptions arising out of corporate consolidations for 2019–20, under section 250DD(5) of the Act.
Concessions and exemptions arising out of corporate reconstructions for 2019–20, under section 250B(4) of the Act.
Emergency Management Act 1986—Report to Parliament on declaration of State of Disaster—Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic—Report 4, pursuant to section 23(7) of the Act.
Inquiries Act 2014—Report of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, pursuant to section 37(1)(a) of the Act.
Land Tax Act 2005—Treasurer’s report of land tax absentee owner surcharge exemptions for 2019–20, under sections 3B and 3BA of the Act.
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014—Practitioner Remuneration Order 2021.
Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning schemes—
Bayside Planning Scheme—Amendment C174.
Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme—Amendment C215.
Melbourne Planning Scheme—Amendment C377.
Victoria Planning Provisions—Amendment VC191.
Whittlesea Planning Scheme—Amendment C230.
Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament—
COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020—No. 120.
Road Safety Act 1986—No. 121.
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 93, 99, 106, 111, 118, 119 and 120.
A proclamation of the Governor in Council fixing an operative date in respect of the following act:
National Energy Legislation Amendment Act 2020—Whole Act (except Part 3 and Division 2 of Part 4)—27 October 2020 (Gazette No. S546, 27 October 2020).
Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, President, regarding the papers that have been tabled under acts as read out by the clerk, we have not received those as yet.
The PRESIDENT: We will follow it up with the table office.
Production of documents
COVID-19
The Clerk: I lay on the table a letter from the Attorney-General dated 6 November 2020 in response to the resolution of the Council of 30 October 2020 relating to public health and other orders. The letter states that there was insufficient time to respond and that a final response to the order would be provided as soon as possible.
Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, these were quite specific orders, and there was no reason why these documents could not be provided quickly. Equally there are other orders for public health documents that have been outstanding now for many months, and the minister may wish to give an explanation as to why they have not been provided.
The PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, there is another way that you can deal with this in the house; it is not a point of order.
Melbourne Airport rail link
The Clerk: I further lay on the table a letter from the Attorney-General dated 9 November 2020 in response to the resolution of the Council of 4 March 2020 relating to the Melbourne Airport rail link strategic business case. The government has identified three documents within the scope of the order. A claim of executive privilege has been made over one of the documents in full and over one of the documents in part on the basis that their disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. I lay on the table the documents provided, together with the schedules of those documents.
Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, the minister may wish to explain to the chamber why it has taken since 4 March for three documents to be identified and only a tiny number indeed provided.
The PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, again, that is not a point of order. If you want to raise the issue again, you will have to raise it under a different standing order.
Business of the house
Notices of motion
Notices given.
Notices of intention to make statements
Notices given.
General business
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): I move, by leave:
That precedence be given to the following general business on Wednesday, 11 November 2020:
(1) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Davis in relation to the Chinese government’s block on Victorian exports;
(2) order of the day 24, resumption of debate on the motion relating to establishing a joint select committee inquiry to inquire into international treaties;
(3) the notice of motion given this day by Dr Bach in relation to the impact of school closures;
(4) notice of motion 408 standing in the name of Dr Ratnam relating to a Green New Deal for Victoria;
(5) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Bourman in relation to native timber;
(6) notice of motion 367 standing in the name of Mr Grimley relating to the under-reporting of sexual assault cases; and
(7) notice of motion 417 standing in the name of Mr Grimley referring a matter to the Procedure Committee relating to photography in the chamber.
Motion agreed to.
Committees
Legal and Social Issues Committee
Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s COVID‐19 Contact Tracing System and Testing Regime
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:17): I move, by leave:
That if the Legal and Social Issues Committee proposes to transmit a report for the inquiry into the Victorian government’s COVID-19 contact-tracing system and testing regime to the house on a day when the house is not sitting, the chair may give the report to the Clerk and:
(1) the Clerk must:
(a) as soon as practicable after the report is received:
(i) give a copy of the report to each member of the house;
(ii) cause the report to be published on the tabled documents database and the committee’s website;
(b) cause the report to be tabled in the house on the next sitting day of the house; and
(2) the report will be taken to be published by authority of the house.
Motion agreed to.
Members statements
Remembrance Day
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:18): I rise to highlight yet another inconsistency with the COVID-19 restrictions imposed on Victorians by the Andrews Labor government. At 11.00 am tomorrow Victorians will pause and remember the men and women who died or suffered in all wars in order to protect our freedom and our way of life. Normally many thousands of Victorians would gather at the hundreds of local cenotaphs around the state, but tomorrow there will be just 10 people at each gathering. This year’s Remembrance Day holds special significance as it marks the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. It is disappointing that the Parliament is sitting tomorrow, as I am sure most members would rather be with their local communities to mark this occasion. Under the third step of restrictions up to 50 people are currently allowed to attend outdoor funerals throughout Victoria, and it makes little sense that similar restrictions are not applicable to this year’s Remembrance Day services, which are much shorter ceremonies. Another fact that makes a mockery of this decision is that only 10 people can attend an open-air memorial service, yet if an RSL has a large outdoor eating area, up to 70 people can attend a post-memorial luncheon. With tomorrow being Remembrance Day, the Premier needs to reconsider his advice of allowing only 10 people to be at official services, particularly in regional Victoria.
Remembrance Day
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:20): Tomorrow is Remembrance Day, a day to reflect, honour and acknowledge those who have served and sacrificed on behalf of our nation. It is a day for people of all generations to reflect on the courage and resolve of the men and women who have contributed to the opportunities we enjoy today and to a more peaceful and stable world.
In order to help Victorians remember and to tell their stories, the government supports local communities to restore or install new memorials, plaques and honour rolls. One such example is the recent completion of a project to restore the Carisbrook Avenue of Honour signage. I had hoped to join the Carisbrook community to mark the occasion tomorrow, but the change of Parliament schedule in this pandemic year has meant that I cannot. But I want to acknowledge the hard work of Alex Stoneman and Nancy Egan of the Carisbrook Historical Society, as well as George Nagy from the Carisbrook Lions Club, Pat Wagstaff and the Carisbrook Red Cross, Captain Ian Boucher and the Carisbrook fire brigade, Danny McIver and the Maryborough RSL sub-branch and Noel Harvey and the Central Goldfields shire.
The Carisbrook Historical Society was concerned that local residents and visitors were not aware of the Avenue of Honour and its significance to the township’s local community and its history. The avenue consists of 27 eucalypt trees and was originally planted in 1919 by returned soldiers and family members of those commemorated. The current trees, spotted red gums, are the fifth planting since 1917. The new double-sided signage provides locals and visitors with information about the avenue and displays brief biographies of each World War I soldier with photos and an outline of the avenue’s history over the past 100 years. I congratulate the Carisbrook Historical Society for their wisdom and passion, for keeping local history alive and for instigating the new signage so we may continue to remember service men and women today, tomorrow and always.
Anglesea mine rehabilitation
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:21): I would just like to take a moment again to reiterate my support on the record for the Eden Project in Anglesea. At a time when tourism has taken possibly the greatest dip that we have ever seen, these projects need to be invested in and given the support required to get off the ground. I note the government has done so recently with the Cape Otway Road facility, which will be an outstanding asset to the Modewarre and surrounding rural communities. I would love to see the same for the Eden Project and to get it to shovel-ready status as soon as possible.
Karly Kirk
Mr GRIMLEY: While we are here I would also like to congratulate and pay my admiration to Karly Kirk, a friend of mine in my office who has just been elected as a Yarriambiack shire councillor. You may recognise Karly’s name. Some people may recognise Karly’s name in this place as she was pivotal in securing the next stage of funding for the Warracknabeal education precinct through the Finish What You Started campaign. Congratulations, Karly, and if there is anything we can do for you in the future or in the shire, please reach out.
Janine Milkins
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:22): I would just like to raise with the house a lovely family in Leongatha South. It is the Milkins family. They are a family with a great big heart and community spirit and have dedicated much time to community and coaching roles over many years—indeed specifically Janine Milkins, whose mantra in life is to make the world a kinder place. This family was planning a large holiday, and instead COVID came and they decided to redirect the funds to making over 900 masks for their community. They recognised this need from cancer patients, where Janine has been involved heavily and her family. So in recognising that need and supporting her community, I really congratulate Janine for having a wonderful spirit. She is a wonderful, kind lady, and it is a generous family indeed.
Remembrance Day
Ms BATH: I also want to raise the issue that this Remembrance Day would be the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II. I want to acknowledge all those remaining World War II veterans and their families for the amazing work that they did to protect and support not only our country but the world against the tyranny of the enemy at the time. I also want to acknowledge my uncle, Uncle Des, who was wounded twice in New Guinea. He was certainly part of that team, and I recognise his service to the war effort.
COVID-19
Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:24): I recently witnessed that Victoria has claimed zero cases for every day of the last 11 days. We are now the envy of the world for the only—and hugely successful—management of a second wave. I want to take this time to congratulate all Victorians. The response to this pandemic has been a community effort, and it is through our collective hard work and sacrifices that we have been able to achieve these results. To all frontline workers and essential workers: we are profoundly grateful for the important roles you have all played. I would also like to support and congratulate Victoria’s scientists, who are all working diligently to better understand this virus and to formulate a vaccine and working towards cures and treatments. Scientific response and research are at the heart of an effective response to this pandemic. Some recent good news about the high efficacy of some vaccines has given us some hope, and I would also hope that we will have high take-up rates of vaccination when the time comes. However, we have made tremendous progress and have sacrificed so much to get here. We need to remain vigilant and not risk undoing it all. To all those following restrictions and doing the right things, thank you.
Local government elections
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:25): While many have been focused on the blue wave in the US election, some of you may have missed that there has been a green wave that has swept through our recent local government elections here in Victoria. It is truly historic. From Ballarat to Boroondara, Melbourne to Monash and Geelong to Golden Plains, there have been a historic 36 Greens councillors elected across the state. We have seen Greens elected in Nillumbik, Golden Plains and Shepparton councils for the very first time, we increased the numbers of Greens in Maribyrnong and Monash and the good people of the City of Yarra have elected a record-breaking five Greens councillors, the first majority Greens government in the nation. Across the state people voted for local representation and for people who do not take developer donations and who will act on climate change and help their communities build back better from COVID.
We could not have done this without the countless hours of dedication by hundreds of volunteers, candidates and our state office team—a huge thankyou to you all. A big shout-out to Cathy Oke, Matthew Kirwan, Steph Amir, Natalie Abboud, Dale Martin, Jess Dorney, Clare Davey, James Searle and Ogy Simic, who retired as councillors at this election, and Michael Schilling for his incredible work for the people of Cardinia. You have shaped your communities in immeasurable and invaluable ways. There are too many Greens councillors for me to acknowledge them all individually, but along with all councillors elected across Victoria they have an important job to do. Local governments play such a significant role in shaping our cities and communities. They can lead the way on climate action, implementing recycling and moving towards circular economies and building back their communities to be stronger and more connected than they ever were before. I wish you all the very best for the important work. And to my fellow Greens: I have no doubt you will make your communities more sustainable and compassionate, bringing the community’s voice back to the centre of all of your decisions. Go Greens!
Independent journalism
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:27): I want to thank independent reporters who have put themselves at risk to report the truth during this pandemic—Avi Yemini from Rebel News and Reignite Democracy Australia’s Monica Smit, Morgan Jonas, Real Rukshan and Matthew Wong, to name a few. Independent reporters should be treated with respect. To watch them be harassed, intimidated and not treated equally to mainstream media is wrong. We need to thank independent reporters who step out of their comfort zones and who put themselves at risk to make sure that the community understands and can actually see firsthand what is going on within this state, across Australia and across the world. We should all thank independent reporters of all descriptions who are able to be straight and talk the truth, because that is what we need during a time of pandemic. We do not need things watered down. We do not need to be treated like children, with just snapshots and just bite-size chunks of the actual truth and reports. I thank all independent reporters who are out there. I miss the independent newspapers that we had in our community, which used to be able to feel that in print form they could actually report with no fear.
Local government elections
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:29): Elections, as we know, can sometimes be very disappointing, and I am very saddened to see that Rebecca Gauci Maurici is not able to continue in her role as a councillor for the Moonee Valley City Council. She has done a brilliant job, and I thank her and pay tribute to the work that she has done over the past four years. However, the great news is that in the City of Melton Moira Deeming and Julie Shannon have joined Cr Goran Kesic on the council, and that is exciting for all involved. In Brimbank we have two outstanding councillors joining in Maria Kerr and Trung Luu, who I have known for some time. They are going to be I know just brilliant councillors, representing the real interests of the people of Brimbank. That will be a marvellous thing. I should also mention that in Hume, Jim Overend, a well-known Craigieburn identity, has been elected to the Hume council, which I find very exciting. But that is perhaps just shadowed a little by the fact that the man I voted for, Trevor Dance, in the Jacksons Creek ward of Hume council, also won. I was delighted to vote for him, I was delighted to see that he won, and I know that when it comes to a whole range of issues he will not let us down.
Luke Benham
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:30): People living in the community of Robinvale need to undertake a 2-hour round trip to access their nearest mental health service, which often includes time off work and repeat travel as well as the cost of treatment. Luke Benham, born and bred in the area, identified that being 100 kilometres from services and resources when you are not feeling yourself is a real barrier to getting help. Luke set about reducing the burden of mental health in Robinvale and established a fundraiser—42K for 42K. In partnership with Robinvale District Health Services Luke has raised enough funds to open a walk-in clinic for his town, equipped with two qualified mental health professionals. Luke ran his 42-kilometre marathon just over a week ago and smashed his goal, raising $54 000. It is a shame that regional communities sometimes have to initiate fundraisers to establish an essential health service, but I extend heartfelt congratulations to Luke and his wife, Jade, to Robinvale district community health and to the Robinvale community for their incredible efforts. I would like to send out a special congratulations also to district community health for offering their support in getting behind Luke in this, and I hope that this mental health service can be sustainable over the years to come.
Alan ‘Kanga’ Moore
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:32): I would like to congratulate Mr Alan ‘Kanga’ Moore, who turns 100 on 20 November this year. Alan is a World War II veteran who joined the militia and the now legendary 39th battalion at 20 years of age. Alan has work tirelessly to ensure the history of the 39th Australian Infantry Battalion and the Kokoda campaign is not forgotten and the sacrifices and stories of his mates and friends are appropriately remembered. Alan was among a small group who worked so hard to establish the world-class Kokoda Track memorials in the Dandenong Ranges and in securing over $1.5 million of state government funding to create the Kokoda Mates statue and honour roll, the Kokoda Memorial Terrace and the memorial cairns at One Tree Hill. Alan has visited Kokoda four times, including in 2014 to attend the 72nd anniversary ceremony of the first battle of Kokoda.
Alan has been influential in developing a curriculum for Parks Victoria education programs, which engage nearly 5000 students each year, on Kokoda history. For many years he volunteered looking after and supporting dozens of war widows and their families, visiting each family at least three times a year. Alan’s preparedness to help others saw him volunteer many hours at Corowa Court, a retirement home in Mornington, where he was a voluntary handyman/repairer for many years, and also do home maintenance for the elderly. He became involved in their op shop and spent much time holding different roles, including handyman and customer care. His outstanding community volunteer work was acknowledged with him being awarded a Paul Harris fellowship by the Rotary Club of Frankston in 2015.
Public housing
Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:33): The state government has dropped the ball on social housing. According to a report in the Guardian titled ‘Decades of neglect’ the state government has completed only 57 of 1000 social housing units it pledged to build by 2022. There is a lot of catching up to do. The paper also suggests there are nearly 30 000 children amongst the 100 000 people on the state’s ballooning housing waiting list. That is a frightening revelation. Perhaps it is time for the state government to reassess its priorities. We have seen the sheer importance of having housing. It is vital for survival. The government was quick to secure short-term accommodation for homeless people during the pandemic, but normally they are left to fend for themselves. That is why the government must prioritise social housing, mental health and aged care instead of big infrastructure spends.
We read in the Age on Monday that the state government’s three biggest projects have blown out by at least $11 billion in taxpayer funds—$11 billion. What else could we have done with $11 billion? Well, the state government could have completely eradicated homelessness in Victoria with that $11 billion and had cash to spare for other social and environmental measures. The state government will hand down the budget this month. The state government must shift its focus to social housing for this highly important budget.
Local government elections
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:35): The Liberal Democrats believe in local government. We believe that, to the greatest extent possible, decisions should be made by those they affect. Decisions about parks and roads in your town should be made by the people who use those parks and roads, and not governments elected by people who live nowhere near them. As much as I love the idea of devolved government, there is a problem we need to overcome. Local governments lack the same scrutiny that state and federal governments are subjected to. Anti-corruption bodies help but at the end of the day it is up to locals to take an interest and to keep their councils accountable. So I would like to congratulate everyone who voted for candidates representing honesty, transparency and accountability this October. With your help, Victoria has been able to elect candidates, both Liberal Democrat-endorsed and others, who will shine a light on council misbehaviour and corruption.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all the candidates who ran for councils around the state. I want to single out our small Liberal Democrats team of candidates and offer special congratulations to Paul Barker of the Surf Coast Shire Council and my own wife, Olga Quilty, in Wodonga, on their successful elections. I know you will both be a credit to your community while serving on council. In light of the ministers statement earlier today, I should point out that the elected Liberal Democrats councillors have achieved perfect gender balance, for whatever that is worth. Results like these are encouraging. It shows that there is an appetite for honest government—for honesty, transparency and fiscal restraint at the local level. The Liberal Democrats are proud to advocate on behalf of ratepayers and will continue to strive to represent them with integrity and conviction.
Melbourne Airport rail link
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:37): Today we have seen a government that is secretive and determined to withhold information from the public: this is about the airport rail link business case documents. We know these documents exist; they have now admitted it. It has taken from 4 March until today for them to find three documents and tell us that they are going to claim executive privilege over two of them, and the redaction of aspects of the other document is also significant. So here we have a multibillion-dollar airport rail link that needs to be built, and the government is lining up to build a half-baked, second-rate option, stealing capacity from the metro rail system that will come online in 2025, stealing capacity from the west and the north and from Ballarat and Geelong, stealing capacity from an already heavily traversed route and holding secret these documents. Now, in opposition this government said that business cases should be public. They said that these things should be in the public domain, and they are now claiming executive privilege—a complete reversal of their position. The business case on the airport rail should be in the public domain today. It is crooked; it is rotten to the core. The Victorian public has a right to see this information. If they are going to spend billions of dollars on this project, they have got a right to see every bit of it.
Following statement incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 15 September:
Woodford Primary School
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education)
Woodford Primary is a wonderful school just north of Warrnambool.
Its students are a mix of those living in Woodford itself, from nearby rural communities and a number travelling from Warrnambool.
The school’s website makes it clear that this school does deliver on a promise to provide ‘an expansive learning experience’ during their time there, and notes that Woodford students are well known in the area for their community involvement, and more.
The students’ connection with community must have played a key part in a great achievement—winning the 2020 Alicia Katz Award, in the Parliament Prize, for the most inspiring contribution from a school.
Just one winner from nearly 60 entries was chosen, and the judges noted the students’ very strong commitment to highlighting the important issues in their local area.
There were many, ranging from social problems, important environmental issues, the need for better recreational facilities, to some very practical ideas to improve life in Woodford and Warrnambool.
I’m so pleased for these students, and I congratulate them on a fantastic effort.
A big shout-out to the teachers who helped them, not just this year but prior. I know that it takes many teachers over several years to produce a great student effort like this.
COVID-19 prevents presentation of the $1000 prize in a ceremony here in Parliament House, but I look forward to meeting the students if they make a trip up when it’s safe to do so.
Congratulations to all the 113 students across Western Victoria who took part in four categories of the Parliament Prize, from year 5 to year 12.
Business of the house
Notices of motion
Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (12:38): I move:
That the consideration of notices of motion, government business, 403 to 409, be postponed until later this day.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:39): It gives me no pleasure at all, none whatsoever, to commence debate on this legislation, because we should not be debating this bill today at all. This bill has been flawed from the start. This was pointed out to the government soon after its introduction, and various steps have been made to request the government to stop debate on this legislation until it does what should have been done before the bill was ever introduced, and that is to consult with the families of deceased victims of sexual abuse. This legislation is an omnibus bill, and I will go through the parts of the bill which cause no concern, or no significant concern, to the opposition in due course. But I have to say that we are dealing with such an important, such a difficult and such a sensitive topic that it is staggering that Daniel Andrews and Jill Hennessy have brought this bill on for debate today.
At the outset I wish to acknowledge all those voices that have been in the media, who have emailed members of Parliament or who have reached out by phone to our electorate offices, expressing their concern at this gag law that Daniel Andrews wants to introduce for families of deceased sexual assault victims. It beggars belief that this is occurring today and that the government has not seen fit to delay debate, engage, consult and make some house amendments in due course so that this bill can pass the Parliament with acclaim and with the support of the chamber and support of the community. And it is not too late for that to occur. I would implore Jill Hennessy, the Attorney-General; the people in the Premier’s office or the Premier; and those on the government benches in this place to work to delay debate after the second reading or at some point before the bill actually passes. Because it is insulting and it is causing grief, and it is causing trauma and hurt and pain to so many people that this bill is progressing today.
In doing what it is doing, to me, the government has completely misread the solidarity and the anguish and the hurt that would be caused not just to those families of deceased sexual assault victims but to all victims of crime, and that is what has been overwhelming to me in recent days. People I have known for a year, 10 years or five years, people I have dealt with as a member of Parliament, people who I have advocated for or who have asked me to advocate for them and people I have not heard from in a long time have reached out to me expressing their anger and their disappointment. And of course that was remarkably and courageously expressed by two mothers—two mothers who have intervened in this debate and pleaded with the Andrews government to stop, pleaded with the Andrews government to consult, to listen and to make changes; two courageous, traumatised mothers who have decided to speak publicly to have their voices heard in a wish that their voices may cause Jill Hennessy to stop. Those two mothers of course are Jill Meagher’s mother, who via Facebook spoke out and called on the government to stop, and today Adrian Bayley’s mother, who rang into Neil Mitchell after an appalling interview from the Attorney, calling on the government to stop.
As I say, it is not too late now to stop and to bring forward house amendments in the next sitting week, and this bill can pass with acclaim. I would be the first one to congratulate the government if it does so—the first one to say, ‘Well done’ to the Attorney and ‘Well done’ to the Premier for having the courage to press the pause button and get it right.
This bill is seeking to fix a mistake that passed through the Parliament in a bill introduced last year and passed earlier this year which has created a requirement for victims of crime to make application to the court to enable their voice to be heard. Nina Funnell, who has led the Let Us Speak campaign, has partnered with other advocates and lawyers, and they have run a number of applications in the Victorian courts. We know that those applications have been traumatic, have been expensive and have taken a considerable period of time. This bill seeks to remedy that error, but in seeking to remedy that error it is creating a new problem, a new issue.
The Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions have formed the view that there is a pre-existing legal requirement that the families of deceased sexual assault victims must apply to the court for them to be able to speak about their deceased loved ones. That is a view that has been expressed publicly. In what I would humbly view as a mistake, the director put out a statement and intervened in the political debate when the bill was brought on in the last sitting week with an unequivocal position that the law precludes families of deceased sexual assault victims from speaking and that it is only because of her policy not to press charges or pursue criminal proceedings against such families that that situation has not come before the courts.
There are many eminent lawyers, people with much more legal capacity than me, who have a completely different view. I want to thank the Right to Know coalition, who have put some very senior legal minds to this task and have a different view to the Attorney-General and a different view to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Right to Know coalition is made up of a disparate group, but when you get a group like this together in and of itself it shows they should be listened to. You have the union—the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance—and you have ABC, SBS, the Nine group, AAP, the Guardian, News Corp and the West Australian all coming together with a view that is opposite to the director and opposite to the Attorney-General.
They say the legislation as it currently stands does not expressly apply to the deceased, nor is there anything about the act which inherently lends itself to the interpretation that it was intended to apply to dead people. The act sets specific limits on what can be reported from certain Victorian judicial proceedings which may or may not concern a deceased person. Their correspondence to me of 2 November talks about statutory interpretation and draws the conclusion—a very clear conclusion—that the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 does not apply to deceased people. So there is no gag in place according to that disparate group of a union, News Corp, the Guardian and the ABC, who have all signed up to this one position. It is also a view that privately senior lawyers have expressed to me—a view aided by the simple words in the statute and the rules of statutory interpretation in such matters.
Now, I understand and I respect that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney can have a different view to that eminent group which relies on senior expert legal advice. I respect there can be different views. But then on Friday, in remarkable timing, Judge McInerney of the County Court had such an application before him, and he observed, he noted and he stated that in his very clear view the judicial proceedings provisions that are in contest do not apply to deceased people. This is the first time there has been judicial comment on this issue in Victoria to my knowledge. I am happy for any government member to correct me, but to my knowledge it is the first time there has been judicial comment on these provisions. And the court has held—a respected senior County Court judge has held—that these provisions do not apply to deceased people and therefore there is no requirement for the families of deceased victims of sexual assaults to make application for an order to speak.
I assumed on Friday afternoon the Attorney would put a statement out, noting the court’s decision, either that house amendments would be made in the Parliament this week or that the debate would be adjourned for the matter to be considered, consultation to take place and changes to be brought forward in due course. But no, what we heard on Neil Mitchell this morning was the Attorney-General cobbling together a convoluted, flawed argument that I am sure convinced few and exposed so many holes in her argument that I think her position went back significantly because of her failure to put forward a cogent argument—a simple, cogent argument—in favour of her changes, of her gag law.
And the Attorney-General dropped yesterday afternoon some house amendments. Now, you know when the government of the day drops house amendments on the afternoon before debate in the Legislative Council is due to take place they have got a problem of their own making. Yes, the government refused our amendments in the Assembly. They refused the reasoned amendment to withdraw the bill and redraft these provisions. They have rammed on through, had the court decision on Friday and ploughed forward. And you know what the disappointing thing is? It is only the pressure from these victims of crime and their families that has brought the government to even making a house amendment to put a sunset provision on these clauses, this gag law from Daniel Andrews and Jill Hennessy.
I must say I am still having trouble understanding why the government is pushing this through. As I say, there would be no political cost in doing the right thing, in consulting—many people, including the Let Us Speak campaign and others, have said the government has not consulted with this group—the families of deceased sexual assault victims, before bringing forward this gag law. So again my plea to the government is: take a step back at the end of the second reading and adjourn debate. Let us do the committee next sitting week, let the government bring forward house amendments to deal with this after consulting with the families of deceased sexual assault victims and let us get this right.
Currently the opposition has amendments, the Greens have amendments and the government has house amendments. Let us not do this on the fly or let us not do this in a rush; let us get this right. Let us delay debate after the second reading to the next sitting week, and I will be the first to congratulate the Attorney-General if she brings forward house amendments that have the endorsement of the Let Us Speak campaign, that have the endorsement of other victims that have been consulted and that have the endorsement of the community, because this issue, unfortunately, is causing enormous hurt and damage to people who have already suffered so much. In that context, I just want to thank Tracie Oldham and Ashleigh Rae Cooper for speaking out yesterday with me and for their courage to tell their story and put their position on this legislation.
I will be moving amendments, and I am happy for my amendments to be circulated now.
Opposition amendments circulated by Mr O’DONOHUE pursuant to standing orders.
Mr O’DONOHUE: I circulate two sets of amendments. The first set seeks to preserve the legal status quo for the families of deceased sexual assault victims. That status quo can be changed, can be altered, by future legislation, by a future bill that the Attorney has foreshadowed after the public outcry about these changes was first aired. The legal position, as set down by the County Court, has been in recent history that the families of deceased sexual assault victims can speak publicly, as they should be able to, without obtaining a court order. My amendments seek to do nothing except preserve that, and if that needs to be changed to accommodate families who wish to preserve their anonymity, let us do that, but let us maintain what we have, that by and large would appear to have worked well and successfully, that has enabled the families of victims to speak publicly for legal change and that has led in part to dramatic changes to our parole laws, for example, and to our sentencing laws. Let us not silence those families, let us not silence the memory of those victims and let us preserve the legal status quo. That is what my amendments seek to do in that regard.
I also have a transparency amendment about another part of the bill, that requires the secretary to publish any agreement or arrangement entered into between the fire services that is contemplated by a provision of this bill.
I will leave the challenging, difficult, wrong element of this bill. Hopefully I have made our position that we simply do not support this new gag law from Daniel Andrews and Jill Hennessy. Regardless of whether it is sunsetted in a week, a month, a year or in 10 years, it should not be put into place, full stop, and we will oppose the bill if this gag law is in place at the end of the committee stage of the bill.
The bill does many other things. It introduces nationally agreed amendments to the model defamation provisions to modernise and improve the uniform defamation laws that have been driven, as I understand it, principally by New South Wales. It amends the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 to provide for the delegation of certain powers and duties to specified tribunal staff. I hope this will enable these applications to be processed more quickly so that victims can access financial support in a timely, less adversarial and simpler way. The bill also amends the Victims of Crime Assistance Act to extend in certain circumstances the appointment of members of the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, and so that they are able to be remunerated, which again I think are sensible amendments, which the opposition supports.
The bill amends the Corrections Act 1986 to support the national high-risk terrorist offender scheme, which strengthens the powers for officers to deal with letters received by prisoners for security purposes. Just on this aspect of the bill, it is remarkable that during the lockdown period the amount of drugs in our prison system, according to Corrections Victoria data, has increased. So despite the fact that prisoners have not been able to have family visits or visits from approved associates and that there have been much tighter restrictions on the incoming and outgoing of goods and people to the prisons themselves because of the COVID restrictions, somehow prisoners have been smuggling more drugs into the prison system. As we know, more drugs in our prisons lead to more violence, more standover tactics, stronger gangs and a whole range of conduct that undermines the authority of the prison system itself, and it does not allow prisoners to address their addiction issues and the like. It is just remarkable and terrible that that is the case during this time.
The bill amends the Forests Act 1958 to provide Forest Fire Management Victoria firefighters with the legal authorisation to operate within the Fire Rescue Victoria fire district. Again, my amendment to that is a transparency amendment so that any agreement between those two bodies is to be published.
The opposition does not have major concerns with any other aspect of the bill, and in the normal course our position would be to not oppose—or to support—omnibus justice legislation like this legislation. It is unfortunate that what are in effect almost procedural changes that are being brought in have been attached to this gag law, but our position is that we cannot support the bill at all if the gag is maintained. I look forward to the committee stage of the bill. I hope that stage does not occur today but that it takes place at a time after consultation—appropriate consultation—with the families of deceased sexual assault victims has taken place. Again I would implore the Attorney, the Premier and members of the government to listen to the powerful voices of Jill Meagher’s mother, of Adrian Bayley’s mother, of people like Tracie Oldham and Ashleigh Rae Cooper and all the other victims of crime or families of deceased victims of crime who have chosen to speak out.
None of us should underestimate the courage it takes to speak publicly or the pain that it causes to feel compelled to speak publicly. This legislation has retraumatised so many people already, and it is a great tragedy that that has occurred. It did not need to occur. If the consultation had taken place, if we came to a position which managed the competing positions, the different positions, the Attorney is trying to manage, we would not be in this place. I do not pretend it is easy either. These are challenging areas and the justice system is a complex beast. We are trying to manage and we are trying to enshrine in law rules for people who have very different perspectives, very different personal circumstances and very different ways they wish to deal with those personal circumstances, generally of grief, trauma and loss. So I understand and I respect and appreciate that this is not a simple thing to craft, but you cannot get the answer right if you do not talk to those who are impacted, and the government simply has not done that. It is only through the courage, as I say, of the Let Us Speak campaign led by Nina Funnell and these other powerful voices that I hope will ultimately cause the government to stop, pause and think twice about what it is doing. If it does, as I say, I will be the first to congratulate it. Until it does so the opposition will move its amendments. And if those amendments fail, we will oppose this bill.
Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (13:04): The bill is essentially about delivering justice for victims and it is about listening to what victims want and supporting their needs. I think inherently in this kind of discussion, when we are talking about people who have been through untold trauma and tragedy, there is heightened sensitivity around their issues, and that is absolutely appropriate with what we are talking about. No-one would feel it more than the minister herself, who has gone to great pains with regard to prioritising the victims who are at the heart of these reforms.
The heart of this bill is responding to the concerns of victim-survivors of sexual assault who have raised concerns about the impact of current laws on the ability to share their stories. The bill will also ensure that victim-survivors no longer need a court order to tell their stories if they have given informed consent to being identified, and that is really, really important as we are learning more and more how important it is for people to have the opportunity to share those experiences as a pathway potentially to healing.
I did want to take up an issue which is I think fundamental to the amendment that Mr O’Donohue has circulated through the chamber because it does go to the heart of some of the fundamental elements of this bill. I think it is really important that we have some clear air over those aspects of the bill because they are so critical and so delicate.
Talking about this issue of gagging—and I think we have to be really, really careful in that domain—the bill, can I just make it really clear, does not introduce a new gag on families and the media. So this is where there is a difference of perspective. The prohibition in section 4 of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 (JPRA) applies indefinitely, including after the victim’s death. This is the current law, and the bill does not change this.
The law can sometimes be open to different interpretations, granted—this is the nature of legislation per se—and some have assumed that the prohibition on publication ceases upon the victim’s death. However, the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Kerri Judd, QC, has publicly confirmed that it is her legal opinion that the current law applies to deceased victims. I note that the director’s agreement is required for an individual to be prosecuted for the offence under section 4 of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act. As such, this view is highly relevant and carries significant weight.
As an interim measure the bill clarifies that the prohibition on publication continues after a victim’s death. It is important to note that while the prohibition prevents the identification of an individual as a victim of a sexual offence, it does not prevent reporting of the victim’s identity and other circumstances of offending other than the sexual offending in cases where the victim has been killed. For example, the JPRA does not prevent a deceased victim being identified as a homicide victim. The bill will not change this.
The bill also creates a pathway for family members and others to obtain permission to publish identifying information about the deceased victim as a victim of sexual offending through a court order. Under the current law if a victim dies during the course of offending or before granting permission for their story to be told, there is no clear mechanism for family members or the media to legally publicly identify the victim as a victim of a sexual offence. Due to the confusion about the scope of the offence, many publications have occurred that, strictly speaking, contravene the publication prohibition. There have, however, been no prosecutions of such cases to date.
So in deciding on an application for publication the bill requires the court to take into account the wishes of the deceased victim, if known after making reasonably inquiries, the views of family members, if known after making reasonably inquiries, except where a family member is also the alleged or convicted offender—which makes sense—and whether it is in the public interest to make the order. Finally, family members who wish to apply to the court to lift the publication prohibition can access either the Women’s Legal Service Victoria or Victoria Legal Aid free telephone assistance lines. This is to minimise any barriers there might be to accessing that legal support. The courts have also published guidance material on making an application to court. The guidance will be updated to reflect the reforms.
So I think you can see here why it is so, so critical in this space and in this debate—and it is good that we are having this debate. It is very important. It is important to be really clear about what the opposition is putting forward on this issue versus what is actually the law as it stands and what is prescribed to unfold with the changes that we have proposed.
So I hope that helps to go some way towards alleviating some lack of clarity that may have evolved in what is such a very sad space in reality. When I think about those victims, I feel very sad and I feel compassion but I also feel a sense of hope, because with each of these reforms over time—and I know our government and Labor governments successively have introduced many reforms with regard to victims of crime—we are actually strengthening the voice of those victims, appreciating that attitudes to these crimes and how victims of crime are supported are evolving. It is no longer the space where people should feel embarrassed or ashamed if they have been a victim of crime, and it is terrible to think that there was perhaps once such a space. I think there are still obviously areas to navigate in that space in terms of making sure that victims are appropriately supported to feel encouraged to share as they see fit on these issues, but we certainly are making progress.
I want to actually—and I think our government would like to—pay tribute to victims of such horrible crimes for having the courage to push ahead, to seek healing and to seek means to be able to safely share their stories and have it not be an offence to do so as well. So when we are looking at the amendments to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958, victim-survivors of sexual assault have powerfully told us how the current law impacts on their ability to share their stories. So it is not that we are operating in a void and not listening; it is actually through victims that these important changes are coming about. I think that is important to establish in the chamber, because I think there was an inference from Mr O’Donohue that it is otherwise, and that is absolutely not the case. We pay tribute to those victim-survivors who have the courage to speak publicly about their profound trauma and the violence of experiencing sexual assault. Just to reiterate, it is not a source of shame; it is a sign of strength.
So what does the bill amend in the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958? What does it do? It allows a victim-survivor of sexual assault to be publicly identified if they give written consent, with no need for permission from a court. So that is certainly a critical reform to take place. It makes clear that victim-survivors can self-identify, for instance, online—and we know how powerful online mechanisms are for getting information out and reaching people who otherwise may not access mainstream media—or through other methods to share some of the most personal and, in this case, traumatic events in their lives. The bill allows for child victim-survivors to be identified, provided that a qualified independent third party, such as a doctor or psychologist, certifies that they understand the consequences and have capacity to consent, which goes without saying. We do not want somebody who was a victim to be exploited once again. It is very important that they are empowered and appropriately supported in that space but that they are also provided with a mechanism to be able to share their story if the independent third party certifies that they actually understand the nature of what they are doing and the ramifications of what they are doing for themselves, because at the end of the day this is all about the victim-survivors.
It allows deceased victim-survivors and those who lack decision-making capacity to be identified by media with court permission. I should note the Victorian Law Reform Commission Contempt of Court report makes clear the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act is complex and it is confusing. It needs to be modernised, and this bill will implement the first stage of a planned overhaul of the act. Just to be absolutely clear about that fact: it is confusing; it is not where it needs to be yet. And that is the nature of reform. You chip away bit by bit, and in that way you empower those who are impacted by the laws.
It has been an offence since 1991—and I am getting to the heart of some of the issues here—to publish details that are likely to identify an alleged victim of a sexual offence. Now, thinking back historically, something that helps me to understand the rationale as to how bills have come about is: what was behind it? What was the decision-making? What was the rationale behind that particular legislation? The offence was intended as a safeguard to protect the privacy and anonymity of victim-survivors so that fear of public identification would not deter the reporting and prosecution of sexual offences. So we can see that there was a clear rationale, and we can see that encouraging people to report on issues that are very delicate and require a lot of soul-searching is a big and necessary step that we need to move forward. I can see how the legislation originally evolved in terms of not wanting to deter people coming forward, but we have learned over time that there are even better mechanisms now to give victims a voice, and that is certainly a positive in this direction. So the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 allows publication in certain specified circumstances, and while these exemptions were intended to provide pathways for victim-survivors or others to publish identifying details, we know that the law is too complex and does not give enough agency to victim-survivors over their stories.
We know that Victorian society and how we view sexual offending have changed since these laws were originally introduced. There was a lot of stigma and shame for sexual offences in the early 1990s, and the original laws did not account for that innate need within victims to share their stories. When I say ‘innate’, everyone is different and individuals need to be able to, and that is what this is about too; it is about empowering individuals to their pathway of healing in their way, in a way that suits them. The last thing we want to do is prescribe, ‘Well, everyone must share their story’. What we are saying is: we are giving that legal mechanism that facilitates that for those if and when they are ready to do so.
The way that information is published has also changed substantially since 1991, and information can now be published and shared instantly online and every individual can be a publisher. That is very powerful and that is very positive, but, as we all know, there is a downside to social media too, hence why it is so critical to ensure that each of these reforms is stepped through, as we are doing prudently to protect victim-survivors and those deceased along the way, because we know that the way information is shared in this modern era is pretty instantaneous and once it is out there it is almost impossible to pull back. So factoring in all those protections and safeguards, fundamentally what I would like to leave the chamber with today is the premise that this is all about: we are focusing on the victims. That is at the heart of these reforms. It is not about gagging, as has been alleged.
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (13:19): Before I begin I just want to say that whether you are on one side of this debate or whether you are on the other side, all of these opinions are relevant because they are being put forward in the main by the victims in these circumstances.
I thank Mr O’Donohue for putting forward the voices of all of those people that he spoke about, because they are entirely relevant in this chamber. I thank those that will speak on behalf of the government for the same reasons, because this is a bill that is somewhat quite unique in that respect. We have a singular group of people who are victims, but they have voices in two different directions in how they feel about this. I want to enunciate here a request, if I can, of all who will partake in this debate. The victims deserve respect. They deserve all voices to be heard. What they do not deserve is what I hope does not happen. I hope this debate does not degenerate into shouting and yelling and repudiation from one side of the chamber to the other, whether that is from the opposition, from the government or from the crossbench. I sincerely hope that we do not lower ourselves onto that path.
I rise today to speak on another piece of reasonable legislation that I fear has been miscommunicated to the public. I will explain why I think these laws are not only appropriate but necessary. That is because they introduce protections for sexual assault survivors and deceased victims, the overwhelming majority of whom are women. I note that in so many jurisdictions it is too often that those around the table discussing legislation that affects women are men. Astoundingly, quite often no women are present. We have seen headlines that say, ‘New bill will prevent Jill Meagher, Eurydice Dixon from ever being named again’. It has resulted in outrage that we are relinquishing these devastating crimes to the history books and not honouring these victims and their stories.
For deceased victims, this bill proposes that a victim’s family have autonomy over whether or not details of sexual offences are made public. It will not stop the public from being notified when a woman or anybody has been murdered, but it may stop the gruesome details of a rape or sexual assault being reported on if it is against the family’s wishes. For survivors of sexual assault, this bill proposes that they can choose. They can choose if they want their story to be told or for it to be never reported on or shared against their wishes. Yes, this bill requires a process for stories to be told, but this exists not to gag victims or survivors but to protect those who do not want their story to be told without their consent. Consultation has found that the majority of survivors of sexual assault do not want to be identified. This of course has also elevated the voices of those who are opposed to the bill, because many of those in support who would be protected by the changes do not want to be identified. These reforms have been brought about following widespread consultation.
In the past, some victims’ families only found out details of their loved one’s final moments through the media—losing total control over the situation, unable to protect the privacy of someone they care deeply about. Some survivors of sexual assault have seen their story told and shared in the media without their consent. The Office of Public Prosecutions has released the following statement:
An article … makes a number of incorrect assertions about the experience and preferences of victims of sexual offending and their families.
…
It has been the experience of the OPP that each victim and family member will hold their own personal view about whether or not they wish for the victim to be publicly identified as a victim of sexual offending.
Some victims of sexual offending do wish to be identified in the public domain and to speak about their experience. Other victims do not wish to be publicly identified, and where they have been identified in the media as a victim of sexual offending, this has caused them a great deal of distress. Enormous distress and re-traumatisation can occur, even in cases where a victim has not been specifically named, but the victim feels that there is sufficient published detail about the case that may lead to their identification.
Likewise, in cases involving sexual offending and homicide, some family members do wish for the victim to be identified as a victim of sexual offending. Other family members do not want this information in the public domain. Other family members do not want the information in the public domain until they have had an opportunity to speak to us and be informed in advance of the detail of that information. In some cases, not every member of a deceased’s family will be unanimous.
It is preferable that victims and their families make this decision, not the media. The default position must be to refrain from publishing until victims and their families have had an opportunity to consider their position, give their consent or advise the court of their position. Once there has been a publication in a digital forum, it is impossible to completely undo the damage.
I wish that what I am about to tell you now was being said by the woman it happened to. As I said at the outset, what drives this legislation is the crimes that have happened to women, and it should be them that we hear from, their voices. She cannot be here to speak her story, and she has asked me to do so. I do so now with the utmost respect and admiration for this extraordinary woman and reiterate it should be her voice you hear, not mine:
We grew up in a working class suburb, living on the smell of an oily rag—or maybe two. My mother worked in the evenings so I had a babysitter. She was the daughter of the woman who owned the milk bar. Let’s call her Jacqui. She was 15, I was 11. Sometimes Jacqui would bring me a can of Coke from the shop which was a real treat. The best thing was that she loved the Bay City Rollers almost as much as I did. The only problem was that she liked Les, whereas I knew that Woody was the cutest of them all. After I finished my homework we would play their records and dance around the living room singing to all their songs.
This night was a bit different. I had just come back from rollerskating with my friends and still had my roller skates on when Jacqui arrived. But this time she brought over one of her friends. And that friend brought over three men. The Coke cans had turned into beer cans, and my Bay City Rollers record was replaced with heavy metal. I stood around feeling very uncomfortable but trying to act grown up. After a little while Jacqui’s friend and a man went into my mum’s room and shut the door. I’m not sure where my baby-sitter was although earlier she had been laughing with one of the men in the kitchen. I roller skated into my room, shut the door and took out my craft set. I used to like carving statues of animals out of soapstone.
A few minutes later one of the men came into my room. We talked a bit and I remember feeling very awkward and not knowing what to say. He asked me to get on the bed. He was old and smelled like beer. I asked where Jacqui was. He said she was busy. I thought he might want to talk so I sat on the end of the bed. He asked me to move over, so I did. He put his mouth on me which I didn’t like at all. But I thought if I didn’t let him do it maybe he wouldn’t like me and maybe my babysitter would get into trouble and wouldn’t come back. My mum had said it wasn’t easy to get a good babysitter and she really needed one because she worked in the evenings. He bit my neck and said it was called a love-bite. It hurt. I started crying and said I didn’t want to do this anymore. But he said only children cry and he reminded me I was almost a teenager.
Then he undid my pants. I stopped crying the best I could. He pulled my jeans down. They were Faberge stretch jeans. I remember he had trouble because I still had my roller skates on and they made my feet very heavy. I cried quietly through the pain of it all feeling so ashamed, but wanting to be brave.
After it was over I stayed in bed. Jacqui told me if I put toothpaste on the love bite it would go away and my mum would never know. The toothpaste stung. It was still stinging when my mum came home looking furious and worried in equal measure asking me what happened and why there was beer all over the living room floor. I told her about the men and the beer but never told her what happened in my room. I was just too ashamed. That’s how the mind of a child works. Or at least the mind of this child.
The mind and heart of each person is their own. Apparently I never told my mother. She eventually worked it out in bits and pieces on her own. My father didn’t find out until I was 29. My family never knew. But here and now, all of you know. All of you, who are only friendly strangers to me, know my story.
That’s because this is my story and I have chosen to tell it through someone I trust. It is my story. It is mine to tell, it is mine to hold, it is mine to share, it is mine to keep. The words are mine to choose. The shame is mine. The agency is mine. Let the law acknowledge and respect my agency. In fact why are you even debating this? It’s not even yours to debate. Unless you were there with me. Then we can have a conversation. Let the story-holders be the ones with power and the ones with agency. This is what was taken from us. This law returns the agency of being story-tellers to us, the rightful owners.
What you have just heard is the story of not just one of my colleagues but a great friend, who is brave and stronger than steel, and she is not alone.
The community response to sexual assault and murder is, rightly, one of outrage and a feeling of mob vengeance. We all want to punish these perpetrators of such evil, and we cannot. It is this feeling of collective helplessness that leads to a collective guilt that we could not protect the victims, and that leads to that anger, that want for retribution. It is a natural human reaction that if we could just do that, then we would avenge the victim and assuage that guilt born of a sense of shameful inability to act. That is why we almost demand the victims’ stories are splashed across the media—because in part it makes us feel better. But we do not have the right to demand that of them, to wrench that control from them. That has already happened to them, and to insist upon it forces some to relive their nightmare. This bill attempts to give the survivors or families of deceased victims an instrument to control their story, to gain back control, and we can give them that and we damn well should.
I followed along with the government’s consultation on this bill as well as much of the public discussion, and I appreciate those commenting on it have passionate, even if critically diverging, views. I note this bill is broadly supported by many victim-survivors of sexual assault, the Law Institute of Victoria and the victims of crime commissioner. I also note that the Attorney-General has already committed to further work in this space, including more consultation with families and advocates to address the complexity of these reforms. Today I was pleased to see that the government has committed to sunsetting clauses related to deceased victims by September of next year. They have made public statements of commitment to work with the families of deceased victims, including those who do not wish to speak publicly and have been distressed by inappropriate reporting on a process for the identification of deceased victims of sexual assault. I am convinced that this bill has struck the right balance in defence of victims and survivors, and I will be supporting it.
Sitting suspended 1.35 pm until 2.04 pm.
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:04): I am pleased to be able to rise and speak to this important debate that we are having this afternoon. In fact it is almost seven years to the day when, in this very chamber, I stood and said the following:
This report was made possible by the hundreds of personal accounts that victims courageously shared with us during the inquiry, many for the very first time. I thank them for their determination and the significant contributions they made to our inquiry. I also thank the families of victims, some of whom spoke on behalf of those who could not …
Of course I am referring to the Betrayal of Trust reportand the parliamentary inquiry that this Parliament did into child abuse and the terrible crimes that were undertaken on so many children across the state. Of course that sparked a royal commission, and we know so many more heartbreaking stories.
The reason I raise that is what we heard from some family members, such as Chrissie and Anthony Foster. I will never forget the day they came in and gave their incredibly compelling evidence to our inquiry. They sat there so bravely with two of their daughters, Katie and Aimee, and of course Emma, who had died, was not there. They were speaking on behalf of Emma. It was incredibly moving, their entire testimony, and all of those people that were listening at the time. Indeed when I was in this chamber delivering the speech and tabling that very powerful report the gallery was packed with victims who were waiting to hear what we had to say, what our findings and recommendations were. Many of those victims were adults who had been raped as children—they had been sexually abused, some of those they knew had gone off and taken their own lives and so many other things.
Those victims and their family members are incredibly important in this debate, and we have heard that through the course of today’s debate—that this is and should be about victims. There is also what we have heard from those advocates outside pleading with the government to get this bill right. All of those people that are involved with Let Us Speak are pleading with the government, saying, ‘Don’t shut us out. Don’t gag us. Let us have our voice’. I want to pay tribute to all of those people. Mr O’Donohue mentioned a lot of them, but Nina Funnell and the group that she has been advocating on behalf of—a very powerful voice and a very meaningful voice—have done tremendous work in speaking out.
This morning I listened to an interview on 3AW radio that went something along the lines of this: ‘I’m so emotional about this stupid and absolutely ludicrous law they are debating today. Why would they prevent these poor, innocent girls’ names from being used? They’re the voice of the victims. We need to hear their voices. I don’t want her voice stolen’. This was the mother of Adrian Bayley, and obviously everyone in this city is aware of the horrendous crime he perpetrated against Jill Meagher. These are the people that we should be speaking up for and supporting. That is why I pay tribute to all those people involved in Let Us Speak who are saying, ‘Don’t rush this. Don’t gag us’. Indeed last week in the County Court, where there was some conjecture about how this would be affected, Judge McInerney determined that the existing law relating to the naming of victims of sexual assault does not apply to deceased persons.
Of course, as Mr O’Donohue has highlighted, it is an omnibus bill. There are some very good elements in the bill, but this particular part of the bill does actually take away the ability for family members to speak on behalf of their loved ones who have died due to horrendous crimes—the amendment to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958. As Mr O’Donohue has said, it was rushed through the lower house. Why is it being rushed through this house? Why did the government members not stand up for all of these people who have written to them? I have got the emails; you have all got the emails. They are saying to the government, ‘Please hear us; these are our concerns’. There is no reason for this part of the bill not to be fixed. That is why Mr O’Donohue has moved his amendment. It needs to be fixed, and the government needs to stop to make sure that they get it right, because it is too important not to get right. It is too important for those family members of the victims who are struggling with this, because it is so dreadfully distressing for them. We have heard that through their pleas, through the media and through the stories that they have told through speaking out, like a perpetrator’s mother did this morning. How much stronger can you get when you hear from people like that speaking out and wanting the victims to be heard and their family members not to be gagged in the process? For heaven’s sake, these people deserve that right.
This is not to mention what it will cost for people to be able to go and challenge in the courts to have that right, if this legislation goes through. It is not just a mere few hundred dollars; it is thousands of dollars. How is it right that people need to be gagged and then they have got to go to court to fight to have a right to be heard on behalf of loved ones who have been so horrendously abused and have died?
As I said, there are so many people who have spoken out about this and who are pleading with the government, and the Attorney-General has no answers to this. She actually has not clarified for the people of Victoria the government’s position on this particular part of the bill. She was rambling. She was non-convincing in her argument about why family members should be gagged or why they will have to go to court and pay thousands of dollars to not be gagged—all of those issues that are so important to people and that this bill relates to.
When we are in this place, let us not forget that what we do in here does affect Victorians. The laws we pass do affect every single one of us. As we have seen, over the last nine months the decisions of government have affected every single Victorian. In this instance the family members of these victims of crimes are just being disregarded, and the government needs to go and speak to them. The government needs to hear them; they need to consult with them—and they should. They should take the time to consult with them and to hear their concerns and to fix it. The government does not need to arrogantly pass this bill in its current form. They have time, because it is my understanding there are no proceedings that this would affect—none.
So I would urge the crossbench and the government to consider Mr O’Donohue’s amendments to make this bill a better bill by ensuring that the family members of those victims are not gagged—that they can speak out and that in this free democracy they have that right. I take the point made by others that there are social media and all sorts of things are said on social media that are distressing. Nobody is disputing that. But this bill will gag family members of victims, and it is not right. I would urge every single crossbench member to please consider the amendments to make this bill a better bill in terms of allowing those family members to speak out on behalf of their loved ones.
Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (14:14): I rise to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. As has already been outlined, this bill seeks to amend several pieces of legislation but ultimately is about delivering what victims want, supporting their needs and delivering justice for them. At the outset I would like to pay tribute to these victim-survivors who have had the courage to speak publicly about the profound trauma and violence of experiencing sexual assault. It is not a source of shame; it never was, and the Victorian government is doing its best to ensure that it never will be.
The bill amends the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 to respond to the concerns of victim-survivors of sexual assault who have raised concerns about the impact of current laws on their ability to share their stories and experiences. The provisions of the bill will ensure the law does not stand between them if they wish to do so. I think it is an important clarification, as I do recall Ms Crozier highlighting the fact that people will need to go through a process to get that permission, but I think that permission is needed. You need to have a process in place. The opposite of that process would be open slather, and in that sense if the amendments were to be accepted, the law would not apply to deceased victims in any circumstance, so I think that is a risk also.
But I guess from my perspective I want to speak on some of the other laws that this bill makes changes to, particularly surrounding our defamation legal system and also around WorkCover injuries—I guess matters that I am probably slightly more familiar with. The amendments to the Defamation Act 2005 and the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 set out in the bill are aimed at modernising and improving our defamation laws. We have seen in Australia and around the world that victims of sexual assault attempting to speak out about their experiences have been threatened with defamation proceedings. It is critical that defamation laws in effect in Victoria require a plaintiff to demonstrate actual harm to make sure the law is not just used to prevent people from sharing their lived experiences. This is particularly important in the context of victims of sexual offending. In addition the bill consists of a range of other measures to support victims. It aims to speed up the decision-making obligations for financial assistance and enhance the role of the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee to ensure it continues to provide a forum for victims of crime to discuss improvements to policies and service delivery.
The bill also includes a range of other measures, notably an important change to support injured workers during the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic. Like I said at the outset, I will not delve into every detail of this bill as much of it has been covered by the previous speakers in this place, and I am sure subsequent speakers will also touch on the different sections of the bill. I do wish to state that the bill is crucial to allowing victim-survivors to speak, as we know how important and empowering it is for them to be able to tell their stories on their own terms.
I would like to reflect on the most important part of this bill—in terms of the defamation aspect, that is—and the one that we may have some consensus on, which is that it makes important changes to modernise defamation law, which I think are much needed. Defamation laws are all too often used to stop misconduct being exposed. Whether it is sexual abuse or harassment or a range of other misconduct, it is vital that people have an ability to write on and publish matters that are genuinely in the public interest. While recognising the need to protect the good reputations of people who have been defamed, there is a sense that the law in this area is unbalanced and too complex. Defamation law should not just be a windfall for those who are established in society, and it is definitely important that a threshold be set that serious harm must have occurred in order to sue in defamation.
The bill will amend the Defamation Act 2005 and the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to implement the model defamation amendment provisions. These provisions have been drafted following a careful review of current defamation legislation and extensive public consultation by the Council of Attorneys-General model laws defamation working party. These reforms respond to the most pressing concerns raised by stakeholders during the review and will significantly modernise defamation law in Australia. I guess whenever a debate on defamation law comes up I am reminded of the words of Shakespeare’s Othello, who said:
Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial.
Our reputations are indeed immortal. They continue to live long after we are gone. The reforms in this bill seek to strike the right balance between the need to provide fair remedies for a person whose reputation is harmed by the publication of defamatory matter and the desire to ensure defamation law does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of expression, particularly regarding matters of public interest. This point is critical where people have been harmed specifically through sexual offences and they feel that they cannot speak out without the threat of defamation hanging over them.
The bill will introduce a serious harm threshold to deter trivial actions and prevent vexatious or oppressive litigation tactics by claimants who do not suffer any significant harm. The onus will be placed on the claimant to establish that the publication of the defamatory matter about a person has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the person. What constitutes serious harm and whether this has been established will be for the judge and not the jury to decide.
This bill will also introduce a new public interest defence that protects a defamatory matter where it concerns the public interest and where the defendant reasonably believes that the publication of the matter was in the public interest. It will provide guidance to courts by including a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider when determining whether the public interest defence applies. The bill institutes a single publication rule for the limitation period for defamation actions to be consistent in its application to digital and non-digital publications. This will mean that the date of first publication of digital material is the date on which the material was first uploaded by the publisher.
Turning to another aspect of this bill which I think is quite consistent with this government’s goal around justice and fairness for working people and also injured workers, the bill reforms the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to ensure that injured workers are not disadvantaged in terms of their compensation entitlements due to the economic conditions brought by the global COVID-19 pandemic.
In my previous line of work I worked as a personal injury lawyer. Everyone understands that most injured workers are entitled to a range of benefits through the statutory scheme—whether that be weekly payments and medical and like expenses—and the way that those benefits are conferred in terms of the weekly payments is based on your pre-injury average weekly earnings. A worker’s 12-month previous earnings are calculated, and based on that average they are allocated weekly payments—firstly at 95 per cent, and then subsequently that drops to 80 per cent of their pre-injury average weekly earnings. In that regard the global pandemic has obviously had an effect on workers’ earnings, and for anyone who has suffered a reduction in income during that period—namely, 1 March until the end of this year—that reduction will not result in a reduction in earnings under the WorkCover scheme and will be excluded. Obviously if it does not result in any reduction in their income, then it will be included as per normal. But I think this amendment is very important because a lot of injured workers rely on that payment while they are recovering to be able to return to work. Obviously they are already suffering in some circumstances a 5 per cent reduction, and in some circumstances a 20 per cent reduction, in their income already, so if the global pandemic resulted in a further reduction of their income, I think it would be very unfair in that aspect.
This is an important reform. Some may say that it is retrospective, but it is one of the odd occasions where I think the retrospective angle is the needed angle, and it has to be implemented urgently. In that aspect I do commend this bill to the chamber even if we cannot agree today on other aspects of this bill.
This bill is about a broad range of issues. I have not had the opportunity to delve into every one, because I realise there are a number speakers that want to speak on this issue. But it is about victim-survivors—about justice for them. It is about reforms that allow people to tell their stories because we understand how empowering that is. But it is also about other reform, such as defamation laws, workplace injury laws and fire protection—a whole range of other legislation. It is an omnibus bill, and it does amend a number of pieces of legislation. All in all, when I have a good read of the bill and the proposals, I have to commend it to the house.
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (14:24): Naturally this is a particularly important debate to Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party. To us this will undoubtedly be one of the most significant bills we will consider in our time here. As I said in my inaugural speech nearly two years ago, the one thing above all that drove me into politics was the need for better parliamentary representation of victims of crime. This was on the basis especially of my experience with the Enough is Enough campaign, which I co-founded with Carol Roadknight in 2015 after two particularly horrifying cases in Wangaratta of sexual assault and murder.
Like Mr Grimley, I also come to this debate as a representative of Derryn Hinch, who over the years has been very outspoken in his advocacy for victims of sexual assault, especially children. I should say that in the process he has fallen foul of gag laws and been incarcerated for doing so, multiple times. Accordingly, this piece of legislation spans areas of policy as well as matters of basic principle and dignity that touch the very heart of our party and me personally.
Obviously I was delighted when I first learned the government was introducing legislation to improve the capacity of living sexual assault survivors to consent to being publicly identified. It was my expectation at that stage that it would be focused primarily on reversing previous legislative changes that had unintentionally constrained this ability for some victims and that it would thereby return their agency and control. Sadly, however, that has not quite turned out to be the case. Certainly I had not anticipated that we would be facing a situation where restrictions on the speech of those living survivors would be replaced by new restrictions on the speech of the relatives of deceased victims and anyone else trying to report on those tragedies. This is a very bittersweet development, and it is one about which I will speak in much more detail in a few moments.
Before that, though, I would like to thank everyone who has approached Mr Grimley and me about this bill and also the many friends and contacts of our party, including victims and families of victims, who have responded to our calls and emails. I pay tribute to all of you and not least every victim and family member who has personally advocated either publicly or privately on this bill and its repercussions. It does not give me any pleasure to say that what has resonated for me throughout those conversations has been a significant level of concern, anxiety and distress among sexual assault victims and their families about this legislation. They have told us repeatedly that they believe this legislation completely disrespects the rights, memories and legacies of rape and murder victims’ families—those of Jill Meagher, Eurydice Dixon and Aiia Maasarwe in recent years, through to all the others before and after them.
I should add that I have personally stood on the steps of this Parliament as an advocate with others in this place—Ms Crozier and Mr O’Donohue—holding a placard bearing the names of far too many victims who have been sexually assaulted and murdered, and they too are remembered and hold a special place in my heart. As a society we should have learned so much over recent years about the importance of shattering the culture of silence around sexual violence and the accompanying stigma for victims. I say this not just because breaking the silence assists in the validation, healing and support of victims, including connecting them to other victims; I also say it in reference to the way in which the sharing of survivor stories and perspectives frequently improves community understanding, including of the often unbearable levels of trauma associated with these experiences. In my view changes to this legislation can only begin to be effective when they are genuinely grounded in the real-life insight that comes from listening to and respecting these accounts.
Additionally, such legislation should always be constructed so that it does not work to the benefit of perpetrators but instead recognises and actually prioritises the rights and interests of victims, and that is something I have always tried to do in this place. Accordingly, it is very difficult for me to agree with any approach that would make it harder for these stories to be told or would cause victims of sexual homicide to be treated differently and their cases to be reported differently than other homicide victims.
At this point I do also want to thank the Attorney-General’s office, with whom we in the Justice Party have had many discussions about these issues surrounding the bill. We had hoped these conversations might lead to some changes to what we regard as the most troubling elements of the bill. Unfortunately that ultimately did not prove to be possible, but we are sincerely grateful they afforded us that potential opportunity. I should also add that most of the other components of the bill are worthy of support. Amongst these are the new initiatives on prison contraband.
In relation to the victim-survivor elements of the bill, whilst I disagree with how they are seeking to achieve this practically, I do understand the government is wanting to protect those who wish to remain anonymous. These are of course often complex tensions in this area of law—trying to balance the interests of those victims of sexual offending who wish to speak publicly and those who do not. All of those interests need to be contemplated incredibly carefully. It is not unreasonable to have a suppression order made at sentencing if victims or families want to remain anonymous.
I have to say that at the moment I believe there is a very widely shared dissatisfaction across most victims and victims’ families with this bill. The main concern is that the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 has never previously referenced deceased victim-survivors specifically. If this bill is passed, then it explicitly alters that situation with its multiple references to deceased victims, having the effect of clearly criminalising public disclosure of their cases. The government says it is not changing anything that has not already been in place since the early 1990s, but I do not agree with that interpretation, and more importantly, neither did Judge McInerney in a crucial test case of this very point in the County Court last Friday.
Given the lack of such prosecutions in this area in any Australian jurisdiction, our party is also struggling to discern any urgent or compelling reasons for these new provisions. In other words, Mr Grimley and I believe the status quo for deceased victims should remain and that all references to deceased victims should be removed from the bill. In our view that would reverse the most serious flaws in this bill. We also believe there needs to be an adjustment to the minimum age limit created in this bill for people wanting to publicly reveal their identities without needing the approval of third-party medical professionals. There is no obvious reason to us why the bar should have been set as high as the age of 18, especially when the general age of consent in Victoria is 16.
We suspect the bill is going to add some further confusion to the already vexed issue of who should be regarded as a family member in deciding whether details about a deceased person who was a victim of sexual offending should be published. We think another drawback of the bill is that it fails to establish or identify any clear conduit through which a survivor can provide consent to media outlets in a general sense. Most of the changes for living survivors in this bill have been drafted well, and they effectively correct the unintended consequences of the legislation passed in 2019. However, whilst they create some important new conditions around survivors providing tailored, specific consent to a publisher, it is not clear how this consent might be provided for more than one publisher at a time. That is inefficient and unwieldly enough for the media, but it also sets the stage for potential frustration and retraumatisation for victims in requiring them to deal with every single request for permission individually. This has not been afforded the consideration it deserves within the bill. The government has made it clear on many occasions: we must always reduce any further potential harm to victims of crime.
Without specific guidance or a public education campaign it is also very confusing as to whether any of the material can even continue to remain online beyond the commencement date of this bill. It also creates ambiguity about whether the likes of other advocates, campaigners, activists and/or academics will have to delete their own past work and commentary relating to rape and sexual assault cases, let alone republish or refer to anyone else’s. There is therefore a potential minefield in many different respects. Our feeling is that if the new section 4A is to be retained, it needs to be substantially rewritten to adequately deal with all of these likely new problems.
The bottom line in all of this is that, in the absence of any changes on at least some of those many points, it has left us with what we regard as some very invidious choices about how to vote on this bill. In essence, we are being asked to try to identify and then support a least-worst option. We can remove the prohibitions on living survivors or we can retain the freedom for deceased victims, but under the current wording of the bill it can only be one and not the other. Accordingly, there is not going to be a fully satisfactory outcome in those circumstances for many victims and families of victims who were hoping for a much broader consensus here today.
In the end, in Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party we have taken our cue from the views and voices of those victims and relatives of victims. There has been an overwhelming and near-universal lead from them that we should oppose this bill. They have advanced that position to us largely as a result of their own deep respect for deceased victims. Whilst I know the government has a different interpretation of the bill’s possible impact in this area, these victims and Victorian families also believe the changes will potentially now affect every sexual assault victim through the possible erasure upon their death of their identities, portfolios and histories from the public domain.
To everyone who has helped us reach our position on this bill, I again say thank you from the bottom of my heart, and I hope you and we in Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party do miraculously reach the outcome that we all seek today. Nonetheless I will exit this debate on a more optimistic tone by asking victims and their loved ones not to be discouraged. I ask you to retain hope by continuing to advocate to the government and by continuing to work with the members within this Parliament who believe in your cause. We can eventually get to the place we all want to be on this legislation, with full rights to speak enshrined in Victorian law in respect of living and deceased survivors. As a victim of serious sexual assaults, I will advocate for and with you until I draw my last breath. In the meantime, I thank the house.
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (14:39): It gives me no pleasure to stand and speak on this bill today, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. It is a shame that I say that it gives me no pleasure, because this bill actually does introduce some very good initiatives, but it is a perverse outcome that this bill introduces that makes me say it gives me no pleasure. As I said, it does do some very good things. To give a voice to those women who are victim-survivors of sexual assault is something that we all want. It is their story, and they should have a right to tell that story. But so should the families of the deceased victims of sexual assault. We have seen and heard so much about this bill over the last couple of weeks.
I am going to confine my remarks to part 2 of the bill, which amends the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958, because that is the section of the bill that deals with this clause. As I said, it does give a voice to those who are victim-survivors. This has been a campaign run by Nina Funnell. She has run an extremely good campaign to give these victim-survivors a voice. But in introducing the bill the Attorney-General has introduced a perverse outcome that has seen a gag placed on the families of deceased victims of sexual assault, and this is absolutely appalling. It is absolutely appalling that we would see families gagged from speaking about their loved ones, from speaking about the impact that this has had on them.
As women we all owe these families an enormous debt, because it is their bravery in talking of their loss that drives community opinion and leads to law reform. These families should not be forced to go to court to gain permission to speak of their loss, and that is what this bill has introduced—a requirement where the families will have to go to court to seek the court’s permission to speak of the loss of their loved ones. It is absolutely appalling.
We have seen Jill Meagher’s mother particularly come out very strongly against this. Over the last couple of weeks we have heard a lot from her. She went out immediately on social media and said:
We have not being contacted and it’s so wrong.
And she is right; the families have not been contacted. They have not been consulted, and they are being gagged. She went on to say:
Its such a heartache on all of us who lost our precious ones.
She said:
I am …
effing—
fuming that they haven’t even contacted any of the family.
She has vowed to fight any proposed gag on victims telling their stories. She went on to say:
Gillian would have been 38 … and would have been a brilliant Mom—
and that for Gillian’s memory she will fight it. The Attorney-General has insisted that this does not gag people, and yet we have seen since then Judge McInerney come out and say that there is absolutely no gag now on people speaking—yet the Attorney-General insists that there is and it is just being overlooked. But Judge McInerney has said that there is no gag. This bill introduces that gag. Now the Attorney-General is saying that she will urgently fix it: ‘Trust us, we’re from the government. Just pass this bill. Then we will do the consultation and then we will fix it’. No, that is not right. Take this out of the bill. Remove this clause. Take it out of the bill, pass the good parts of this bill and then go and do thorough consultation with the families and bring this back in a separate bill if there needs to be some legislation around the families of deceased victims actually speaking.
Adrian Bayley’s mother has come out this morning and said that she is also appalled that families would be gagged. She called in to 3AW and expressed her anger over the proposed legislation, saying that it was ridiculous. She said:
We need to hear their voices …
We need to listen to these voices, to the victim’s voices. Just because they are not with us doesn’t mean they are any less important.
I’m just so emotional about this stupid and absolutely ludicrous law.
I’m a mother of one of the perpetrators. Why on god’s earth would they prevent these poor innocent girls’ names from being used? Why?
Every time I hear of these girls, who my son harmed … I do not want her voice stolen.
It breaks my heart. When I see her (Jill Meagher’s) picture my heart breaks. Why should her voice not be heard? This is just ridiculous.
And Adrian Bayley’s mother is absolutely right. I actually spoke to the mother of two deceased victims the other day.
We hear a lot, and we have heard a lot over the last couple of weeks, of Jill Meagher, Eurydice Dixon and Aiia Maasarwe. But for me this immediately brought back memories of two local girls in Greater Shepparton who lived in the small town of Toolamba, who were 23 and 21 and who had moved to Melbourne to live their young lives. Colleen and Laura Irwin were those sisters. They had gone to school with some of the members of my extended family, so they were known to me—not known well, but I knew who they were—and I was horrified when I heard of their deaths. They had done nothing wrong. They were at home. It was a Friday night, and Laura had decided she would not go out at all. She had stayed home. She was home in her bed. Laura was 21. Colleen had gone to a party—Colleen was 23—and when she returned home just after midnight she was confronted by their neighbour, who accosted her and went into the house with her. What the girls did not know in living their carefree life in Altona North was that their neighbour, William Watkins, was a serious sex offender. He had a criminal history that went back to before those girls were born. He had been convicted of rape, of serious assault and of aggravated burglary, but he had only been given four years and three months as a sentence and he was out on parole. He was out, and he was obviously not reformed. He was a danger to society and a danger to those dear young girls.
Shirley and Allan Irwin participated in a Foxtel documentary earlier this year, and I would suggest to every member of this house that they go to Foxtel On Demand and watch that documentary. It is called Wrongly Released: Free to Kill. William Watkins was wrongly released and free to kill, and that is what he did. When you look at that documentary—and I watched it again last night to refresh my memory—and see the impact that this has had on Shirley and Allan’s life, you see just how gravely this does affect the families and how they need to speak about it. They need to make some sense of what has happened to them and to their loved ones. They need to know that their loved ones have not died in vain but that perhaps by speaking out they can get law reform that will protect other women from the same fate as their loved ones have faced. It is something that will never go away. Shirley said that every day she lives this; every day she still feels the presence of her girls in their home. It will never go away for them. They live this and breathe this every day
I just think that this piece of legislation has been so fatally flawed by this inclusion that the Attorney-General really should have stalled the entire piece of legislation, but certainly she should remove this clause. For the opposition of course, Mr O’Donohue has done the consultation that the Attorney-General has not done. He has consulted with Nina Funnell and the people who have advocated for the law change to allow victim-survivors to speak and consulted with other people in the legal fraternity, and he has come up with some sensible amendments to this bill that I would implore every member of this chamber to actually support. I cannot believe that the Attorney-General, knowing this is so fatally flawed, has progressed with this bill. How embarrassing to have to come back and fix something this important later on. I see that Ms Terpstra is shaking her head, but this is embarrassing to the government. This is a flaw in this bill that should be removed. Do not go ahead with something that people are saying is wrong.
The law should reflect what the people of Victoria expect, and the people of Victoria expect that the families of victims can speak out, that they can speak about their loved ones who are deceased, that they can drive community opinion, that they can drive law reform, that they can use their grief to actually do some good in the memory of their loved ones who they have lost. For the Attorney-General to just say, ‘Trust me. Don’t worry. Let’s just pass this. Let’s put it into law, and then, look, we’ll do the consultation about it later on’ is an absolutely ridiculous position. I implore every member of this chamber to support Mr O’Donohue’s amendments.
Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:51): I rise to make a contribution in regard to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I will be speaking in support of it, but of course the government opposes the amendments that have been foreshadowed. Just before I commence my contribution I want to acknowledge the heartfelt and very personal contributions of many in this chamber today. This is not a time for finger-pointing, attacking and arguing with each other. This is a time for recognising the immense sensitivities around the subject matter in this bill. This is a time for recognising that what must be at the absolute core of this bill is respecting the rights of victim-survivors, respecting the rights of victim-survivors to tell their stories but also respecting the rights—and these are complex matters—of people who may have been a victim of serious sexual assault who are no longer with us and no longer able to have a voice and to talk about how they feel and how they want their stories to be told.
I want to reflect on the contributions of Ms Lovell, Ms Maxwell and of course Mr Meddick, who made a very powerful contribution telling the story of a young woman who was, sadly, sexually assaulted when she was 11. What struck me about that story was this: that young woman was unable to tell anybody about her story for many, many years to come. In fact Mr Meddick remarked that she was not even able to tell her mother about what had happened to her until many years later. What that tells you is that it is difficult for victim-survivors to tell their story, and very often—although this should not be the case—women carry around the shame of their being sexually assaulted. It is not their fault. It is never their fault. What this bill does is attempt to allow victim-survivors to retain agency over how their stories are told.
Now, I have heard the contributions of others in this chamber, as I have remarked, and I am not going to get into saying that this person is wrong in how they are perceiving or telling of what they see as real issues in this bill. Everyone in this chamber has the right to have a particular view about the contents of this bill. But what I will do is put the government’s position with clarity and address what this bill is attempting to do.
What I would like to do is try and focus on what we can agree on before I get to what is not clear. What I think we can agree on is that all of us in this chamber really want to preserve the right of victim-survivors to tell their stories and have those stories told when it is appropriate and to make sure that the victim or victims have the right to control how their stories are told. A victim who has died may have had a view about their story; perhaps they did not want it told or they wanted it told in a particular way or by somebody. Just because they are no longer with us, that should not be taken away, and there needs to be a process for that.
It is important to honour the wishes of a victim of sexual assault who is no longer with us, and many of the stories that have been told today talk about victims of sexual assault who are no longer with us or who never had an opportunity to have a voice before their life was taken away. These are really, really important matters, and I am speaking to the crossbench particularly on this because I want you to hear and understand that there are disparate views. There are many, many views of many people because it is deeply personal, and everyone’s story may be different. Everyone’s story can be complex and nuanced to that particular family and their relationship with that child or family member—or friend, even. Sometimes there needs to be a process by which we can make sure, can be absolutely sure, that what we are not doing is further victimising somebody’s legacy or memory, and that is what this bill is actually about. That is what is at the core of this bill.
I have tons of notes here, and I recognise that I have got about 10 minutes on the clock and there is no way that I am going to be able to get through much of what needs to be said. But what I will say is that victim-survivors of sexual assault have powerfully told the government how the current laws impact on their ability to share their stories. They have powerfully told us that. We pay tribute to those victim-survivors who have had the courage to publicly speak about the profound trauma and violence of experiencing sexual assault, and as I said, it is not a source of shame; it is a sign of strength.
The bill will allow for victim-survivors of sexual offences to be publicly identified if they give written consent, with no need for permission from a court. So contrary to what some have said in the chamber today, this actually does not change what is already there other than addressing the issue that has arisen for people who are deceased. It makes it clear that victim-survivors can self-identify—for example, online—if they want to. It can allow for a child victim-survivor to be identified provided that a qualified independent third party such as a doctor or psychologist certifies that they understand the consequences and have capacity to consent, because we need to make sure that medical professionals are satisfied on some level that that young person is not being further abused, victimised or traumatised in the telling of these stories. That is pretty important, and there need to be safeguards in place. It also allows deceased victim-survivors and those who lack decision-making capacity to be identified by the media without court permission, because again it recognises there are a range of victim-survivors that have a range of different circumstances.
Again, much of the discussion about this bill has been concerned with how it will apply to deceased victims, and the government recognises that it is a very sensitive and complex matter, as I have said. And as I said, the bill does not change the prohibition on identifying sexual offending against a deceased victim. This has been in place and been the case for almost 30 years, and I have heard some of the contributions mention earlier that it was in 1991 that these laws were originally put in place. But what we do know is that the law reform commission report into this matter did talk about the fact that the laws that govern this area are complex and are in need of reform—that is, the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Contempt of Court report. The Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 is complex and confusing. It needs to be modernised, and this bill will implement the first stage of a planned overhaul of the act. And as I said, it has been an offence since 1991 to publish details that are likely to identify an alleged victim of a sexual offence.
I have had constituents contact me about this matter as well, and in talking to the office of the Attorney-General what was made clear to me was that again it was in relation to somebody who has passed away. So you can talk about the fact that a victim of a violent crime had been murdered, but it was about the aspect of sexual offending that occurred and that this person was a victim of. Victorian society has changed how it views sexual offending since those laws were introduced, and it is important for stories to be told. There was a lot of stigma and shame for victim-survivors of sexual offences in the early 1990s, and the original laws did not account for the need to ensure that victim-survivors tell their stories.
The way that information is published has also changed substantially since 1991. Information can now be published and shared instantly online, and every individual can be a publisher. As we know, social media was not really a big thing back in 1991—it was not even there. Circumstances have changed, and the laws do need to catch up.
Again, this is not about suppressing the voices of anybody. This is not about not allowing families to tell the stories of survivors of sexual assault. It is principally about addressing that issue of deceased victims and young people. People may change their minds about whether they want to talk about what has happened to them. They may not ever want to talk about it. In the example that Mr Meddick talked about it took a number of years for that young woman to come forward and actually tell her story. What might have occurred had somebody else told her story on her behalf without her permission or without her knowledge? The trauma that that might have caused that young person at that time also needs to be recognised.
Again, these are complex matters. They are very sensitive matters. It is important for me in making this contribution, again, to try and clarify the intentions of the government in regard to this bill in that it is about implementing a process to work through these matters. Because, again, what we have heard today is that there are families who are outraged about this, but there are also other families who are talking to the government and saying that they welcome this process. We also need to bear in mind there are other families who are silent. We should not make assumptions about what those families might be thinking or feeling at this point in time, because everybody deals with grief differently. This is not a time for finger-pointing or arguing or attacking. What I will say is that we have heard the voices—powerfully—of families who have told the government their views about this bill, and that is why we are proceeding with it. We pay tribute to those victim-survivors who have the courage to speak publicly about the profound trauma and violence of experiencing sexual assault. It is a sign of strength and we want to make sure that victim-survivors and their families can tell their stories where they want to. But those who are deceased and no longer with us—we must uphold their rights and their voices even though they are no longer with us.
I might leave my contribution there. I look forward to the minister summing up in regard to this bill. Again, this is a complex matter. It is a very sensitive matter. I would like to think that rather than arguing and shouting and screaming at each other across the chamber we can try and work towards getting this right. The government believes it has got the best intentions in regard to the families and victims of crime and the ability for stories to continue to be told.
I must say just on a personal note I have always felt conflicted when I hear in the media about a woman who has been murdered at the hands of a violent offender. Whilst it is important for those stories to be told, I have personally felt conflicted about what that victim would want to happen. Would they want their story to be told? I do not know that I could stand here with 100 per cent certainty and say, ‘Yes, they would want it to be told’, because I cannot ask them that. I cannot ask them in what way they want their story to be told, because they are not here. They have had that taken away from them by the violent act that has occurred. They should own no shame in that, but we must respect and honour the wishes of victims who are no longer with us. With that, I will commend this bill to the house, and the government opposes the amendments.
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:04): I rise to speak this afternoon on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I will make it very clear, and I will send a message to my family: if I get killed in some unknown situation at the hands of a male or female perpetrator, I give you my full permission to do and say what you need to do to grieve and heal. And I might just say that I also might reflect other people who may have the same view as that. If you are dead, it is the survivors, it is the families, the grieving families, who should have the choice to heal, to live and to say and the freedom to do so without having to go to court to do it.
This bill is a multipurpose bill; we will call it an omnibus bill. I note that the Liberals and The Nationals, through Mr Ed O’Donohue, have put up two amendments that I just want to reiterate my full support for. There are several parts to this bill, but notably the largest part is dealing with an area of the Attorney-General’s justice portfolio. Other parts of this bill look at corrections, workplace safety and emergency services. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the victim-survivors and the families of the deceased victims who have gone through so much grief and trauma. I say that in a short sentence, but it is a lifetime of pain, of anguish, of not sleeping at night, of crying, of not feeling like who you really are anymore because your life has changed and moved—and it has not been in your hands, yet your hands are the ones that have to deal with it and move forward as much as possible.
Currently an adult victim-survivor must receive a court’s permission to be able to tell their story when criminal proceedings for the offence are pending or have concluded with the offender having been convicted. Child victim-survivors can only speak if proceedings are not pending, and if they are mature enough to understand the consequences of publicly identifying a victim-survivor of a sexual assault or offence. The bill then enables adult and child victim-survivors to be able to legally publish their stories without court involvement, providing that they do not identify another victim in the process who may wish to maintain their anonymity.
There are, however, significant flaws in this bill. We have heard very heartfelt and passionate stories from members in here, and I acknowledge Ms Maxwell and Ms Lovell. Ms Maxwell, I hail strength to you in your ongoing dedication in this very important area of public legislation and commend you for your ongoing and lifelong commitment to victims. On the major flaws, though, this bill will prevent a deceased victim’s family from coming forward; it will gag them from speaking up. The trauma of knowing that they have to be silent and remain gagged will add another layer of stress in an already stressful life. Since this bill passed the Legislative Assembly two weeks ago, the Tasmanian Australian of the Year, Ms Grace Tame, has come out very publicly and said that this bill is disgusting, unbelievable and yet another example of how our society enables predators by silencing the victims, including the case of grieving relatives. The bill will make it a crime to publish the name of any deceased sexual assault victim within Victoria.
As I said, grieving relatives will be prevented from ever freely speaking directly under media with their real names or writing and identifying the victim. Families will be gagged against their will, including parents who have campaigned on behalf of their now-dead children. We have seen very—I hasten to use the word ‘famous’, but unfortunately they do not want to be famous for this—well known media names because of this. The law would also include social media and mainstream media. Grieving relatives could face harsh punishments of four months in jail and thousands of dollars in fines—further loss and pain—for sharing memories.
I am sure many of us in this house—and I know some were in very, very tragic circumstances—have lost a loved one. I lost my father 30 years ago. I find what consoles me—and it is no way the same depth of pain, but it is relative to my own experiences—is when it is his birthday or Father’s Day and I put up a photo of him. It consoles me in the fact that I have lost him. Magnify this a thousand times. Now these parents will not be able to place on record their grief for their loved one, or that they miss them, and share with the world their pain. But also it is a healing process being able to do this. The only way they can do this is to go back to court at their own expense, at a cost of up to $10 000, which is an undue financial burden on often financially strapped parents and grieving loved ones as part of this process.
A courageous lady by the name of Ashleigh Rae Cooper contacted me to tell her story. Ashleigh became an advocate for survivors not long after her case went through the courts in May this year. Ashleigh has a visual impairment and she had to make a choice between having surgery or paying the costs of enabling her voice to be heard and having her story told. Ashleigh thought she was able to speak, but she was told, ‘No, you could go to jail if you do so’. So she connected with Let Her Speak, a campaign run by an amazing person by the name of Nina Funnell. They helped Ashleigh go through the court process, and it was the most pain-free court process because Let Her Speak went above and beyond. Ashleigh feels that the process as it currently stands is able to cherrypick the legacies that are left behind, and I thank her for sharing her story. The proposed amendments concerning living survivors are needed, and there is no reason why they should not apply to the families of deceased victims and their next of kin. They should not have to go through the courts to have their loved ones’ names out in public. Should this bill go through, all of those high-profile cases will have to be removed and those families will have to go through this court process.
I have said that Mr O’Donohue has put up some very important amendments to clause 3 of this bill. The changes that come from these amendments will in effect reflect the input of a large number of stakeholders that have come to the coalition and spoken. It has been very much noted that people have felt that the government has not listened to them. Again, one hallmark of this government is non-consultation when it does not want to hear. We have heard that across multiple areas. The amendments also take into account the County Court’s decision on Friday, which clarified that it is not currently illegal for the families of sexual assault victims to speak publicly about their deceased relatives. In recent years we have heard of the most heinous crimes committed against Jill Meagher, Eurydice Dixon and Aiia Maasarwe, and their families have spoken about these events. I have also been contacted by many Victorians inside my constituency and outside.
One particular lady by the name of Tracie Oldham took the time to reach out to me about her story and the need for grieving people to tell their own story. She said:
No one has the right to tell victim families that they cannot grieve publicly …
In fact feel they feel so angry at the way they need to cope if this bill goes through. With the lived experience of sexual assault and a horrendous time, Tracie has spent most of her adult life being a voice for the voiceless. Her support group has helped many, many survivors. I commend her. ‘Commend’ is not actually sufficient; I congratulate her from the bottom of my heart. Another incredible woman, as I mentioned before, is Nina Funnell, who leads Let Her Speak, an amazing organisation.
I think another lady needs to go on record, and she has been spoken of before. This was the terrible situation of a young person at the age of eight being molested by her stepfather, before he murdered the girl’s stepsister. It is important that we speak of these things when they are happy for us to do so, because it is unfair that they have to be gagged if this bill goes through and people are not able to speak about their loved ones.
Through my own electorate I just want to pay homage to some amazing not-for-profit organisations and to staff who work at the very coalface. Gippsland Centre Against Sexual Assault, GCASA, is an amazing organisation, and I commend CEO Jane Barr and all of her crew. I have had the absolute pleasure of working with them from time to time on global Denim Day, a day that says it is not all right and there is no excuse for sexual violence. I was also very pleased to be able to support them, and I hope I can do that on an ongoing basis.
With the time I have left I just want to raise one more part in this, and it relates to the Forests Act 1958. Again, I feel like this part of the omnibus bill is being added in there to fix up some oversights from the Fire Rescue Victoria bill, which The Nationals certainly voted against and argued very strongly against. I think we are starting to see some of the consequences of this—I will not say ‘unintended consequences’, because I think the government actually knew very well what would happen—in my Eastern Victoria electorate. This particular part of this legislation looks at amending the Forests Act to provide that Forest Fire Management Victoria—so the firefighters, as opposed to the CFA—can work within the Fire Rescue Victoria districts, districts that to my mind seem to be on a scale, creeping forward and forward into our regional electorates and into CFA territory. Our amendment that Mr O’Donohue has placed on the table today seeks to provide some clarity around that, and it is very important that if this part is going to go through, there is a greater consistency between Forest Fire Management Victoria and FRV and there is clarity around those decisions. I really approve of that amendment.
Finally, it is very disappointing that unfortunately this government has dropped the ball in terms of fuel load management. We have heard time and time again across my electorate the fact that fuel reduction saves lives, and there is a very strong campaign that I endorse in relation to that, but Forest Fire Management Victoria’s annual report goes on to say that this government has slashed fuel reduction in Victoria.
In 2014–15, the last year of the previous Liberal-Nationals coalition government, $50 million was spent on direct fire management activities. Last year Daniel Andrews spent a paltry $18 million on direct fire management activities, representing a 64 per cent cut. But the last part to that is that of that $18 million that the government spent only 15 per cent was actually spent on fuel reduction activities, while the other 85 per cent was spent on planning and reporting. I do not take umbrage at Forest Fire Management Victoria particularly; I do take umbrage at the government not providing the funding required to keep up a 5 per cent rolling target on fuel reduction burns.
With those few words, there are elements of this bill that need to go through that are important and that are just, but there are some significant flaws in there. The Liberal-Nationals coalition’s amendments seek to address those, and I will be fulsomely supporting those, but in other ways this bill is just too flawed for me to be able to support it.
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:19): I have briefly spoken once before in this place about a tragedy of my youth that profoundly affected my life. My partner was murdered by a stranger in Frankston in 1993. There is no more difficult subject for me to talk about, but I believe we should talk about it. I hope by speaking that you might get a better understanding of what it means to be a victim of crime, because when someone is murdered there are many victims, not just the victims themselves but their families and many others who will never be the same.
For me the effects were devastating. Like many victims, I did not understand why this had happened. I searched for meaning. I attended court to listen to the details of what had happened, but soon after my life quickly fell apart. However, I was fortunate. Through the help of my family and friends I was able to eventually get my life back together. I went back to university, I started a successful career and eventually I dedicated myself to a philosophy of peace and freedom which culminated in me being in this place. So for me this legislation is personal. As part of the circle of people who are victims of crime, my simple request is to let us speak. I promise you no-one cares more about the sensitivities of individual cases than the friends of victims. We do not need reining in, and the idea that only the government can prevent us from saying something we should not is offensive.
I know that this legislation is well intentioned, but it falls short because after fixing one problem for living victims it creates another one for the friends and family of deceased victims. We should be allowed to talk about it. Importantly, if we think a violent criminal should be kept in prison, we should be able to tell you why. If we think a problem should be addressed, we should be able to talk about the problem.
I believe the media should also be allowed to report on the facts of cases. These days journalists are very sensitive to their responsibilities because they are only ever one email away from being held responsible in the court of public opinion. It should not be up to the government to decide what is moral, and the good news is that it is simply not necessary. I am aware of a recent occasion when the media gave distressing details in reporting the murder of a young woman. I think we can agree that they overstepped the standards expected of them, and the community let them know. The media abide by many standards without government intervention, such as maintaining the privacy of victims, not reporting on suicides and not showing overly graphic photographs. It is once again worth reminding everyone that freedom of information, opinion and expression is part of the Victorian charter of human rights. It is true that freedom of speech has some limits, but we should never give these rights away freely.
There is also another side of this coin: by talking about these tragedies we keep the memory of victims alive. You cannot wish away evil, you cannot bring murder victims back, but by talking about these things you can find ways forward and you can bring communities together. I am glad to say that when the family who lost their daughter so many years ago spoke on the Neil Mitchell program last year the community rallied behind them to help them remain in their home. We do not need government to make moral judgements. Victims of crime should be allowed to speak and the media should be allowed to broadcast what we say. Too much has been taken from us already. Just let us speak.
Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:23): I rise to join the debate on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. In doing so I want to note at the outset the heartfelt contributions of so many members of this place already—from the opposition, from the ranks of the government but also from the crossbench. Like so many members, I have received a significant amount of correspondence about this bill. As I start my brief contribution I want to put on the record that in bringing forward this legislation I have got no doubt that the government and the Attorney-General had good intentions. But in seeking to solve one problem, regarding the ability of living victims of sexual violence to speak out, another very significant problem has been created. It is now very clear that this bill, if it becomes law after passing this place today or perhaps tomorrow or at some later point in this sitting week, will gag the families of deceased victims of sexual assault.
It is an omnibus bill. There are numerous elements of this bill that I personally do not find problematic in the least. There are elements of this bill that are important. However, given that we now know that it will have the impact of silencing families of deceased victims of sexual assault, I certainly cannot support it in its current state. Mr O’Donohue has circulated a series of amendments, and I support them, but my plea to the government and to the Attorney is that we need to pause now—we need a delay. It is not good enough to simply say that at some later point we will revisit the objectionable elements of this bill and seek to fix them. We need to do that now.
In opposition we sought to help the government when this bill was passing through the Legislative Assembly. We moved a series of amendments then, but the government opposed them. We moved a reasoned amendment to seek to give the government an opportunity to revisit the element of this bill that will, if the bill becomes law, gag the families of deceased victims of sexual assault. But again the government refused. We are moving amendments again today following a court decision on Friday that clarifies the point that for those of us on this side of the house is causing so much angst. Again I would simply urge the government to join with us.
On numerous occasions in the last sitting week those of us on this side of the house and numerous members of the crossbench joined with the government and spoke, as I did, about an important education bill that I felt would make some minor but nonetheless important changes to better safeguard young people in our boarding schools. We joined with the government on that. That was a good piece of legislation. We are still debating—and I hope we will get back to it shortly—another justice bill to expand the existing Drug Court program to the County Court. I have made a contribution myself on that bill, and I am supportive of it. So we have a strong track record of constructive engagement with the government on really important measures in the justice portfolio. We are seeking to do that again with this bill, and I would urge the government to accept the hand that we are extending to them.
Like so many other members right across this house I have been so struck by the extraordinary bravery of so many people—predominantly women—who have been speaking out recently both about this bill in its current form but more broadly about the appalling issue of sexual assault and the broader issue of sexual violence in our community. I am really thankful to say that these are not issues that have directly impacted any of my loved ones, but again I think the contributions of many members of this house who are not in a position that is as fortunate as mine have been incredibly heartfelt.
I had the opportunity before I came to this place and when I was working in pastoral roles in schools to seek to be able to help young people who had been the victim of family violence and who had been the victim of sexual violence. Overwhelmingly we know that the victims of sexual violence are girls and women in the Victorian community. I do not mind informing the house, President, through you, that I found that element of the pastoral roles that I played in numerous schools, including in my electorate, to be an incredibly challenging one. I cannot imagine how hard it would be for victims of sexual violence and for the families of deceased victims of sexual violence to come out and to talk. But it is so important to talk.
It was many years ago now that the former Baillieu coalition government put in place its action plan to prevent violence against Victorian women and children—the first action plan of that kind. One of the core pillars built into that plan was the notion that we must have of course a respectful and of course a careful community debate but nonetheless an ongoing community debate and discussion about the very sensitive and incredibly difficult issues that this bill is seeking to address. We know that one of the root causes of the violence that we see against Victorian women is the attitude that some—too many—Victorian men have regarding the place of women in society. We also know from listening to the experts that the only way to seek to change those quite entrenched attitudes—longstanding attitudes, in many respects—is through a careful but nonetheless robust community discussion and debate about these types of issues.
I listened carefully to the contribution of Mr Limbrick before me. Like him, I have faith and trust that the loved ones of deceased victims of sexual assault can talk about these issues and would want to talk about these issues in a very careful way. For a whole host of reasons I think that that is a really important thing. I, like Mr O’Donohue, listened this morning to the mothers of both Jill Meagher and Adrian Bayley as they made points similar to some of the points that we have heard today in our discussion about why it is so important to allow people to speak. With that, I would say again that there are numerous elements of this bill that I do not oppose and I do not find problematic. There are several elements of this bill that I wholeheartedly support, but the government must join with us in enabling a delay to fix this one element of the bill that, for those of us on this side of the house, is so obnoxious. It would have such a negative impact, retraumatising some members of the Victorian community who have already gone through immense trauma, that I would urge the government to support our efforts, through Mr O’Donohue, to enable that delay.
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:31): As mentioned, a lot of this bill is fairly—I will not say, ‘inconsequential’, but it is not really the topic of the day. So I will get to it. As a police officer, as Mr Grimley will tell you, you see some things and you do some things, and it does change you. But what you generally do not see and what you do not do is what I learned Mr Limbrick had to go through. You do not have to be the victim of someone’s crime—even if it may not have been you that was murdered—and I think that is the crux of what he said. A lot of times I think libertarians get a little carried away with themselves, but I think Mr Limbrick really hit on it well and truly: who are we—the government, the courts or whatever—to tell the victims or the survivors of the victims, their families and friends, what they can and cannot say, subject to various things, depending on whether it is still going through the courts and so on?
Last week was a tough week for me because I started calling some of the people that were sending me emails about their personal situations. One that really got to me was John Herron. John is about my age. Last year his daughter was raped and murdered, and the offender is now looking at time in an institution as opposed to jail. I will not say it left me fundamentally changed—that conversation—but it left me with an appreciation of something I hope I never, ever have to experience. Being the dad of a 10-month-old girl gives you a different appreciation of how things can go and how out of control life can be. We had a good long talk, and it seemed we were agreeing on a lot of things. I think one of them was that they need to be able to talk. They do not need to go to court to have a court tell them they can talk, particularly if the murder victim is obviously no longer there to give consent. If there is no reason not to, why do people need to go to court? Why do people have to spend money?
There was mention made—I cannot remember where—of going through legal aid and other places to get funding and so on, but that completely misses the point. I would suggest a better approach to this would have been the reverse: the onus is on the system, the courts, to say why someone should not talk. There must be a reason. It is up to the people if they want to talk—the victims’ families. It is up to them should they want to say something. Why are we doing this to people that are hurting? I think a lot of what we are told is, ‘You need to talk about something to be able to heal or to educate people to let people know what happened’. They are the people that go through it; they know what they want to do. Living victims are another thing, obviously. Getting consent from them is obviously critical. It leads to problems with parole. It leads to problems with bail and things like that, because rarely is it someone’s first rodeo when they do this.
I cannot remember offhand any instance of someone murdering someone, particularly a rape and murder, where they have not had a long history of violence of some sort—been in and out of the system. We are failing these victims. We are failing these women by allowing people parole, allowing people bail and in a lot of cases allowing them to ever leave jail. Frankly, for a murder with a sexual overtone or act they should be locked up for good.
I am not fond of the death sentence, because if you get it wrong, you cannot un-dead someone, but if they are stuck in prison and there is some bizarre miscarriage of justice, there is a way of fixing it. You cannot give them back their time. But frankly our current system has consecutive sentences basically off the table; everything is concurrent. We saw that with a certain person recently—we refuse to name them—where we had to change the law to keep him in jail for something he did in 1988 or 1989. Was it seven or eight people? He really only got one life sentence.
We need to have a good, long look at what we are doing. For every major crime there needs to be a sentence, and for the next crime we add a sentence to that. Frankly, I do not care if we sentence someone to 900 years jail. That would be their problem. We are all born with the ability to choose. We are all born with the ability, notwithstanding mental illness, to know what is right and wrong. There is who determines whether someone is mentally ill. There have been some cases recently where someone convinced the system that they had been repaired enough to be out and about, and they were basically casing people’s places. The system needs a good, long look from the inside out, from the outside in, from the left and from the right and from top and below, because as we are going all we are doing is patchwork.
I will not be supporting this bill unless somehow or another the clauses dealing with the deceased victims are struck out. I think it does a massive disservice to society. I believe there are good intentions. I am not going to say that this is obviously something that the government has sat down and thought, ‘Oh well, we’re going to put a gag on the families of victims’. I do not think that is it. I think the best thing would have been just to leave it be until the government did some more consultation and had a good go at making this work. No-one is going to be happy to be a family member of a victim, but at least they need to feel like they have been heard and that there is something that allows them to have a voice without having to go through the expensive and probably harrowing event of going to court to try to get permission to talk. So much for a free society—I do not get it.
I will leave it at that, but I urge those on the crossbench who are thinking of supporting the bill in its unamended form not to think of themselves and not to think of the government but to think of the people that want to speak and those who should be allowed to speak.
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (15:38): I rise today to speak to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I will not dive into each of the areas that this omnibus bill seeks to change, but I want to put on record our absolute support for these following general reforms: changes that allow prison officers to open inmates’ mail, for instance; the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal amendments; the commonwealth high-risk offender scheme amendments; the changes to WorkCover; the reforms to the legal threshold in defamation cases; and the fire services reforms. This is especially essential to legislate before summer. All of these reforms are easy to support, in my opinion.
But what we are really here to debate, as we all know, are the reforms to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958. Put simply, you are lifting one gag that should never have existed by putting another one firmly in its place. I know those opposite and some others in this chamber will argue that this law has existed for decades, as was made clear in the government’s media release, but without one prosecution in its existence we are making this law absolute and quite literally putting in a barrier for families which has not existed prior.
Further, as many will be quoting today, Judge McInerney made it abundantly clear a number of times, in determining a case recently heard, that a gag on reporting deceased sexual assault victims frankly did not exist. It was further acknowledged by His Honour that the Director of Public Prosecutions held an opposing view on this matter of law, but he reiterated his disagreement with that view. If our judiciary cannot even agree on this portion of the bill, what hope have we got? It is clear that this area needs further work and additional consultation with all key stakeholders.
I cannot discuss the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 (JPRA) changes without first mentioning Nina Funnell and her excellent work. When she approached the Attorney-General’s office back in April she was determined to have this legislation changed, and she fought for many months—created GoFundMe pages and persevered doing unpaid work for survivors and trying to change the law for their benefit. Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party has and will continue to work with a number of advocates who support sexual abuse survivors. It is the heart of our party, and so we know the amount of unpaid therapy, legal help and general support these people give without expecting a thing in return. It is admirable and it is inspiring.
On the gag order that will be lifted, again there is no hesitation to support this. We want survivors to have their name and their story back in their own hands. We want them to feel empowered to share what happened to them and possibly encourage others to come forward and break down the stigma of being a survivor. It is something anyone should not be ashamed of. This is also essential for many in their recovery.
I would like to take a moment to thank the Attorney-General’s office and the staff for giving me and Ms Maxwell time to ask plenty of questions about this bill and to advocate on behalf of the many survivors who have contacted our offices with concern. Your time has been appreciated. I cannot detract from the pain and suffering many survivors have gone through unnecessarily this year—to not only understand this new complex legislation but to fight to remove it. But we look forward to the day all survivors can say their name, share their story and be proud of what they have been able to overcome. The deceased victims element though in the eyes of our party is anything but a win for the families and the overall survivors of sexual assault in the community.
I am grateful that some level of consultation was undertaken before the introduction of this bill, but unfortunately it was not in all the areas that it perhaps should have been. This law will require families of deceased victims to apply to the court for permission to name their loved one in the context of mentioning their capacity as a sexual assault victim. I see three main problems with this intended process: time, cost and trauma.
Firstly, the time to go to court: despite reassurances from the government that this court process for survivors to name themselves generally takes a week or maybe two, I can confirm that it has not been the case for many, if any, cases. As you can imagine, given the additional factors involved in cases of deceased persons—including the views of any relevant family members, after establishing what even constitutes family, the conflicting familial opinions, the views of the deceased whilst they were alive and much more—hearings will be required which already take us beyond this two-week time frame.
Ashleigh Rae Cooper is a sexual abuse survivor, and, without reducing the trauma she experienced, her case from a legal perspective is quite straightforward. What I mean by this is that she is a fierce advocate and so her experience is very public. Yet it took her a month to get her court order granted to name herself. My office knows of a case that has been waiting since July for a court decision to name themselves, and a court case wrapped up last week that started in June. As you can see, it is absolutely wishful thinking to believe that court orders for families to name deceased loved ones will be granted within two weeks.
The second problem with this intended process is the costs to go to court or to navigate the legal process. It is no secret that going to court costs a lot of money, and this law change on deceased victims is a lawyers picnic. It is true that there are no application costs, but legal help is needed to lodge these applications, especially for anyone unfamiliar with the court system. The argument that everyone has the opportunity to use publicly funded legal services such as Victoria Legal Aid or Women’s Legal Service Victoria is not entirely true. Yes, anyone can call them and ask questions, but in complex matters where you need a lawyer to assist you, unless you are successful in obtaining a grant—which is again another very difficult and time-consuming process—you will need to reach into your own pocket. Nina Funnell estimates that the 12 cases that #LetUsSpeak crowdfunded have each cost between $2000 and over $20 000. This is huge money to spend in order to access what should be a human right.
Nina has been on the ground at many of these cases and confidently estimates that, where a deceased victim is involved, court costs will most likely sit above $20 000. Ashleigh Rae Cooper, who I mentioned before, tried to access both Victoria Legal Aid and women’s legal. The VLA referred Ashleigh to a law firm who told her that they do not have the professional expertise to deal with her case, and women’s legal quite literally did not answer the phone on either their metropolitan or their regional lines. She suggests a call-back service, an online chat or an email address would be helpful at least for survivors to access assistance.
The third problem I see with this is the trauma associated with a court. If you are a survivor and have been through a court process, chances are you never want to set foot in that court ever again. I am not too sure how many of you in this place have spent time in the courts, but I certainly have—on the right side of the courts. It is not a place that anyone really wants to go to unless they have to, and it is often the place where you go when you are at the very lowest point of your life. Why put survivors and their families through an additional court trauma process? The fact that as legislators we will be requiring families of victims to enter a process that is difficult to navigate at the best of times and traumatic in a variety of ways is so very disappointing. In the case of deceased victims’ families, how complex and traumatic will things get when the abuser is someone from within the family? And I know the rebuttal to this will be that the perpetrator’s views are expressly not taken into account by a court, but there are many situations where the perpetrator is still supported by the family.
In our view some form of centralised record of permission should be created, such as in the Government Gazette or a platform like the official Victims of Crime website. I think the government has formed the view that victims will be permitted to create generic permissions on their own social media accounts, but I would be interested in hearing something more definitive about that on public record. We therefore propose that a new clause or option be created, at least temporarily, to give the Attorney-General a new discretionary authority particularly to provide more timely and responsive action where it was urgently needed for people seeking to remove publishing prohibitions. We suggested a mechanism possibly based on a model like sections 351 and 417 of the federal Migration Act 1958; however, that was not taken up by the government.
Additionally, we have identified several likely difficulties with the amnesty clause that is the new section 4A. In principle it is actually a good idea to potentially exempt from prosecution all publications made in good faith from the time of the conception of the relevant parts of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act from 1991 until now; however, that new section does not easily account for problems around any republications of that earlier material. So without necessary court orders the legislation will do the following: it will stop the publication of Jill Meagher’s name when referring to her sexual assault and murder, it will suppress Masa Vukotic’s name so that advocates will need to jump through hoops in trying to have disgusting humans like Sean Price locked up forever and it will undermine all the advocacy work Victoria has strived towards to show we stand up for sexual abuse survivors and those who cannot stand up for themselves.
What is most frustrating in having to even talk about this bill right now is the poor consultation for the deceased victims’ families element. Since its drafting it is my knowledge that it has been estimated around 10 families have been spoken to, and I struggle to refer to this as consultation. In fact one of the survivors who fought to name herself was sent six questions as part of the consultation to lift her own gag order. After her answers were sent back, this survivor was asked what she thought about the deceased victims element, and her response was, ‘I’m probably not the best person to ask; you should ask the families’. Is this what the consultation has become?
I do not stand here purporting to exactly know what the ideal law looks like either, but how can we amend this law without proper consultation with those whom it affects the most? After speaking with Michelle Zammit, a defence barrister who has vast experience in supporting victims of crime, it has become very clear that we are treating all deceased victims the same, including two very distinct situations: one, victims who have died or have been killed in the same incident as their assault occurred—for example, Eurydice Dixon or Jill Meagher—and, two, survivors who have been assaulted earlier in their lives, whether that be historical or more recent, but have died later on. This is important because victims who die in the same incident where they are sexually assaulted have no chance to express their wishes, whereas in the latter their views can be known without question. And remember in both circumstances the opportunity for the survivor and their families to obtain a suppression order is still available at court. As a former sexual offences and child abuse investigation team detective I also hold concerns over the red tape and bureaucracy that will now be put in place in undertaking investigations where there has been sexual assault and murder.
So essentially here we are debating a really important issue about deceased sexual assault victims’ families when we have been assured that in around nine months time we will be debating it again to improve it. If that seems frustrating to us as MPs, I can only imagine what it is like for the survivor community and the loved ones of deceased victims. I have felt myself saying over and over, ‘Why can’t we just wait a few months for the proper consultation to take place and then change this law?’, and I still do not have a response to that question. By all means amend to lift the survivors gag law, but do not put in its place another gag law that will likely be changed in the very near future. Lastly, if anyone thinks all survivors are excited by this legislation, they are wrong. There are victim-survivors who, through this legislation, will be able to name themselves, but this will come at the expense of those who are deceased, their families and those who will inevitably go on to die, and people are really unhappy about it.
To conclude, despite all of the good things about this omnibus bill, we cannot support it. We have been put in quite an impossible position—to un-gag living survivors in order to gag the families of those who no longer have a voice—and we should not have been put in this position to begin with. We have always said we will support survivors of sexual assault, and as much as supporting this bill would seem to be the right thing to do, it is not what they want. As such we would like to see this bill separated, with the JPRA amendments relating to the gag on deceased victims’ families removed. To survivors of sexual assault: I am sorry this process could not have been more straightforward, because you need your voices back, but rest assured you do have some of us in this place that hear you loud and clear. We will always have your back, and we will always support you.
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15:51): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I rise to speak as the father of three young ladies, two of whom in fact are turning 15 today. It is days like today that make me think back to when they were born, how small they were at seven weeks premature and how I would be able to hold them in the palm of each hand because they were so small. Of course we have nurtured them, we have cared for them, we have loved them now for 15 years, if not more, and the prospect of anything happening to them or the prospect of anything happening to our other daughter is just horrendous; it is just horrific. It is the worst possible thing I could imagine. I would much rather something happened to me than have something along the lines of what we are talking about happen to them.
I recognise the extraordinary contributions that have been made today by people who clearly are not used to speaking in public about their own experiences. I want to congratulate them and I want to thank them, particularly Ms Maxwell and Mr Limbrick, because they were really gutsy efforts. I want to say ‘Well done’ to you, Mr Limbrick and Ms Maxwell, and give you a pat on the back, because that would not have been easy—in fact it clearly was not easy.
Sometimes—and I am sure we have all done it over the years—people look at this place, they look at Parliament House in Canberra and they look at our politicians, federal and state, and local government too, quite often, and they just shake their heads and say, ‘What the hell are they thinking about?’. This bill is one such instance. Yes, this bill has some good parts—absolutely, no question about that. Under normal circumstances I would not be speaking on this bill. Under normal circumstances I would be very happy just to let it go through and do what it is supposed to do. But it is not going to do what it is supposed to do. It is going to cause more pain and it is going to cause more suffering for those who have already had more pain and more suffering in their lives than can, under any circumstances, be tolerated. That is why I am speaking today.
I am only going to speak briefly, but I want to say to the government and particularly to the Attorney-General and to the Premier in possibly the only language they understand what this legislation will do to them. Now, we all agree that this legislation has some good components. We all agree that this legislation if handled properly would have been quite acceptable to just about everybody in this house. But do you know what? If this legislation goes through as it currently stands, do you know what it will be remembered for? It will be remembered for shutting up the families of victims. All of those good parts of the bill will not be remembered. They will not be remembered by the lawyers or the victims or the public or anybody else. They are not going to remember that. This government will be remembered for shutting down the families of victims. I just put it to you in those simple terms. If that is the way the government wishes to be remembered by the people of Victoria, keep going the way you are. Push this thing through the Parliament. But if you are serious about providing legislation which is going to do what you say you want it to do, let us put it aside for a minute. Let us fix it and let us come back with something that we all agree on and that the government will actually be applauded for, so that the people of Victoria will actually say, ‘That is something that the government has done that we agree with and is good’. It is up to the government. I urge them to do that.
In the meantime I will certainly be supporting Mr O’Donohue’s amendments. I just ask the government to think about it. If they are not thinking about the families, if they are not thinking about the victims, think about themselves and the political implications of this legislation, because if this bill is passed in its current form, the government will not come out of it well, and that is something that they probably—well, maybe they are not aware of it; I do not know—should consider. I hate to put it in those terms, but we are dealing with a government that seems to have only one Achilles heel, and that is a political one. If I do not point out the political implications of what this legislation will do to them, then they are probably not going to be interested in anything else I have to say. I urge the government to rethink it. I urge the government to take this legislation back to the drawing board and to bring it back when it is fixed, we can all agree to it and we can provide a satisfactory result for every Victorian. And that very much includes the families of the victims of the sorts of dreadful, dreadful crimes that we have spoken of today.
Sitting suspended 3.58 pm until 4.19 pm.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (16:19): I am pleased to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I feel quite privileged to have been in this chamber and listened to so many of the contributions—and some extraordinarily heartfelt contributions. We know that many of the issues that this bill does cover are personal. They are very personal. For some people here they formed part of the pathway to this place. It was some of those experiences that people have shared with us today that formed who they are and formed the members of Parliament that they are today.
Before I get to the matters of most importance in this bill, I would just like to also note—probably as a note to the people who spent all this time writing this bill—that it does address other matters. Certainly it amends the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 in relation to the circumstances in which information likely to identify a sex offence victim can be lawfully published, and we will get to that in a moment. But it also implements the model defamation provisions, which finally in Australia create uniform defamation laws. It amends the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to exclude the reduction in earnings due to COVID. It amends the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 to provide some delegation for the tribunal staff. It does a range of things around the Corrections Act 1986, and it amends the Forests Act 1958. However, as I mentioned earlier, the point of contention and the source of debate on this bill is the amendments to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act.
The background, as we know, is that there were unintended consequences arising from a piece of legislation that we debated last year and that the Attorney-General undertook to fix as a matter of urgency. That unintended consequence was the inadvertent silencing of victims who want to tell their stories, and it has been the source of a very strong public campaign. I really would like to congratulate and recognise the work of Nina Funnell, Nicole Lee and many more who have been mentioned here today for the great work that they have done in raising this issue, in raising this intention and in forcing this bill back to the chamber as it is today. But I would also like to recognise the work that they have done in the years before this.
During the break, when some of us were speaking together, we were thinking, ‘This is difficult’. There is no easy path for this legislation. There is no easy path to remedy this—to give the rights to victims to speak while protecting families or protecting victims that do not want to speak. In fact the only solution for this is for people to stop sexually assaulting and raping people. That will fix this. But until we do that, we need to deal with the unintended consequences of the previous legislation, and this bill does go, to some degree, to fixing that. It clarifies those unintended consequences neatly for living victims of sexual assault and really gives them the choice, the control, to tell their own story without those barriers that we put in place of the court process and the attached expense. As I learned from Nina Funnell and her fundraising, sometimes it was in the realm of about $20 000 to get the right to tell your own story. So that is a good thing that this bill does, and it is a widely held view of victims advocates that this bill is on track in that area.
It is funny. I have spoken about my own personal experiences with sexual assault. In fact I put them in a book, and to think that some law would have excluded me from telling my story in my own book is obviously wrong. This bill goes towards fixing that, and it goes towards many of those central issues that Let Us Speak and others have sought to address. It is so much more complex when it comes to the deceased victims, because sadly they are not here to make that choice. They are no longer able to control their own story. I think that is the matter that we are here to deal with today.
Now, what the government has said is that this issue needs greater consideration. And I think pretty much around this chamber we are unanimous in that. This needs greater consideration, and we need to speak to the victims. We need to speak to the families to find out what that right balance is, because we do not have it right now and I do not think this bill finds that balance. In fact the government acknowledges that. The government has undertaken to sunset any changes made today, which is in effect a guarantee that we will undertake that consultation and we will change this bill that is before us. We either change it today or we will change it later. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Attorney-General’s office, and I have spoken to them many times over the last few weeks about this legislation.
What we are debating here today is not what the permanent law will be; rather it is how we set the law in the interim, while this consultation takes place. It is what the law will be for probably about the next eight months. It is not what the law will be after that. I greatly respect Mr O’Donohue and there are many, many times that I agree with him, but I do not think he acknowledged that this is a temporary measure. He has certainly framed this as a permanent change—that this is setting in stone a situation when clearly it is not. But the matter is: where do we set that default position on the identification of rape victims who are deceased? Do we give the victim’s family the control and say that the media can only report on them with their permission, or do we let the media report freely and publish whatever graphic detail they might like? We know that that has caused extraordinary hurt and harm. We know that quite often the family does not want that detail out there, and certainly I am aware of a family that was incredibly hurt by the media’s reporting of their child’s murder and rape. They had felt that they had no control.
Obviously and absolutely I have no issue with the default position that gives the victims that control over their own story, but the problem with this legislation as it stands before us right now is that it is clunky and it is not nuanced. As a result, it may silence families who want to speak, who have been speaking—as we know, the families of Eurydice Dixon and Jill Meagher, rapes and murders that actually happened in my electorate, in Mr Ondarchie’s electorate, of Northern Metropolitan. Too many rapes and deaths have happened in our electorate, and as Mr Ondarchie says, yes, one is too many.
We have set up this position and it is clunky and does not meet the needs there, because it now makes a process too arduous and it involves a court application for people to continue to speak when they have already been speaking. The question for the time being is: where do we set that default until the government completes that consultation—until the victims and families can talk about where they see the balance and where they think it should lie? How do we find that balance? I would suggest that journalists—and I would include Mr Hinch in that—would prefer that that option is not restrictive, as would many families who are strong enough to speak out publicly about their tragic life experiences.
But sometimes families are not ready to do that, and certainly I know that many of you received a letter from Eileen Culleton, whose sister Anne-Marie Culleton died some 30-odd years ago. She never spoke about it. Her family did not want to speak about it. They did not. It was too painful, and that was honoured and that was accepted. But they did not want to speak about it, and they wanted the right to not have some details said. They were happy and they were grateful that sometimes the police spoke about it and that when the murderer and rapist that killed Eileen’s sister was brought to justice people spoke on behalf of her sister. But some 30 years later she is ready to speak about her sister. She is ready to speak about this, and she should have every right to do that.
But I also know of people—and Ms Crozier mentioned people who were represented in the Betrayal of Trust report—who do not want to speak about the sexual assault and rapes that they experienced as children, and they certainly do not want it spoken about after they have died. They want to take that with them. That is their private and their personal story, and they do not want that released after they have died. So we need to find that balance. We need to ensure that that person’s story is that person’s story, and I believe a number of colleagues have said that probably far more eloquently than me.
We do not want to see those personal tragedies aired after someone has died, retraumatising with graphic details of that tragedy splashed over the paper. On the other hand we do not want to silence people who want to remember, who want to keep talking about this, who want to keep honouring their family member’s death by talking about it, by ensuring that it may never happen again, by talking about it to ensure that the law is changed, that the attitudes change, that our culture changes, that we see a reduction in sexual assault crimes in our state. Sadly, we have not seen that tipping point yet, but I hope that I live to see it.
But we could ask ourselves: if it were your daughter, would you want those graphic details to be freely reported, or would you want some control over that? That is kind of what this bill is about. Some people want both, like Eileen Culleton. They want to be able to grieve in peace and then speak when they are strong enough to do so. Unfortunately having that control and taking that control under this temporary proposal is just too hard. It is too onerous, it is too much of a barrier and the last thing we want to do is punish victims any further and in any way, nor do we want to punish and make it difficult for their families to speak if that is what they want to do. We do not want to unnecessarily preclude people from speaking who want to speak and have been speaking already.
I spoke to the really wonderful and extraordinary woman Nicole Lee, who has been an activist in this area, who tells her story. This morning she said to me, ‘Fiona, what, do I have to put it in my will that I want my story to continue?’. And in some ways this bill actually would insist upon that, and even that may not be enough for her story to continue to be told.
I do not want, in all good conscience, to delay this bill as a whole because of the very significant effect that it has on living victims—that it fixes that, that it lets us speak. But I do not think we have got the balance right on deceased victims. The law could be more nuanced. It could be written in such a way that families who are already speaking publicly can continue to do so. It could be written in a way that does not prevent us from acknowledging Jill Meagher on the anniversary of her death in just a few weeks time and remembering everything that our community learned as a result of her devastating tragedy.
We acknowledge that this is complex and it is going to take time. It is going to take several months of consultation to find the right solution. The discussion here today was not about what our law will be permanently but how it should sit in the interim as that consultation occurs. I take comfort that the DPP has assured us that she has no intention, and nor does she believe that it would be in the public interest, to prosecute victims’ families if they make comment. Her focus, as it should be, would be on journalists or commentators on social media. Despite this, and for now, I do not think the government’s proposal gets us close enough to where we might eventually land. On that basis, I think almost the status quo might be preferable.
Just to turn finally and quickly to Mr O’Donohue’s amendment, which he contests retains the status quo, I think in fact he is shifting the law in the direction of one or two possible legal interpretations and in doing so is moving the law in the opposite direction to what is desirable and where I expect the government, after that consultation, and where I expect the families and the victims will land. His amendments would also interfere with the DPP’s ability to contact the media, as I know she does regularly, to ask them to amend their reporting when they have overreached or when they have reported in a way that does not accord with the wishes of the victim’s family.
I am supportive of the sunset clause and the guarantee it provides. I understand that Dr Ratnam will be putting forward some amendments that I think actually find a balance for this period while we undertake this consultation. I think it is certainly what the emails—the heartfelt, the honest, the brutally honest emails—that I have received, that we have all received over the last few weeks, want. They do not want us to change this law until they have had their say. On that basis, I am in favour of supporting the significant and important changes that it makes in favour of living victims, but I think we have not landed in the right place for deceased victims. I will not stand in the way of this bill, but I do hope that we can find an amendment that better meets the needs, better meets the wishes, of the families of the deceased victims.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:38): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to this bill—the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I want to begin by saying, first of all, that there is a balance to be struck—a sensible, calm balance to be struck—but the current balance is not quite right, and the balance that is proposed in this bill is wrong, plain wrong. I want to pay tribute to the work that has been done by Mr O’Donohue in this process. His thoughtful, balanced and persistent consultation across a broad front has actually done a lot of work to bring to the fore the issues that are so much a part of this bill.
I do want to say that I think, on balance, most fair-minded people would come down and say that a victim of sexual assault, a victim that is wanting to speak, ought not to be gagged from speaking. And I think the case that has been put by the government and others in this chamber today has in many cases been a tortured case—a case that has been very strained as people have tried to protect Jill Hennessy and the government from the wrath of people who have been so unkindly and harshly silenced by the law that is in place now and this much tougher law that in effect will be sharpened in a way that will make it practically more difficult for people to go forward. There will be a process in this bill, but it will be a harsh process. It will be an unbalanced process. It will be a process that makes it very difficult for people, in a practical sense, to get clearance to speak in the way that they want to speak.
The idea that those who are deceased are not able to retrospectively or through their families have their stories told and will be in effect gagged is just a horrific thought when you think about it. People have spoken out so eloquently in recent weeks to call on the government to pause, to reconsider and to look at a way forward that actually addresses their concerns. You can feel the plea. You can feel it coming from their hearts. You can feel the absolute urgency in what they are saying. We can all understand this. We can understand why a victim at a certain point in the cycle may well wish to say a lot, or their family at a later point may want to say a lot. I think it is harsh and I think it is cruel of the government to put forward this approach that I think is an unfair one.
I do want to put on the record the failure of the Attorney-General, who I think is proving herself a very klutz-like and incompetent Attorney-General. She is someone who has botched this process comprehensively. She promises now when the bill is in the chamber that she will begin a process to talk to people. What an arrogant, out-of-touch Attorney-General we are talking about here, a person who wants to ram this bill through and wants to ram it through without having actually consulted properly. The very admission now that she needs to begin a whole new process to consult is actually a clear admission that she has botched it from the start. She has really made a very big hash of this. Listening to her on the radio in recent days, and today in particular, she has made an absolute hash of this business. She seems to me to be quite heartless in the way she has approached it. She has been a bit tone deaf. She and the Premier have been tone deaf on this and have not understood that in fact there are people who urgently, desperately, want to say what they want to say. They want to actually get things out on the record. I have to say that in these matters I tend to side much more with the victims, I tend to side much more with the people who want to speak.
I do not like systems inherently. I become very nervous with people who want to close down the opportunity for people to speak. I think more often the balance is better struck with a strong tendency, a strong leaning, towards openness and honesty rather than closing down what can be said. People become suspicious and become unhappy when they cannot speak. Nina Funnell has made the point very clearly. I think that the decisions of so many people are that you must open this up, that people must be able to speak, is where the balance should lie. I think the decision by the Labor government to only begin consulting after this bill is through is a travesty. So with that small number of words I say: please support Mr O’Donohue’s amendment. It is the right amendment. There are three amendments, but one in particular, the first one, I think is the one that people should support. It is right.
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:44): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. Today I wish to address one aspect of this bill which is causing distress to those who have lost their loved ones to a horrendous crime—the deceased victims of sexual assault.
The current reporting of deceased sexual assault victims is guided by the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958. The current act does not expressly address deceased victims of sexual assault, and it is unclear whether the restrictions apply to deceased victims. The Victorian Law Reform Commission’s report on Contempt of Court acknowledged that protecting a deceased victim’s identity and privacy does not serve the legislation’s purpose. The Judicial Proceedings Reports Act was implemented to prevent the retraumatisation of and to protect the privacy of surviving victims and their families.
Last Friday in granting an order under the act Judge McInerney stated on multiple occasions that in his opinion section 4(1A) of the act does not apply to a deceased person and as such deceased victims of sexual offences can be identified, whilst acknowledging, however, that the Director of Public Prosecutions has a different opinion on this point of law.
The judgement is in line with New South Wales and the United Kingdom, where such laws only apply to alleged victims who are alive. The bill inserts an express legal requirement that a court order must permit the publication of any particulars likely to lead to the identification of a deceased sexual assault victim. This would require grieving families to go to court to explain their reasons for sharing their loved one’s tragedy. Enabling families to speak about their loved ones when they choose and how they choose simply makes sense. It is not correct that you would seek to silence a grieving family wanting to share their story when and if they decide to do so.
In addition, the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act as it was amended in February directly contradicts the Open Courts Act 2013. The current words of ‘particulars likely to lead to the identification’ of a victim is confusing and is a hindrance towards justice. As a society we must acknowledge that without the media reporting we may never have found some perpetrators. With the media’s assistance it took only six days to find Jill Meagher’s killer.
We must also acknowledge that there are families who want to share their stories when they choose, while protecting those families that do not want to have public acknowledgement. When Mr Dixon, father of Eurydice, of his own volition published the name of his deceased daughter he did so in order to remember her, humanise her and incite change in the way we address this crime. Jill Meagher’s mother said this bill is a heartache on all those who have lost their precious ones. We can speak to 10 families and we will get 10 different opinions regarding this bill, and within those families partners will have a different view to mum and dad, brothers and sisters will have a different view to the partner. It is a very, very difficult road we are travelling along.
This is why I have asked the government not to make any changes which will affect the sexual assault victims and their families and, with the sunset clause, to use the next 10 months to consult and get this very difficult situation right. It is my belief that putting families through this twice in a year is too much pain to ask them to endure. It is for this reason I cannot support this bill as it currently stands, and I urge the government to remove the proposed prohibition on naming deceased victims.
Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (16:48): This bill is described as supporting victims, and we are all in favour of that. Indeed there are measures in it which appear to do just that, and they are uncontroversial. For example, the bill enables the living survivors of sexual offences to consent to being identified as and how they see fit. This would give survivors the freedom to remain anonymous—and no doubt some wish to do that—or the right to speak freely and tell their story. Once again, no doubt some wish to do that. That kind of choice and option is welcome. However, the bill goes further than that. It extends the effect of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 to the deceased victims of sexual offences. This is highly controversial, and I have received much in the way of communication from constituents about it.
Given the context, you will not be surprised if I do not identify anyone in particular, but I will set out the objections coming from Australia’s Right to Know coalition of media organisations and representations from constituents that have raised concerns. The government’s case for the provisions is that currently Victorian law prohibits public identifications of victims of sexual assault who are deceased and there is no clear way for families or the media to have that prohibition lifted. The coalition says that is not correct, and they argue that the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act does not expressly apply to deceased persons and there is nothing about the act which supports an interpretation that it was intended to apply to dead people.
Where questions of statutory interpretation arise, the principle of legality favours the interpretation which allows for free speech. They refer to the case of Hogan v. Hinch, where Chief Justice French said:
The principle of legality will favour a construction which, consistently with the statutory scheme, has the least adverse impact upon the open justice principle and common law freedom of speech.
So in the absence of an express provision applying to deceased persons courts are not likely to interpret the act in the manner which the government claims. And there is no case of anyone ever being prosecuted in an Australian jurisdiction for a publication identifying a deceased sexual assault victim. Now, it may well be that attorneys-general or directors of public prosecutions are reluctant to prosecute family members of deceased sexual assault victims for publicly talking about what happened to their relative, but surely this reinforces the unjust nature of a legal prohibition. For whatever reason, no-one has ever been prosecuted, suggesting the problem is more imagined than real.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission agrees that the position is not settled. They said in February this year that is unclear if the offence applies when a victim has died. In New South Wales and the United Kingdom the equivalent law only applies while the victim is alive. The law reform commission recommended that the act be amended to clarify that the provision ceases to apply where a victim has died. And the coalition says that this part of the bill should not be supported because it would make Victoria an outlier; only Tasmania has a similar provision. The media organisations are not aware of and have not received any significant complaints by the families of deceased sexual assault victims about media reporting in Victoria. Many of the families want the opportunity to speak in circumstances where their loved ones no longer can. The example they give—Tom Meagher, husband of Jill Meagher, speaking eloquently about Adrian Bayley’s crimes against his wife—is one which would be well known to everybody here, and there is sadly no shortage of other such cases. Requiring the families of victims to obtain a court order in order to give their relatives a voice seems to be a costly and potentially traumatic overreach.
I—and the Sustainable Australia party more broadly—am a very strong supporter of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is messy—no doubt about it; not everything people say is nice or pretty, far from it—but it has served Victoria and Australia well for many years. Every incursion into freedom of speech has a chilling effect on robust public debate. It does not destroy opposing views; it merely sends them underground. I believe the onus of proof is always on those who would curtail freedom of speech, and it certainly has not been discharged here. I urge the government to go back to the drawing board and work through this legislation with the families of deceased sexual assault victims and with the media organisations who have experience in dealing with these tragic and difficult cases.
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:53): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. Firstly I would like to acknowledge the very personal and moving contributions that have been made by my fellow MPs in this chamber. I think this is an example of the chamber wanting to work together for an outcome that improves this bill. We might have different views about how we attain that, but I do believe there are many in this chamber trying to work for a common good, and I really appreciate the contributions that have been made to that effect throughout this debate.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020 proposes important changes to several justice-related issues. The most sensitive and controversial changes in the bill relate to the proposed amendments to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958, so I am going to limit my contribution to this issue.
Generally our justice system reflects the values of our democracy—that is, openness and transparency to the public. This characteristic, termed open justice, is considered integral not only to ensuring fairness in individual cases but also to maintaining public faith in the operation of our justice system as a whole. The principle of open justice is reflected in the Victorian charter of human rights, which states that court cases should be open to the public and that the judgements made by a court should be openly published. But while the principle of open justice is straightforward and universally supported, there are some limited circumstances where it is not appropriate that justice proceedings are open to the public. In cases involving children or in cases where publication of details may directly impact on the ability to achieve a fair outcome, there are often sensible limitations on reporting some details of court proceedings.
The Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 is an obscure act that is over 70 years old. However, the act has an important effect on the way court cases are reported on in Victoria because it defines some of the restrictions on the free publication of court proceedings and so can limit open justice. It is somewhat of an understatement to say that this act is outdated and does not reflect contemporary society. For example, it currently places limitations on the publication of details from court cases that deal with, and I quote, ‘restitution of conjugal rights’ and also where court proceedings contain ‘physiological details … calculated to injure public morals’. So the act clearly needs to be updated and modernised.
Section 4 of the act concerns the reporting of names and identifying persons involved in court proceedings. It currently states that it is an offence to publish details that are likely to identify a person against whom a sexual offence has been committed—before, during and after court proceedings. I believe the intention of this section of the act is to shield victim-survivors of sexual offences from unwanted publicity, particularly where the additional stress of publicity may be a barrier to a victim-survivor pursuing justice through the court system. It is also likely that an element of this section reflects a way of thinking that supposes victim-survivors are somehow shamed by the offences committed against them and should be hidden away. Thankfully, this is no longer the common belief in our society. Here I quote the Open Courts Act Review undertaken by Frank Vincent in 2017:
An increasing number of victims reject the absurd notion that they have been in any way diminished by the commission of criminal acts committed against them by another and are prepared to have their identities disclosed.
The open courts review went on to recommend that victims of sexual assault be able to disclose their identity if they so desire, and the related legislation that enabled victim-survivors to go to court to lift suppression orders came into effect earlier this year. However, while well intentioned, this legislation also inadvertently created a system where all victim-survivors may have had to take out court orders to be able to disclose they were victims of sexual offences even if they had previously freely spoken about their experiences.
The bill here today fixes that problem to make it absolutely clear that victim-survivors, both adults and children, may freely self-publish information that is likely to identify themselves as a victim-survivor of a sexual offence without requiring court approval, except in limited circumstances. This is an important win borne largely by the campaigning of feminists and victim-survivors, so today I wish to acknowledge their contribution. I also want to recognise some of the very poignant contributions, as mentioned, of members in this chamber and their commitment to get this right.
There is still work to be done with these laws in regard to complex situations where a victim has also tragically died. I think we all agree that in these circumstances the victim’s close family and partner are entitled to determine whether the person should be identified as a victim of a sexual offence. However, what if members of the same family disagree, or what if the victim themselves was clear in their lifetime that they never wanted these details to be shared? Currently the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act does not specify rules in regard to victims who have died, and so the answers to these questions are contested. The Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) and the Attorney-General have stated that any prohibitions on publication of such details continue to exist after a person has died. The coalition and media organisations believe that this is not the case, and they have pointed to a recent interpretation in the County Court to this effect.
In the bill today the government is proposing to add a section to clarify its position and that of the OPP that suppression orders continue to apply in regard to a victim who is deceased while also creating a mechanism for these restrictions to be lifted by the courts.
On the other hand, the coalition is proposing amendments to clarify their opposing position that all suppression orders are lifted in relation to a person who is deceased. Before I circulate the Greens’ amendments today, I wish to thank the coalition and the government, particularly the Attorney-General’s office, for the good faith and transparency with which they have engaged with us on this very complicated issue of law. The Greens are also proposing amendments today because we believe that we need to find a compromise between the positions of the government and the coalition. I would like to circulate those amendments now, please.
Greens amendments circulated by Dr RATNAM pursuant to standing orders.
Dr RATNAM: I know it is the genuine intent of both parties, indeed all of us in this chamber, to try and clarify these laws in order to do the right thing for victims, families and loved ones who have been through so much. But it is apparent that in practical terms such clarity does not yet exist, and so in trying to legislate as if it does there is a risk that the laws that we pass will only create further confusion. It is our opinion that both the government’s and the opposition’s proposals do not serve to clarify the laws as intended. The government’s proposals will mean, at least in the minds of some victims’ families, that they will now need a court order to speak about their loved ones being victims of sex crimes. The coalition’s amendments give the media the presumptive power to publish such details regardless of whether it goes against the wishes of the victim’s family and loved ones or even the victim’s own wishes when they were alive. This is unacceptable.
Given the obvious lack of clarity on the right way forward, neither the government nor the coalition have provided sufficient reasons as to why we urgently need to change the current law. If we rush to pass changes today and we get it wrong, we risk causing even greater anguish to families of victims who have died. We do not think this risk is justified, especially given that a proper process is currently being undertaken by the government in order to recommend how best to go about changing these laws. So our amendments will maintain the status quo on this specific issue—that is, that the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act remain silent on whether it is an offence to publish information in regard to a sexual offence against a victim who has died. However, the amendments will retain the part of the bill allowing the courts to lift restrictions on the identification of victims who have died, as an insurance policy that can be used if it is needed. In our opinion, it is better to first do no harm, and so we think it is best to continue with the system that, while imperfect and ambiguous, has at least shown an ability to operate relatively smoothly for many years.
While we are proposing these amendments limiting the changes today, we recognise the need for a proper review to be undertaken to resolve this complex issue in the long term. We have sought and received assurances from the government that there is currently an extensive process of consultation with key stakeholders, particularly victims and their families. In reviewing this issue, we have been advised of a clear timetable for the resulting improved laws to come before this Parliament. So we also support the government’s amendments today that effectively guarantee that this process will be completed by September of next year at the latest.
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (17:04): I, like others, would like to acknowledge the very heartfelt contributions that this chamber has seen today and thank all of the members for their research and the conversations that they have had leading up to today. Can I also pay specific and special attention to those that have been heavily involved in having their voices heard, whether they have been loud voices that have been wanting real reform—cultural change and changes to attitudes on gender in this society—or whether indeed they belong to another group within the victim or victim family group that are quieter and want options about how they have their stories told, and indeed are also often wanting guarantees around privacy as well.
I thank all of the people who have been very active in this space in letting all of us know what their positions and what their families’ positions are in respect to the issue before us. Can I also say that the issue that Ms Terpstra and Ms Patten raised about the importance of the agency of how a victim’s story is told is very central to this debate. Indeed whilst there is a degree of a need to get victims’ voices heard absolutely—and this bill does recognise that—there is also I think some measure in here that ensures that there is greater responsibility taken by media outlets to actually get the story out without it having elements that obviously do not sit well with most people in this community and in particular do not sit well with the loved ones that have been left behind. I hope that this bill is instructional to those in the media to play a very, very responsible role into the future when it comes to these horrific crimes that are perpetrated against women in our community.
Going to the summing up from the government, this we believe is an important bill. We do believe that it does protect the rights of victims. I will ask the clerks to circulate the government’s amendments to the bill.
Government amendments circulated by Ms TIERNEY pursuant to standing orders.
Ms TIERNEY: The house amendments the government is moving have the effect of sunsetting the clauses that relate to deceased victims by September of next year. This is to solidify the commitment of the government to come back next year, following extensive consultation, with a more nuanced process for deceased victims.
One of the main reasons for this bill was the powerful stories of victim-survivors of sexual offending telling the government how important it is to be able to tell their stories on their own terms. Accordingly, this bill allows victim-survivors of sexual offending to tell their stories without the need of court permission. The bill makes clear that victim-survivors can self-identify, for example, online, and it allows for child victim-survivors to be identified in certain circumstances. These are important measures to enhance the autonomy and the dignity of victims.
Now, a lot of the discussion today has centred around deceased victims. I acknowledge that there are strong views on this issue and that many members of this Council today have shared their very personal stories about their own experiences or the experiences of others. I thank all of those that have engaged in the issues raised by the bill so passionately. While we may not agree on what the law says or should say, I think we all agree that victims must be at the forefront in our minds as policymakers when considering reforms such as these.
The government recognises that this is an extremely sensitive and complex issue, but there have been a number of views expressed about what this bill does and does not do. At the outset I want to make it clear that the government supports families who wish to share stories of their deceased loved one’s experience of sexual assault. We recognise that for many families speaking publicly about the abuse of a deceased relative helps to honour their memory, whether it is by raising awareness of sexual offending or by seeking to ensure that other families do not feel the same pain. We are also conscious that not all victims feel that way or are not at that point just yet. To quote the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kerri Judd, QC:
… in cases involving sexual offending and homicide, some family members do wish for the victim to be identified as a victim of sexual offending. Other family members do not want this information in the public domain. Other family members do not want the information in the public domain until they have had an opportunity to speak to us and be informed in advance of the detail of that information. In some cases, not every member of a deceased’s family will be unanimous.
And we have heard many, many stories like that. There are disparate views and everyone’s story is different, and it is that point which has to be made at the heart of our approach to the identification of deceased victims. For that to be a real, meaningful choice their privacy must be protected as the default.
Before I go on to deal with the specific issues I just want to clear up a few matters to put the government’s position on the effect of this bill. First, it is important to clarify that the expert legal advice, including from the DPP—and she has taken the unusual step of making a public statement—is that the current law in Victoria prohibits the public identification of victims of sexual assault who are deceased and provides no clear pathways for families or the media to have that prohibition lifted. That means that this bill does not change the prohibition on identifying sexual offending against a deceased victim, which has been in place for almost 30 years. The government’s position on this issue is very clear: you should not lose your right to privacy and anonymity as the victim of sexual offending once you are deceased. That is just not right.
Removing that prohibition altogether—and I will come to the amendments which would do that in a moment—would cause terrible distress to the many silent families across Victoria whose deceased loved one was the victim of sexual offending. Put simply, many of those families do not want the media and others to be able to publish details about the sexual offending perpetrated against their loved one. Many victims want their experiences to be kept under wraps forever, including when they are dead. That offending is a deeply personal and deeply private matter to many victims and their families, and the government will not allow that privacy to evaporate once a person is deceased.
Equally, just because a victim is no longer with us, their right to anonymity should not be taken away. If they have said during their life that they do not want the world to know what has happened to them, it is important that their wishes are absolutely respected. As there is no process currently to have the prohibition on identifying deceased victims lifted, the bill contains interim measures to firstly clarify how these laws apply to deceased victims and provide a mechanism for families to seek court orders to tell their story while maintaining the protection of victims. We recognise that these are interim measures while a more permanent solution is found in consultation with victims’ families. These consultations will look at how to ensure families of victim-survivors are not required to take steps immediately after death, while they are grieving, so that their anonymity can be retained; whether long-term court involvement could create further distress; and also how to balance the public interest in exposing sexual offending against the rights of victims and their families, including religious and cultural beliefs. The position we have adopted in respect of deceased victims is supported by the victims of crime commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions and legal stakeholders such as the Law Institute of Victoria.
I would now like to address some of the points that have been made by members in this house in the debate this afternoon. Some members have raised concerns about the costs and time frames for families of deceased victims who go through the court process. First, as the Attorney-General said today, this is a new process and an interim process. It is put in place temporarily to give families an option to lawfully identify the deceased where no other option currently exists. We recognise it is not a complete solution, and we have committed through a sunset clause to revisiting it in coming months. Nevertheless, we share the concern of others to make sure that this process is as fast and as low cost as possible while it remains in place. The courts have developed and published clear processes for court authorisation, which keep the process as streamlined as possible. There is no application fee for seeking court authorisation, and court staff are available to assist victim-survivors in making applications. The Department of Justice and Community Safety is in constant contact with the courts over the implementation of these changes, and I would encourage any members who hear of difficulties with the court process to relay them to the Attorney-General’s office so that they can be followed up.
Some have stated that there is a need to engage costly legal representation to obtain an order. As I have mentioned, we have worked hard with the courts to streamline processes. It is a matter for individual families to decide whether they wish to engage a lawyer to act for them. In addition, Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Victoria Legal Aid are providing a dedicated legal advice service on the operation of publication restriction to assist victim-survivors and their families with queries about obtaining court permission under current laws.
There has also been a claim that the legislation exposes people who do not want to be named. That is the opposite of what this bill does. It protects victim choice. It puts the right to be identified in the hands of the victim. A living victim who does not consent to being identified will not be mentioned in the media—as a result of this bill. It is very important that we clear that up.
I also want to clarify for the chamber how the government will look to publicise these changes to help the public understand their rights and obligations. The courts have already published guidance on the application process. The government will work with the courts to ensure these materials are updated to reflect the changes in the bill once the reforms have commenced. The government is also developing guidance material for victim-survivors and others to assist them to understand their rights, including to self-publish and to navigate the process of providing permission to another person to publish information about their identity and experiences. These guidance materials will be published on the Department of Justice and Community Safety website. We will also work with key support agencies and providers, including community legal services and the centres against sexual assault, to ensure that these guidance materials are made available to victims accessing those services.
There have also been members who have referred to the claimed disagreement on the law, arising from the comments of a County Court judge last week on these issues. These comments were made by a single judge in passing when considering an application made by a living victim. The clear view of the DPP, which she has taken the unusual step of sharing publicly, is that the law applies to deceased victims, and we are acting on that basis.
The Justice Party has queried the age at which children are able to provide consent to publication with a supporting statement. On this issue of consultation, as I have stated already, the purpose of providing a holding position that gives a pathway for deceased victims, albeit a flawed one, is that there is a need to speak to families sensitively and carefully. That takes time, and we will not rush this through. We have put forward house amendments that will give effect to this approach.
My time has almost expired. I was about to raise issues that the government has in relation to the Liberal Party’s house amendments and the Greens house amendments, but clearly we will deal with that in committee. I will leave it at that.
House divided on motion:
| Ayes, 18 | ||
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Taylor, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Meddick, Mr | Symes, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Noes, 17 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | Maxwell, Ms |
| Barton, Mr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Bath, Ms | Grimley, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Hayes, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Cumming, Dr | Lovell, Ms | |
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (17:27)
Mr O’DONOHUE: I just have a couple of issues I wish to pursue in clause 1 before, subject to what other colleagues wish to do, we move to the amendments. If I could summarise, Minister, the key issue from the debate is around the consultation with the families of deceased sexual assault victims. That has been well canvassed in debate, and I do not wish to reprosecute that. I think that has been an omission from government in not having that consultation before the legislation was introduced. Noting the government has now circulated house amendments, which are welcome, can the government outline the process by which it will consult with this very important group going forward if the bill does pass?
Ms TIERNEY: Mr O’Donohue, can you repeat the last bit? The first bit was about consultation.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Sorry, Minister, yes. Can you describe or foreshadow the government’s consultation process with the families of deceased sexual assault victims, the Let Us Speak campaign and others, going forward between now and when the sunset provision comes into effect, if it passes?
Ms TIERNEY: Mr O’Donohue, the victim support unit in the Department of Justice and Community Safety will be running the consultation. It is expected that that will commence before Christmas. There will be a break over the Christmas period, at the request of the families involved. So they will be working through the issues with all of the stakeholders, but particularly in terms of those that are family members who have deceased family members.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you for that, Minister. That is very helpful. Minister, without sort of seeking to give a hard deadline or hard date, noting the 1 December date on the house amendment, can you give any sort of general indication of when further legislative change may be brought forward to deal with this issue?
Ms TIERNEY: The consultations are expected to be finalised April–May for it to be scheduled in time for the introduction into the house.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that information. That is again helpful. The only observation I would make is the more detailed the consultation can be in the most expedient, reasonable time, the better. I am sure all members would welcome that.
I move to the second key issue from the second-reading debate, and that is, I suppose, the difference of opinion—let us put it that way—about the current provisions and the need for these changes that the government is proposing, to put express provisions for families of deceased sexual assault victims to make a court order. I listened with interest to what Ms Terpstra and Ms Taylor said and indeed, Minister, what you said in summation and what the Attorney-General said on radio this morning and has said in other forums. So we have a position where the Attorney and the DPP have one view—that the word ‘person’ covers living and deceased persons. We have the Right to Know coalition, the Let Us Speak campaign and a range of senior lawyers who have a different view, based on the word itself and also on statutory interpretation. So that is a clear point of difference in interpretation. My question to you, Minister, is: what weight does the government give to Judge McInerney’s comments last Friday in the County Court, where he very clearly said that those provisions do not apply to deceased persons and therefore the law has never applied to deceased persons, which is a direct contradiction or a direct opposite view to that expressed by the DPP and the Attorney?
Ms TIERNEY: As I said in my summing up, in terms of the comments made by the judge last Friday in the County Court, we say that that was not a legal judgement; they were comments made in passing.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Minister, even if that is accepted, in the absence of any other judicial comment, those comments carry the weight of the County Court. As I understand it, there has been no judicial application of those provisions and his comments are the first expression of a view from a court in Victoria, which in the absence of a direct line of authority, I submit to you, Minister, carries significant legal weight. The government seems to be dismissing that almost as if it has not occurred.
Ms TIERNEY: The government just does not believe that; we disagree. We have disagreed with that point all the way through the debate today. We say that it is not a judicial decision. With the greatest respect, the judge did make those comments in passing.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you, Minister. Again, we do not want to go into this issue too much, but it is an important issue. Whether the judge said it as part of his judgement, whether he said it in passing or whether it was an observation, he gave a direct opinion on the breadth of that provision and he expressly said on several occasions words to the effect that it does not apply to deceased people, yet the government seems to dismiss that as if he had not said it or as if he were wrong. That, I think, first of all, is disrespectful to the court. It is convenient to maintain the Attorney’s and the DPP’s position, but it is simply, I think, surprising, disappointing and dismissive of the County Court not to give weight to those comments, which were very clearly on point. They might not have been part of the judgement, but they were very clearly addressing this specific issue, which is central to this debate today.
Ms TIERNEY: Again, with the deepest respect to the judge involved, it is the government’s view that what the judge said on Friday was an opinion and has no legal standing. We will just have to agree to disagree, Mr O’Donohue.
Mr O’DONOHUE: I appreciate you saying that so clearly, Minister. We will have to agree to disagree. Is it fair to say, Minister, that the government has put no weight on Judge McInerney’s comments about deceased victims?
Ms TIERNEY: Again, they were comments made by the judge and they do not have any judicial standing.
Mr O’DONOHUE: I do not wish to pursue this any further, but to say they have no judicial standing is simply wrong and a mischaracterisation of the judge’s comments in a case on point about this specific issue that is central to this debate. Whilst it may not have been part of the judgement, again, Minister, your comments, I respectfully say, are wrong.
Ms TIERNEY: As I said, we need to agree to disagree on this, Mr O’Donohue.
Ms MAXWELL: With all due respect, I find that previous answer quite astounding in regard to Mr O’Donohue’s question. I will move on, however. In her second-reading speech the Attorney-General indicated that after including the various new provisions in relation to the prohibition of the reporting of names of deceased victims she now intends to consult widely on this area of law with victim-survivors, family members of deceased victims and other stakeholders. My question, Ms Tierney, is: how are the Attorney-General and her office specifically selecting the people with whom they believe she needs to consult?
Ms TIERNEY: Ms Maxwell, they will be public consultations and they will be run by the victim support unit within the department.
Ms MAXWELL: In that context, how many deceased victims’ families has the Attorney-General herself directly and personally consulted on the changes in this bill, and with approximately how many in total do you expect she will personally hold discussions by the time the consultation process is over?
Ms TIERNEY: Ms Maxwell, as you probably know, ministers do not necessarily run the consultations; it is usually through departments or other agencies. But in terms of the organisations that have been consulted, these include the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, the Victim Survivors Advisory Council, representatives of the Victorian Centres Against Sexual Assault, the Commission for Children and Young People and the courts. Of course victims’ families have had discussions as well, and they will continue to do so, obviously.
Ms MAXWELL: Minister, I will move on from the area which we were discussing previously. What is the definition of a family member under this bill?
Ms TIERNEY: Ms Maxwell, the bill itself does not define family members. Family relationship dynamics will vary from case to case, and therefore it is important to provide flexibility for the court to determine which family members’ views should could be considered in determining whether to authorise publication. The bill will allow the court to ascertain the identity and views of family members and through these inquiries identify the next of kin and any other family members from whom the court thinks it is appropriate to hear. Of course, as you know, the bill prohibits the court from considering the views of a family member who is an alleged or convicted offender.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Ms Tierney, for that response. I guess I am, in asking that question about the definition of a family member, and given my previous speech on this bill, also curious to know what allowances have been made in particular areas where a family member may actually be opposed to telling the story and yet a victim may have confided in a best friend in order to pass that story on. The complexities of this scenario are enormous, but I guess what I am asking is: have there been allowances for anyone other than a direct family member to be able to honour and tell the story of a deceased victim?
Ms TIERNEY: Friends can provide evidence to the courts. They might not be defined as family, but they can provide evidence. That is often the case where you might confide in a friend when you are not necessarily feeling as if you can confide in a family member for whatever reason, so there is that ability for a friend that has been provided that information by the victim.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I will push this a little further if allowed. Let us say there is a scenario where a friend of a victim knows the entire story but the family are actually opposed to that story being told. Who would actually be given the right to tell the story on that victim’s behalf should they become deceased?
Ms TIERNEY: Through this bill the court will essentially determine that, but this is one of those areas that clearly requires further consultation, and I am sure it will be on the list of those stakeholders that are so close to this issue.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. Whilst I absolutely acknowledge the complexities in regard to this bill and often we are speaking in terms of acknowledging the fact that eventually that victim may pass away, this also treads on difficult territory. However, if the bill is passed, can you tell me whether there will immediately be a clear, acceptable, lawful way for a survivor to provide general permission to more than one person at a time who may want to publish details about them?
Ms TIERNEY: The answer is yes.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. In the period between now and whenever any further changes might be made to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 (JPRA) there may well be a case or cases in which it is the wish of the family of a deceased victim and it is in the public interest for the details of that case to be broadcast widely and immediately. Are there any arrangements that will allow for the expedited hearing of matters leading to the granting of a court order in those situations?
Ms TIERNEY: I have been advised that we will ensure that court processes will move as quickly as possible. That has been the case in recent times, and that will continue.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. So, just wanting to clarify and confirm: if that is not actually made available—that those situations can be expedited—would the Attorney-General be able to provide that expedition to that family’s need to have that process expedited?
Ms TIERNEY: The answer is no.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Minister, there has been significant concern expressed, and I do not think this was canvassed in any detail in the second-reading debate, with the way republication is defined—that when someone clicks on perhaps an article about a deceased victim from the past that is considered a fresh publication for the purposes of these provisions that are before us today. Can you confirm that to comply with this bill, if it passes, media outlets and others will have to remove any reference to deceased sexual assault victims to comply with the law? And just while you are in the box, Minister, in a similar vein, a victim of crime has asked me whether if she self-published a book and then passed that publication would still be lawful, given it would talk about a deceased sexual assault victim. That would need to occur between now and when the house amendments expire, but I am sure you understand the point.
Ms TIERNEY: In terms of the case of a victim who has self-identified and has written a book and has then subsequently passed, it is enduring. Once it is exposed it is enduring past the point of living, if you understand the meaning. In respect to the other point about past or retrospective protection, which is the point that you are after, the retrospective provision covers publications made by a third party such as a media organisation—I think that was the example that you gave—who at the time of publication had authorisation from the adult victim-survivor likely to be identified. Written authorisation is not required. The provision does not cover past publications by third parties that occurred without authorisation of the victim-survivor or where the victim-survivor was under the age of 18. This is consistent with the policy approach underpinning the reforms, which is intended to give the victim-survivors control over if, when and how their identity and stories are published by others. The approach to child victims reflects the fact that the prospective approach in this bill—that is, requiring a supporting statement from an independent third person—cannot be retrospectively applied.
For many victim-survivors, in the interests of broader prevention and vicarious resilience there may be benefit in having their stories more widely disseminated. This must be done with the permission of victim-survivors. Just because past publications technically constitute an offence does not mean that the publisher will be prosecuted, if that is the real intent of your question, and essentially discretion will apply as an important safeguard to ensure that prosecutions are not brought where this would not be in the public interest.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you, Minister. That is helpful. Noting again what I said in my previous question, as I understand it it is a fresh publication if someone clicks on a link to an article from the past. Given your reference to the consent of the deceased victim’s family, which may not have been sought at the time, given the law at the time, if you could comment on that, that would be helpful.
Ms TIERNEY: So what I dealt with was in terms of previous publications, but you are indicating that given that we are in a new world of technology you click and it is a new publication. So this again is one of the issues that we want to have further consultations with the stakeholder group in respect to, because it is complicated and it is very complex. The general intent, by and large, is that for what has been produced in the past it would be retrospective, but we do need to get a more legalistic definition and determine what the implications are in terms of the click that would be the case into the future.
Mr O’DONOHUE: With respect, Minister, we are debating a bill today that will have an impact on that. Surely that should have been done before we brought on this bill today. I have spoken to senior media and defamation lawyers who say the law is very clear that by clicking on an old article it is a fresh publication, and therefore prospectively these laws that you are seeking to push through tonight will apply. So you are saying that you will have consultation after the law is passed. Again, with respect, that is dealing with the issue after the proverbial horse has bolted, and this should have been done before you brought the bill to the Parliament. This is a serious issue, and again it gives rise to my call in the second-reading debate for the committee stage of this bill to be postponed until you have sorted these issues out and brought back an amended bill that gives legal clarity and legal certainty and is acceptable to the families of deceased sexual assault victims and all those that are implicated by these changes.
Ms TIERNEY: I am advised, Mr O’Donohue, that the actual intent is to have retrospectivity consistent with what I outlined before.
Ms MAXWELL: So, Minister, I would just like to seek clarification. As a co-founder of a campaign that often retweets victims’ families’ stories and advocates those families’ stories, particularly deceased victims’ families, am I now going to be held accountable for publishing those stories under this new legislation?
Ms TIERNEY: So again, the whole premise is to ensure that victims are in control of their own story. The advice I have been given is that in terms of you wanting to republish that, you would need to check that they have given consent.
Ms MAXWELL: Look, I am sorry to badger you, Minister, in regard to this, but this is certainly legislation that is very near and dear to my heart and I certainly do not want to be considered as someone who is actually breaking the law under these circumstances. However, given that I am a co-founder of a campaign who has regularly through the last five years placed on social media stories that have been conveyed to me by victims of crime, I am actually very concerned about the implications that that may have for me continuing to publish those stories, particularly if those direct contacts are not being made available and yet victims are wanting their stories to be told. How do we find a compromise in that area?
Ms TIERNEY: Ms Maxwell, you are not badgering; these are important issues, and I am more than happy to be here as long as it takes to try to get the answers that we need from the box—or anywhere else, to be quite frank. Once the bill is passed you will need to ascertain whether they have consented and have provided authority in terms of new images and new stories.
Ms MAXWELL: Minister, I certainly concede that there will obviously need to be, should this bill be passed, further conversations in regard to these matters, and I would hope that the Attorney-General’s office would be open to availing us of further consultation in regard to other aspects of campaigning and how victims can actually tell their stories through a third medium. So thank you.
Mr O’DONOHUE: I think this is an important point, just to round out my earlier questions and Ms Maxwell’s questions. Just to be clear, Minister, if I went onto the Age or the Herald Sun or the Guardian website tomorrow—if the bill passes and after it receives royal assent—if I went onto one of those media outlet pages and clicked on an article about a deceased sexual assault victim and then posted that story to social media, would I be breaking the law?
Ms TIERNEY: This is a point in relation to, essentially, defamation law. Is that correct? Is that the point that is being made?
Mr O’DONOHUE: Well, I asked the question, yes.
Ms TIERNEY: I will tell you what the department has told me, and that is that in terms of the JPRA it goes to the point at which it was first put up.
Mr O’DONOHUE: That is helpful, Minister. If the article was first put up before this bill passed and I clicked on it again after the bill passed and put it on social media, that would not be an offence?
Ms TIERNEY: The advice is that sharing is considered publication for the purposes of the JPRA. However, the DPP will exercise sensible discretion and would be unlikely to prosecute this.
Mr O’DONOHUE: So in other words the DPP will have a policy similar to what it currently has for dealing with prosecution for the families of deceased sexual assault victims. Even if you accept the DPP’s legal interpretation of the requirement to apply for a court order for the families of deceased sexual assault victims, which many do not, and I have to say I do not either—even if you accept that—the government and the DPP rely on a DPP policy not to prosecute. Here we are with the government bringing forward amendments that are going to explicitly make it illegal to speak about a deceased sexual assault victim unless a court order is obtained. On the one hand we are making a new law to make it illegal to republish without a court order or the consent of a victim, but we are going to get around that by a DPP policy position. I mean, with the greatest respect, we are creating a new offence which has never been prosecuted—and according to Judge McInerney does not exist—and we are creating a whole new range of provisions that will criminalise publication, but we are going to get around that by the DPP just pretending that this bill does not exist. This is becoming a bit of a farce, Minister, with the greatest respect, and I am surprised that there are no clear answers coming from the box and that the government does not have clear answers to these very simple threshold questions.
Ms TIERNEY: You asked a question about sharing and whether you can share, and essentially we said, ‘No, you can’t’. That was the question and the answer.
Mr O’DONOHUE: So, Minister, does that mean that news organisations will be expected to strip articles down from their websites? Because the reality is that no-one in the general community except for a few will be aware of any changes that this Parliament may or may not pass today. Is there an obligation on news organisations to remove any reference to deceased sexual assault victims until the court process that you are mandating is undertaken?
Ms TIERNEY: The response is that this is not new. It was always the prohibition, Mr O’Donohue.
Mr O’DONOHUE: As I said before, even if you accept that legal interpretation—which Judge McInerney does not, which the Australia’s Right to Know coalition does not, which the Let Us Speak campaign does not and which senior, eminent lawyers in this field do not—the DPP has an express policy not to prosecute and, in response to correspondence from me, the DPP has said that that policy will be ongoing if this bill does not pass. So, Minister, what is the rush tonight, when there are so many fundamental, straightforward questions that you are unable to answer about the operation of this legislation?
Ms TIERNEY: Essentially the legislation must pass because victims cannot wait for these changes. We are clearing the backlog at the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal and ensuring that we can fight fires appropriately. We are not changing the prohibition, Mr O’Donohue.
Mr O’DONOHUE: I do not want to pursue this any further, Minister; I think I have made the point and I know others want to speak. But if that was the government’s wish, all of those elements could be passed right now with the full support of the house, because we all support the other aspects of this omnibus bill. It is a pity the government did not listen to the concerns about this specific issue, carve that out and let everything else pass expeditiously.
Mr LIMBRICK: My question is around this idea of republication through sharing that Mr O’Donohue has raised, which is very concerning in itself. As Ms Maxwell has also said, people who campaign on these issues would like to share old stories. How would anyone know when they are sharing one of these stories whether permission in fact actually exists?
Ms TIERNEY: Once this is passed there will be an assumption that, for example, if a journalist has published a story, they would have to obviously have had consent, and it would be well known within the media network that that would be required. I think you could quite rightly assume that that has been agreed to, that that journalist has got that consent. So in terms of moving on or sharing that information, that will be okay because there will be an assumption that that journalist has got consent.
Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. I am not talking about recent articles; I am talking about old articles if they are being shared. How could you know with an old article whether or not that consent was actually existing at the time? It just seems very, very grey. I am very concerned about the chilling effect that this might have, especially when we have, for example, murderers coming up for parole. People want to discuss the details to make sure that these people never see the light of day again, and we have this situation where people who want to discuss this and discuss the details on why these dangerous criminals should not be allowed back into the public are not allowed to do it or are scared to do it because they are worried about breaking some rules. A lot of these cases would have happened a long time ago because the sentences for murder are quite long. How do we know that these people will have some certainty about whether they are allowed to discuss these issues or not?
Ms TIERNEY: Mr Limbrick, I am not quite sure whether you were in the chamber earlier when Mr O’Donohue had a question in relation to retrospective protection in relation to past publications.
Mr LIMBRICK: Yes, but my understanding was that the act of sharing is republication and therefore a new publication—or have I misunderstood that?
Ms TIERNEY: I am advised that, yes, that is correct.
Mr LIMBRICK: Yes. So we are in the same situation where we have an old article which is then reshared via social media or some other means with commentary and therefore is a new publication even though the original could be a newspaper from the 1990s or something. That is a new publication, is it not?
Ms TIERNEY: These are old articles, Mr Limbrick, which is different to the situation that we had before. There would be an expectation and an obligation that people would check. There is a responsibility if you are going to share things that you do it within the law.
Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. So every time someone shares an old article, they will need to check somehow. How do they do that? I do not understand how they would do that. It seems totally unworkable. This just seems totally unworkable. It will have such a great chilling effect on discussion of these issues. No-one will want to share any of these things, surely. The average member of the public, as Mr O’Donohue pointed out, would not have a clue that these sorts of restrictions even exist. They would be putting themselves in grave jeopardy by sharing these things.
Ms TIERNEY: People will still be able to talk about the issues and the details of a particular case, Mr Limbrick. The point is the point of identification—that that is the problem. The issue again is very central to the government’s position—and that of a number of other people in this chamber—that we want the victims to be able to own their own stories, and that means that they own them in terms of how they are distributed as well.
Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. Yes, but I am talking about things that happened decades ago. You cannot share an old newspaper article without identifying the victim. I suppose you could redact it or something. Are you expecting that every time we talk about a victim of crime historically we have to redact it before talking about the upcoming parole case or something? This just seems totally unworkable.
Ms TIERNEY: It applies in terms of people who have been victims of sexual offending, not victims of crime per se.
Mr LIMBRICK: Yes, I am aware of that, but what are we saying here—that we cannot mention those aspects of the case that happened decades ago? How do we even know? In a lot of these cases the family members may have passed on because it happened decades ago.
Ms TIERNEY: It comes down, Mr Limbrick, to people just needing to be more careful about what they pass on and what they do.
Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. As Mr O’Donohue pointed out, most people would not have a clue that these laws even exist. What sort of education campaign is the government going to do to educate people that they should not be sharing these sorts of old articles to ensure that they do not end up with some sort of liability?
Ms TIERNEY: This was raised by a couple of people in the second-reading debate, and I mentioned in my summing up that we understand the need to publicise the changes to help the public understand their rights and obligations. The courts have already published guidance on application processes. The government will work with the courts to ensure that these materials are updated to reflect the changes in the bill once the reforms have commenced. We have also started developing guidance material for victim-survivors and others to assist them in understanding their rights, including self-publishing and navigating the process of providing permission to others. Obviously in respect to general members of the public that are not necessarily caught up in making applications, the government will need to work out ways in which it advises the public generally about the changed laws.
Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. Has the government consulted with any social media companies about this? I imagine that companies like Facebook, Twitter et cetera would be very nervous about this because effectively you would be putting them in a position where they would be facilitating crimes effectively through people sharing on their platforms. What sort of consultation have you had with companies like Facebook and Twitter et cetera?
Ms TIERNEY: No, there has been no consultation on that, because nothing has changed.
Ms MAXWELL: I am actually going to move on from this line of questioning because given that I am the co-founder of a campaign, I think, with no disrespect, the answers to Mr O’Donohue and to Mr Limbrick have probably been about as clear as mud to me and where I actually stand as a campaigner and the recent previous articles that I have printed in regard to those who have been murdered and have sustained sexual assault. I will actually look forward to having continued conversations in regard to where I stand there. With that, I am wondering, and I will move on as I said, in relation to the new requirement in this bill that anyone under the age of 18 must obtain a supporting statement from a registered doctor or psychologist, why that specific age has been chosen when we know that you are actually able to change your birth certificate at the age of 16 and the legal age of consent is 16. So I am just wondering why those at the age of 16 are not able to publicly disclose their story on social media.
Ms TIERNEY: I understand from your second-reading debate speech too that you raised this. You are linking this essentially to the issue of consent, whereas this is broader. This is about broader decision-making, and the legal standard generally is 18.
Sitting suspended 6.30 pm until 7.35 pm.
Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (19:36)
Mr O’DONOHUE: I move:
1. Clause 3, page 5, lines 16 to 26, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert—
‘(b) for “whether or not a proceeding in respect of the alleged offence is pending in a court” substitute “whether or not a proceeding in respect of the alleged offence or offence has commenced, is being conducted or has been finally determined”.’.
I am happy to talk to amendment 1 standing in my name. I note that this amendment is identical to that which Dr Ratnam had foreshadowed. I have checked the words of the amendments, and they are exactly identical—every comma, full stop and piece of punctuation is exactly the same. I note there was some discussion about the difference between Dr Ratnam’s amendment and my amendment, but I can confidently say there is actually no difference at all between these two amendments. As I got to move the amendment first, I wish to acknowledge that Dr Ratnam has exactly the same amendment to clause 3.
This is the most significant issue in the bill from the opposition’s perspective. What this amendment seeks to do is remove what we say is a new offence being created by this bill. We do not believe that the families of deceased sexual assault victims should be criminalised through the creation of this new offence. I note the minister’s answer to my previous questions about Judge McInerney’s discussion last Friday in the County Court. We believe that provides legal clarity. We also note the views of others that I have talked about in the second-reading debate and previously in the committee. I have moved my amendment, and I look forward to support from the committee.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I might just make a little bit of commentary here, because it is true that the amendments are identical. As they are identical and an amendment can only be moved once, if this amendment fails, Dr Ratnam will not be able to move her amendment, so anyone wanting to support Dr Ratnam’s amendment should support Mr O’Donohue’s amendment. As they are identical, Dr Ratnam, I invite you now to make some commentary on your identical amendment.
Dr RATNAM: Thank you, Deputy President. The debate so far has canvassed at length the difficult and complicated issues that we are dealing with. The key point of contention in the bill before us is the ability of the families of deceased victims to speak publicly. We know this is a complex and difficult issue. I want to again acknowledge the Let Us Speak campaign, the family members who have spoken out through their pain and the importance of victims and families having the right to speak about their experiences publicly when they wish to. Of course we also have to acknowledge there are victims and family members who do not want to speak publicly about their traumatic experiences. As many members have pointed out today, every person has the right to choose how to tell their own story. There is no right or wrong thing for a victim’s family to do. The only important thing is that families themselves—not politicians or the media—get to make that decision.
I do think it is also very important to clarify again that the point of contention we are debating today only relates to identifying a person who has died as a victim of a sexual offence and the details relating to the sexual offences, not erasing the names of the deceased victims from the record altogether, as has been portrayed.
The intent of the amendment I have circulated, which is the same as the amendment we are debating now, is to retain the status quo in relation to deceased victims for the time being, enabling the government to do what it has promised—to consult and develop a better and more appropriate means of resolving the complexities of the issues before us. Given there is some contention around the current law, the amendment retains the ability for court orders to be made if required—that is, if the government’s interpretation of the current law prevails.
None of the options before us here are perfect—not the bill as it stands and not the amendments that have been circulated, ours or the opposition’s. As has already been said today, until we get this right it is a matter of choosing the least worst option in the interim, and I think our amendments best do this.
Briefly, on the opposition’s amendment 3, which is related to this one—and I want to address this now because it is a key point of difference between what we are proposing and what the opposition is proposing—the issue is: is it okay to have no reference to ‘deceased persons’ in defining the offence but at the same time to have separate systems defined for lifting orders for deceased victims and living victims in the bill? I think it is good to have separate systems for lifting orders as it clarifies for the courts the right processes to be used for lifting orders in different circumstances. For living victims, it is clearly their wishes that should be considered. For those who have died at the time of the offence being committed, and so their opinions on publication are not likely to be known, it is clearly the family members who should be consulted. And for people who were a victim of historical offences who have subsequently died, it may be a matter of considering both their known wishes and those of the family.
The section is included in this interim period if it turns out the DPP and the Attorney-General are correct in their interpretation of the current laws and there is maintained a clear process for lifting orders for families of deceased persons.
Mr LIMBRICK: I would like to thank Mr O’Donohue for moving this amendment, and Dr Ratnam for hers. As they both pointed out, this is the key point of contention with this bill. For families and affected victims of sexual crimes where the person has become deceased, I think it is very disturbing that this might have a chilling effect on speech in society. I have concerns that it might criminalise behaviours, as we have discussed in the committee stage, such as sharing things on social media and this sort of thing. I just do not feel that it is actually workable in the real world when so many people would be sharing these sorts of things. I think it is particularly troublesome for very old cases. Where the perpetrator may be in jail and they may be approaching a parole date and people want to discuss the original crime, identifying the original families and trying to determine consent under these arrangements I think would be unworkable, and the committee stage has only convinced me of that fact, so I will be strongly supporting this amendment. If the amendment fails, the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this bill.
Ms TIERNEY: The current law applies to deceased victims on the clear advice of the DPP, which I have stated before. The bill makes that application clear. It does not change the law. The bill also creates a court process for speaking about deceased victims. At the moment there is no way that deceased victims can be lawfully identified. The amendment would remove the clarifying provision. However, it is not the clarifying provision that means that the provision applies to deceased victims. So the amendment to remove the clarifying provision only removes the clarification. If this amendment passes, the prohibition will apply to deceased victims on the DPP’s interpretation; it is just that it is not going to be as clear, as Dr Ratnam pointed out. The process for obtaining a court order will still make reference to ‘deceased victims’, so it is unlikely that the provisions could be interpreted as not applying to deceased victims, even if this amendment is made. The government does not support this amendment, as it retains the uncertainty for families and loved ones of deceased victims; it does not mean that the law does not apply to deceased victims. So on that basis the government will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr O’DONOHUE: I just want to ask the minister a question, if I may. We have a difference of opinion about the legal status quo, if you accept the government’s view of the legal status quo if this amendment should pass. The DPP, Kerri Judd, has written to me saying her policy, which is currently in place, is that people who breach this provision will not be prosecuted. With express, explicit provisions that criminalise the unlawful naming of deceased victims of sexual assault, what will be the DPP’s approach to prosecution, Minister?
Ms TIERNEY: I thank Mr O’Donohue for his question. That is really a question for the DPP, and we do not expect anything to change.
Mr O’DONOHUE: It is a question for the DPP, and the DPP inserted herself in the political debate by putting out a statement when the bill was debated in the Legislative Assembly, so it is not unreasonable to ask for her opinion if this bill passes.
Ms TIERNEY: It remains a matter for the DPP; it is not a matter for me.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Mr O’Donohue’s amendment 1, which is a test for his amendment 2 and also Dr Ratnam’s amendment, be agreed to. I point out to people that if you want to vote for Dr Ratnam’s amendment you need to vote for this amendment, because they are identical and hers cannot be put separately.
Committee divided on amendment:
| Ayes, 19 | ||
| Atkinson, Mr | Grimley, Mr | Meddick, Mr |
| Bach, Dr | Hayes, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Barton, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Lovell, Ms | Patten, Ms |
| Cumming, Dr | Maxwell, Ms | Quilty, Mr |
| Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs | Ratnam, Dr |
| Finn, Mr | ||
| Noes, 15 | ||
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Tierney, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Symes, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr | Watt, Ms |
Amendment agreed to.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Consistent with previous comments I have made and my second-reading speech et cetera, I move amendment 2 standing in my name:
2. Clause 3, page 5, lines 29 to 31, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert—
“(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply if either or both of the following is the case—
(a) no complaint about the alleged offence had been made to a police officer;
(b) the person against whom the sexual offence was committed, or was alleged to have been committed, is deceased.”.
It adds an exemption to the publication offence under the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act for matters relating to deceased victims.
Ms PATTEN: While I was very pleased to see the first part of this amendment pass, I think that was the point that we wanted this to get to; this now gives the victims and their families and the rest of our community time to consider this. With due respect to Mr O’Donohue, I think this amendment actually takes us into new territory, and I am not able to support that.
Dr RATNAM: While the intent behind the opposition amendments is similar to that behind the ones I have moved, they go further in that they explicitly say if a victim is deceased then there are no restrictions on publication of details of their sexual assault. While this is a simple solution for families who want to publicise their loved ones’ stories, it fails to recognise those cases where the families of victims do not want the media to release these details or they want a delay on releasing these details. We are concerned with the breadth of the opposition amendment and the signal it sends to the media, that they can have carte blanche to report what they want to, regardless of the wishes of the families or indeed, where it may have been known, the wishes of the victims themselves. In the rush for the big story there need to be laws to make sure that the media know that they have to always act in the interests of families. Given the obvious lack of clarity on the right way forward in respect of victims who are deceased, the coalition have not provided sufficient reasons as to why we urgently need to change the current law. In fact, they believe the courts are currently interpreting the act in a way that makes their amendments unnecessary. As I said earlier, if we rush to pass changes today, either the government’s or the opposition’s, and we get it wrong, we risk causing even greater anguish to families of victims who have died. We should keep things as they are until we can get this right.
Ms TIERNEY: Very similar to what Dr Ratnam has articulated, as well as Ms Patten, essentially our opposition is around this amendment providing expressly that the law does not apply to deceased victims in any circumstance. So while this would mean that deceased sexual offence victims can be lawfully identified, it would also mean that a victim who asserted that they wished to remain anonymous during their life and then died could be identified against their wishes after death. It would also mean that the DPP has no power to require media organisations to take down details of sexual offending against a murder victim that are causing extreme distress to the family of the deceased. There would be no restrictions on media reporting these details. On that basis, the government will be opposing this amendment.
Mr O’DONOHUE: I take the opportunity to respond. I thank Ms Patten, Dr Ratnam and the minister for articulating their positions. The opposition respectfully has a different view: that this clarifies the law in a way as described by Judge McInerney, consistent with the way Judge McInerney did last Friday in the County Court and consistent with the views of those who have expressed a view different to the DPP’s, if I could put it that way, so the Right to Know coalition, the Let Us Speak group and others. This provides greater clarity around the ability of the family members of deceased sexual assault victims to speak. I respect there are different views on this. If this amendment is to not pass, I again call on the government to ensure that the consultation process that should have been done prior to this bill coming into effect is expedited as quickly as possible, as long as it is done properly and fully, to ensure a bill comes forward to this place as soon as possible to provide that clarity I think we are all looking for.
Committee divided on amendment:
| Ayes, 17 | ||
| Atkinson, Mr | Davis, Mr | Maxwell, Ms |
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Barton, Mr | Grimley, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Cumming, Dr | Lovell, Ms | |
| Noes, 18 | ||
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Taylor, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Meddick, Mr | Symes, Ms | Watt, Ms |
Amendment negatived.
Mr O’DONOHUE: I move:
3. Clause 3, page 8, lines 15 to 35 and page 9, lines 1 and 2, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert—
“(a) that it has taken into account the views of any victims likely to be identified, if those views are known following reasonable enquiries; and
(b) that it is in the public interest to make the order.”.
Amendment 3 is in effect from the opposition’s perspective a consequential amendment in that it omits provisions in the bill relating to court orders for publication of matters relating to deceased sexual assault victims, and we say—the opposition says—that with the passage of amendment 1, which removes express provisions creating what we say is an overt new offence, then it is not in order to have other provisions referring to deceased sexual assault victims when, in the opposition’s view and in the view of many others that I have referred to previously, we believe that offence no longer exists.
Ms PATTEN: As with my last comments, again, I think there is such a nuanced and complicated path for us to find the right approach to protect those that do not want their details published and those that want to be able to speak. Unfortunately I think Mr O’Donohue’s amendment errs on the wrong side of this, and I cannot support that.
Ms TIERNEY: I will just indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment.
Committee divided on amendment:
| Ayes, 17 | ||
| Atkinson, Mr | Davis, Mr | Maxwell, Ms |
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Barton, Mr | Grimley, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Cumming, Dr | Lovell, Ms | |
| Noes, 18 | ||
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Taylor, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Meddick, Mr | Symes, Ms | Watt, Ms |
Amendment negatived.
Amended clause agreed to; clause 4 postponed; clauses 5 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 (20:13)
Mr O’DONOHUE: I move:
Clause 51, page 47, after line 15 insert—
“(3A) The Secretary must publish an agreement or arrangement entered into under subsection (2) on the Department’s website.”.
This is a completely different issue to the section of the bill that has occupied most of the Council’s consideration this afternoon. This deals with the Forests Act 1958 amendment section, and in summary this component of the bill seeks to enable Forest Fire Management Victoria and Fire Rescue Victoria to be able to enter into an MOU to ensure there is seamless operation of firefighting capacity across public land—across Forest Fire Management Victoria public land and across the FRV response zones.
That is something which obviously is a worthy thing to achieve and consistent with the all-hazards, all-agencies approach that has been consistent in emergency management since the Black Saturday bushfires, so the opposition does not have a problem with that proposal. But what this amendment seeks to do is to require any such MOU to be made public on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning website as part of transparency and accountability. I thank my colleague the member for Evelyn, Ms Bridget Vallence, in the other place for her advocacy on this and for driving this particular issue.
Ms TIERNEY: The government understands there may be some operational detail contained within these MOUs but also understands the position of transparency. We will not oppose this.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 52 to 55 agreed to.
Postponed clause 4 (20:17)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister is circulating a new version of her amendments to clause 4, which were altered by the change to clause 3.
Ms TIERNEY: I move:
1. Clause 4, line 3, after “4A” insert “and section 4B”.
2. Clause 4, line 24, omit ‘publication.”.’ and insert “publication.”.
3. Clause 4, after line 24 insert—
‘4B Repeal of certain provisions on 1 September 2021
On 1 September 2021—
(a) for section 4(1BF)(a) and (b) of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 substitute—
“(a) that it has taken into account the views of any victims likely to be identified, if those views are known following reasonable enquiries; and
(b) that it is in the public interest to make the order.”; and
(b) in section 4(1BG)(b)(i) of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 for “a living” substitute “an”.”.’.
The amendments put forward by the government have changed slightly from the originals based on the changes that have occurred as a result of the committee’s vote in response to Mr O’Donohue’s amendment. There is not anything of substance; it is more of a consequential change that is contained within the amendment that is before the house. In terms of the actual content of this amendment, we have covered off on these issues. Many speakers have spoken on these matters over the course of this afternoon and this evening, and it is my intention to submit this amendment to the house for approval.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Minister, I appreciate that we do not want to rehash what we have already been over, but given the sensitivities around these issues and the debate that has occurred, is it accurate to say your amendments here—amended as a result of my amendment 1, which passed—do not do anything save and except sunset these provisions to 1 September 2021?
Ms TIERNEY: Mr O’Donohue, that is correct.
Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.
Reported to house with amendments.
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (20:22): I move:
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (20:22): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.
Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2020
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (20:25)
Ms CROZIER: It has been a couple of weeks since we have looked at this bill, but I have got a number of questions I would like to ask the minister—so thank you, Minister. Minister, obviously this bill is to assist in ratios in terms of nurse-to-patient and midwife-to-patient ratios. I am wanting to just get some understanding of the impacts of COVID. Could you fill the chamber in in terms of how, firstly, that has been able to be managed under these very trying circumstances and what impact that will have into the future.
Ms SYMES: I thank Ms Crozier. I know she has a strong interest in this bill and these matters, and I will endeavour to assist as best as possible. The COVID pandemic did place significant pressure on our hospitals and health staff, who had to plan for increased patient demand and alternative workforce and care delivery modules. While there have been no reported cases of hospitals being unable to meet staffing ratios, the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 was able to provide backup support to ensure health services had the confidence and support during the pandemic to undertake workforce and service delivery planning.
Due to the efforts of our health services and unions to ensure adequate workforce supply was maintained during the peak of the pandemic, the emergency powers were not utilised. Subsequently that emergency power has been allowed to expire as of 24 October 2020. In relation to how the pandemic has affected the workforce supply of nursing and midwifery systems and the future workforce recruitment, the workforce response to COVID-19 has required cross-sector and multi-agency collaboration to protect the education and supply of the future health workforce. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the national boards, together with the Australian government and the Health Professions Accreditation Collaborative Forum, which established national principles for student clinical education during the pandemic response, have been meeting. The Victorian government and the Department of Health and Human Services have supported the principles and strongly advocated that clinical placement continue during the pandemic, and endeavours were made to that effect.
The department continues to work with Victorian heads of schools and executive directors of nursing and midwifery from health services to support a collaborative approach towards the continuation of student placements within the constraints of the unprecedented circumstances. The goal has been to prioritise placements such that students can continue to graduate from their health course this year. The department continues to liaise with the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council to consider enablers and barriers to maintaining student education for future workforce supply.
Health students were considered a key element of the COVID response, and strategic planning was underway throughout and continues. One example was that students were encouraged to register interest through the Working for Victoria health portal because health students were a key workforce pool that supported our registered nursing and midwifery workforce through the peak of the pandemic. Further to this the government distributed resources to support health service implementation, the registered undergraduate student of nursing employment model and the registered undergraduate student of midwifery employment model.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister, for that response. Could I just pick up on the last little bit that you just spoke about, about the resources that were distributed? Just some clarification if I could about that last point about the redistribution of resources: could you just explain to the house what you meant by that? I was not sure if it was personnel or whether it was financial assistance to support the graduates.
Ms SYMES: Ms Crozier, I am advised that because health providers had not directly employed students before, a set of guidelines was provided to help them implement the employment model to support the implementation of the registered undergraduate student of nursing employment model, also known as the RUSON model, and the registered undergraduate student of midwifery employment model, the RUSOM model.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you for that explanation, Minister. If I could move to another point, in the second-reading speech given in the Assembly by, I think, Minister Foley, it is referenced that:
… a supernumerary After Hours Coordinator will be required in specified circumstances, acknowledging the increasing complexity associated with the coordination of mixed services in small hospitals.
I really would like to go to this point about small hospitals and resources and how this bill will affect that ability for small hospitals to find additional staff to meet the ratios. I understand from the previous legislation that we have had that there is an ability for small regional hospitals to be able to have exemptions, if you like, or to be able to have their workforce work in a way that is reflective of what is on the ground. I am just wondering if you could explain to me those specified circumstances and the increasing complexity about coordination that the minister referenced in the second-reading speech.
Ms SYMES: Thank you, Ms Crozier, for your question. There is a little bit in that, because I too was interested in small rurals and obviously what happens if it is difficult to recruit people to meet ratios and things like that. So that is where the local agreements become important between the health providers and the unions. There is guidance to form those agreements, and obviously if there are disputes there are ways to resolve those down the track. I am pleased to say none of those have ended up in the Magistrates Court to date.
Ms CROZIER: Sorry, none have?
Ms SYMES: No, none have. You mentioned the supernumerary position. Are you referring to the after-hours coordinator?
Ms CROZIER: Yes.
Ms SYMES: So the consequences of amending this requirement are that despite any other applicable ratio in the act, the operator of a level 4 hospital—so the small ones—with one or two wards must staff the hospital with one after-hours coordinator in addition to the ratios if that hospital operates a nominated birthing suite and/or an emergency department with greater than 2500 presentations per annum. This is in acknowledgement of the requirement for additional staff to manage the increasing complexity associated with the coordination of mixed services in small rurals. The modelling for this amendment has estimated an additional 50 staff over four years to implement, and relevant health services will obviously be funded appropriately to do so. This is all designed to ensure a boost in the quality and safety of health services in rural areas. I am happy for you to explore that more.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister. Could I just tease that out a little bit more? Yes, for the level 4 hospitals obviously, as you say, there is not always the availability of staff or the ability to recruit staff into those small country areas. You said that modelling I think that the department has done estimated that 50 staff would be required, is that right—additional staff over four years? Could you provide to the house where those 50 staff will be required?
Ms SYMES: This is the modelling that would require additional staff to meet the mixed operations of level 4 hospitals, so 50 across the state.
Ms Crozier interjected.
Ms SYMES: No, 50 people—full-time equivalent people.
Ms CROZIER: I take it from that, Minister, that there are 50 additional equivalent full-time staff required across the state, but has the department identified where those 50 staff will be required? For instance, are there a number of small regional hospitals that are fine—that have got the allocated staff or their modelling shows that they do not need additional staff—whereas others might need five, six, half a dozen or whatever the case may be? I am just wondering whether the department has identified where those 50 staff would need to be placed.
Ms SYMES: I will seek some further advice.
Yes, Ms Crozier, we have some examples of the health services that would be affected by this amendment to the after-hours coordinator. They are health services with one or two wards, the current model indicating that this includes services such as Alexandra District Health, Mansfield District Hospital and the Terang and Mortlake Health Service. Where activity in patient presentation increases into the future, more health services will be required to staff an additional after-hours coordinator supernumerary to ratios—that is, where some small towns are experiencing population growth.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister, for your response. So the hospitals you have just identified, is that the full list of those that have been identified by the department? You said that there would be more. Are you able to provide the full list of hospitals rather than just those few that you have just mentioned?
Ms SYMES: I might have to take that on notice because I have just got some examples for you; I do not have an exhaustive list.
Ms CROZIER: Yes, thank you very much, Minister. I would appreciate it if you could provide that list to the house.
If I could just move to another point in relation to what the bill does, and that is the reclassification of Warrnambool Base Hospital, that was announced some time ago by the government in relation to changing that classification, and that will be not until 2022, I think. In the second-reading speech the minister said that there will be continued growth of this service and the anticipated demand, hospital capability and patient complexity into the future—that is why it is being reclassified. Could you provide to the house what impact that reclassification will have on the surrounding district hospitals, such as Portland, Hamilton, Camperdown or elsewhere in the western parts of Victoria? How will this reclassification impact those health services?
Ms SYMES: I can answer lots of questions on Warrnambool—I was ready for that one—but I was not ready for that question.
Ms Crozier interjected.
Ms SYMES: I said I can answer lots on Warrnambool. I was prepared for that one but not the surrounding ones. There will be no material impact on the surrounding hospitals around Warrnambool.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you, and I think that those surrounding hospitals will be pleased to have that reassurance. The reason why I asked my previous question was that the second-reading speech talks about this hospital being a health service hub that will provide leadership for the local catchment area. Now, obviously if you have got a higher capacity, you have gone through that reclassification and there is going to be a greater level of service that will be provided. Therefore you will be, hopefully, attracting doctors and health specialists and allied health professionals. I am interested in terms of the leadership in the local area. Could you just explain a little bit more about that? That is probably an additional question to my previous question about the impact. If you are saying there is no material impact on the surrounding hospitals, what leadership will Warrnambool hospital provide to those health services?
Ms SYMES: Thank you, Ms Crozier, for your question. Obviously it is good news for the Warrnambool community and surrounding community to receive acknowledgement that the service demand is growing and therefore the classification needs to respond accordingly. I am advised that a service master plan and feasibility study have been undertaken to inform detailed planning of a redevelopment of Warrnambool hospital, and obviously that has to consider all of the impacts in relation to what they will be seeking to provide.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister, for that response. So did you say the government has undertaken that feasibility study? Can you provide that information to the house? Is it in the public domain or could it be made public?
Ms SYMES: If you would not mind, I will take that on notice.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister, for that reassurance. If I could just go to another point in the bill now in relation to maternal and child health nurses—again an important area in terms of delivering health services to the state. Obviously throughout COVID maternal and child health nurse services have been significantly impacted, and I am aware of those issues. Could you provide to me—I am not quite sure of them—the numbers of maternal and child health nurses in the state? You will possibly need to take it on notice; it will probably be in some annual report somewhere. The reason I am asking that is again that there are health professionals in other states that have got years of fabulous experience in this area—it is around maternal and child health, it is around child development—and they will not have the tertiary qualifications that this bill stipulates. They will not be able to return to Victoria to operate under this legislation, so there are going to be people that are going to be cut out. I am interested in the maternal and child health workforce especially in regional Victoria, so I am just wondering if you could explain to the house the capacity that maybe the department has done modelling on.
Ms SYMES: Yes, sure. I can have a crack at that. I do have a figure of 1450 for a workforce that is a well-established workforce here in Victoria. We are very excited about making sure that those workers are recognised, professionalised, highly qualified and obviously doing really important work. In response to your points about those who may come from other states or indeed overseas, the amendment to the act will not prevent nurses with interstate and overseas qualifications from working as maternal and child health nurses in Victoria as it will include a provision for assessing equivalent qualifications. This will obviously ensure that nurses with equivalent qualifications can still work in Victoria as maternal and child health nurses.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister, and thank you for that response. I know that there will be a number of people that will be reassured by that recognition by the government that they will not be excluded from being able to work in Victoria. That is all I have for clause 1 and in fact is probably all I have.
Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 18 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (20:47): I move:
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (20:47): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.
Adjournment
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (20:48): I move:
That the house do now adjourn.
West Gate Tunnel
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (20:48): I wish to raise a matter this evening for the attention of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. I want to thank her for her reply to my adjournment matter from 17 March this year, St Patrick’s Day, which I have just received today. It was very good of her. It has only taken, what, seven months to respond to my request. I say it is a response because it is certainly not an answer. It has certainly not given me anywhere near what I was requiring. What I have asked for is that I have asked the minister to tell me and indeed to tell the community if any toxic soil has been dumped in the western suburbs of Melbourne and, if so, where.
Now, the minister has not even come within a bull’s roar of answering that or given any sort of reasonable answer at all. She has been a smart bottom on a couple of occasions and has had a couple of cracks, and that is all very well and good, but I tell you what, it does not do much for the people of the western suburbs of Melbourne who are having toxic soil dumped on them at a great rate and who anticipate having a lot more. It does not do much for the people of the western suburbs who are having a thousand trucks a day roaring through their roads and their streets. It does not do much for the people of the western suburbs of Melbourne who are concerned about what this PFAS material—this vile, dreadful, toxic soil—will do to their children in years to come. It does nothing for the peace of mind of the people of the western suburbs to have the minister be smart in the way that she likes to think that she is.
So what I am doing tonight is I am asking the Premier—sorry, I am asking the minister. She might be. There is a Freudian slip. She may well be the Premier very soon. I understand Dan’s got the parachute on, so she may be Premier soon. What I am doing is I am asking the minister again to tell me tonight, and indeed tell the community, if any toxic soil has been dumped in the western suburbs of Melbourne and, if so, where. This is not a difficult question. A yes or no and then a geographic location will be fine. I just want to know what we are dealing with here. I would greatly appreciate it, as would hundreds of thousands of people throughout the western suburbs of Melbourne, if the minister would come clean, if the minister would give us a straight answer—yes or no. Have you been dumping this crap on us?
Child protection
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (20:51): My matter is for the Minister for Child Protection. It relates to child reunification issues. As everyone will know here, we debated a bill around a fortnight ago that included some very worthwhile changes in a COVID-related context to the normal two-year limits on the arrangements for reunifying parents with children in out-of-home care. As I said in my speech at the time, those changes from the government represented very important recognition of the interests of many families and other stakeholders in the child protection field. However, my constituents and in fact stakeholders from across the state are continuing to raise what they see as some other ongoing problems with the reunification regime, especially amid the COVID restrictions. These range very widely, so I will not be able to cover anything like all of them at this time; however, I will try to raise some of the high-profile ones, with the hope I may be able to talk more directly to the government soon about these and the other issues also.
Firstly, and particularly with more COVID restrictions now being eased, there is the matter of how quickly the government intends to allow the return of direct in-person contact between parents and children in out-of-home care. There is also much interest in whether there might be any changes afoot for those parents who have been unable, during the COVID period so far, to access services like drug and alcohol counselling. Obviously this access is often crucial to improving their ability ultimately to safely and effectively care for their children. A substantial number of former staff in the child protection area inside the Department of Health and Human Services have also been reportedly transferred away this year to work on the broader COVID response. Accordingly there is widespread interest in whether, when and what percentage of those staff have been returned to child protection, including specifically to help administer the child reunification arrangements.
Finally, for now it is my impression there were a number of cases in early 2020 where safe reunification of families had been approved and/or was being planned but was then prevented because of the advent of the COVID restrictions in Victoria. It would therefore be valuable to know if any or all of the families in those particular cases have since been reunited or alternatively will be in the near future. In closing, let me therefore be specific with the action I seek, which is clarification of whether the government will be making any changes in the foreseeable future in any or all of these child reunification policy areas.
Container deposit scheme
Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (20:54): My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and Minister for Solar Homes, the Honourable Lily D’Ambrosio. The Andrews Labor government is encouraging all Victorians to have their say on how a statewide container deposit scheme, CDS, would work best to improve our recycling system and reduce litter pollution in our environment. Victorians are being asked to provide feedback on the proposed model for the container deposit scheme, which will be rolled out by 2023 and will create hundreds of jobs across the state. The CDS is a cash-for-cans system where empty cans, small bottles and cartons can be dropped off at collection points for a refund. Under the proposed model there would be split responsibility for the operation and governance.
This design maximises the number of bottles collected at the lowest cost for scheme delivery as well as ensuring strong transparency and accountability. The CDS network would include a variety of collection points, such as automated reverse vending machines in public places, drive-through depots, over the counter in shops and pop-up collection points at events and festivals. A CDS is a significant opportunity for community groups, charities and sporting clubs to share the benefits and raise much-needed funds, including through operating refund collection points and fundraising opportunities. Businesses will also have opportunities to operate collection sites across the state, creating new jobs in transport and logistics and through support services like technology management, community education, auditing and reporting.
Drink cans and bottles make up almost half of all the litter in Victoria. A CDS would significantly reduce this litter and help ensure a clean stream of recyclable materials can be re-used in new products instead of going to landfill or polluting the environment and harming our wildlife. The introduction of a CDS is part of the government’s $300 million Recycling Victoria program introducing a new approach to reduce, re-use and recycle our state’s waste. The action I seek from the minister is to provide my office with an update on the opening and closing dates for the consultations so constituents in my area of Western Metropolitan Region can have their say.
East Melbourne crime
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (20:56): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and it concerns the drug use and antisocial behaviour in East Melbourne. The area of concern is between Powlett Reserve and Victoria Parade. A number of laneways have become a hotspot for drug activity, and the residents there are simply fed up. Michael of East Melbourne has written to me and my office. I quote:
With increasing frequency the front of my home is being used to inject heroin, deal drugs and more recently store drugs. As a consequence I am scared to come and go from my house. My neighbours with children are also scared.
He went on to say:
My local council installed cameras for a period of two weeks but claimed they did not identify anything. Despite using my property I was not informed of their removal nor was I given access to verify that claim. During the period of their operation multiple syringe packets were left on my property.
Michael went on to say:
This morning I reported to council that a bag had been dumped out the front of my property. My neighbour had looked inside and it was filled with drug related items. The council attended, pushed the bag onto my property to clear the road, put a high visible vest over the top and left. They later came back and said the bag was gone and the case ‘closed’.
The only advice he has received from council and the Department of Health and Human Services is for the community to call 000 if someone is using drugs or leaving used needles on their property. The call for action to the minister is: will the government instruct Victoria Police to better monitor these lanes that service homes and families to crack down on drug dealing and antisocial behaviour so my residents can feel safe in their homes and on their neighbourhood streets?
Animal shelters
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (20:58): My adjournment matter is for the Treasurer. The action I seek is for him to ensure that rescue groups are adequately funded with the expected increase of animal intakes as a result of our successfully passed motion on pound and shelter reform. Last sitting week my motion to end convenience killing in Victorian pounds and shelters passed in this chamber almost unanimously. In the debate the government committed to giving rescue groups the right to access death row animals, introducing mandatory kill reporting, introducing more desexing initiatives and considering a trap, neuter, return trial. This news was welcomed by rescue groups. It is a campaign they have worked long and hard to win. Victoria’s hardworking and dedicated rescue groups are mostly volunteer run, and they do their best to help as many animals as they possibly can, often with limited funds. I know that the incoming reform the government will now undertake will certainly increase rescue groups’ animal intakes, and it is important that they are supported as they save and care for more animals than ever before. That is why I am calling on the Treasurer to include funds of at least $1 million in the upcoming state budget for rescue groups to use to save pound and shelter animals as a result of this historic reform.
Country Fire Authority Northern Victoria Region stations
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (20:59): My adjournment manner is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and it concerns the need for direct funding towards several CFA stations throughout my electorate. The action that I seek is for the minister to provide a commitment that the upcoming 2020–21 state budget will include funding for infrastructure projects that refurbish or replace fire stations at Currawa, Yarrawonga, Strathbogie and Golden Square fire brigades.
Ever since I was elected to this place I have steadfastly advocated for the dedicated volunteers of the Country Fire Authority throughout my electorate of Northern Victoria Region who work so hard to protect our communities. Conversely, I have always fought to ensure that the infrastructure needs of the many CFA stations in my electorate are met by regular government funding so that our firefighters can work in contemporary and fit-for-purpose facilities. In 2020 I have highlighted the need for the Andrews Labor government to provide funding to refurbish or replace fire stations in many locations, including at the Golden Square, Currawa, Yarrawonga and Strathbogie brigades. On each occasion the minister’s response to my funding request has been underwhelming to say the least, and no work has been completed at any of these stations.
The Currawa fire brigade is located in the grounds of Dookie college and has seen an increase in female students from the college joining the brigade. The current station has no storage area, no meeting room and no change room facilities, and construction of a new station is required. The Yarrawonga fire station has become too small and currently does not comply with standard occupational health and safety requirements. Two CFA reviews have deemed that the station is not suitable for renovation and funding for a new station to be built on its existing location is needed.
The Strathbogie fire station is simply unfit for use and is so small that when both trucks are parked in the shed the volunteers cannot open storage cupboards to reach the equipment. Brigade members are forced to go to the toilet at the recreation reserve across the road, where a parcel of land has been secured to build a new fire station.
The Golden Square fire brigade is one of the oldest original brigades in Victoria, and the current station is unsuitable to house a modern-day firefighting service. The engine room is too small to house the station vehicles, large cracks are present in many of the building’s walls, and funding to purchase suitable land and construct a new fit-for-purpose fire station is required. The action that I seek is for the minister to provide a commitment that the upcoming 2020–21 state budget will include funding for infrastructure projects that refurbish or replace fire stations at the Currawa, Yarrawonga, Strathbogie and Golden Square fire brigades.
COVID-19
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (21:02): My adjournment matter is for the Attorney-General. The Liberal Democrats are keen defenders of human rights, including the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. That is why I went to both the Black Lives Matter protest here in Melbourne on 6 June and the human rights rally outside Parliament here on Cup Day. The contrast between the two protests could not have been more stark. The BLM rally involved thousands of people and was managed without violence and with no transmission of the virus. People were allowed to socially distance, move and speak freely. However, at the human rights rally last Tuesday we were not allowed to socially distance. The police linked arms and surrounded me and around 400 people and squashed us all together in a number of tight groups that could be described as mosh pits. This police tactic is called kettling. We were held in the kettle for a period of between 3½ and 4 hours. I witnessed women having panic attacks, people pepper sprayed for no apparent reason, a man who was praying arrested violently and a man who asked to go to the bathroom being grabbed by the head by police. I have since been contacted by more than half a dozen people who were not there to protest, including people who were just having coffee at Pellegrini’s. Since COVID has an incubation period of a few weeks we do not yet know if it was transmitted at the protest. Considering people were falsely imprisoned and held in a dangerous situation, I urge the Attorney-General to rescind the fines that were handed out at the protest outside state Parliament on 3 November.
Learner driver testing
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (21:03): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Honourable Ben Carroll, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in the other place, and it relates to a constituent of mine, Jacob Davison. Jacob was recently refused the right to sit his learner drivers test at the VicRoads office at Morwell. He was turned away because he was not wearing a mask. Jacob is a Latrobe Valley teenager with autism and a sensory disorder. Testament to his determination, he studied hard for his learner driver test, determined to start on his road to independence. While he made the appointment and he attended the VicRoads office with his mother, Kym, he was informed as he went to enter the office that there was a no-mask, no-test policy. He was also asked to step outside because of his lack of a mask. Jacob was carrying with him a letter of exemption from his treating psychologist, which outlined his diagnosis. This was not considered relevant by the particular VicRoads officer.
Jacob is a young man who has had a fair share of hurdles throughout his life, but through great support, as I said, from his mum, Kym, he finished school and is looking forward to starting work as a sign maker at Latrobe Valley Enterprises, another fantastic enterprise in Morwell. A learners permit would have been a really big step towards achieving this life goal and independence. Jacob’s mother and Jacob certainly left feeling upset, and no refund occurred on the day.
The Department of Health and Human Services website clearly states that a face mask is not required in some circumstances, including when a person is affected with a relevant medical condition, and it goes on. Furthermore, it also says that:
You do not need a medical certificate stating that you have a lawful reason for not wearing a face mask. If you have a lawful reason for not wearing a face mask, you do not need to apply for an exemption or permit.
Now, disability inclusion is much more than just encouraging people and saying, ‘Well done’. It is about providing people with disabilities with the meaningful opportunities to reach their own potential. Inclusion needs to look at increasing social participation and personal development, acceptance and understanding. By denying Jacob the right to sit for his drivers licence on this day unfortunately VicRoads and therefore the Andrews government through this mask situation have denied him his right to participate in society. So on behalf of Jacob and his mother, Kym, the action I seek from the minister is that VicRoads issue a directive so that no individual, regardless of ability, will be in this same position again—and that is a request from Jacob’s mum—and also that Jacob will be allowed to sit his learner driver test without wearing his mask.
COVID-19
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (21:06): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and the action I seek is for the government to immediately rescind the COVID fines for people under the age of 18. We have implemented one of the strictest policing responses to COVID in the world, but unfortunately our policing is often plagued by a lack of transparency, racial bias is not monitored and our fines review system is onerous and difficult to navigate even for lawyers. Many people cannot afford to pay the amounts that we ask, especially children. The calls for this come from an important paper by the Federation of Community Legal Centres. Their paper, Fairer Fines Outcomes for Vulnerable Victorians During COVID-19 and the Recovery Phase, gives the example of Sam. Sam, a 16-year-old refugee, experiences mental health issues and sees a trauma counsellor. Sam went for a walk with a friend and was approached by a third party, who started chatting to him. They were socially distancing. The police arrived and Sam tried to explain that he did not know this person, but the language barrier meant this was not clear to the police. They did not give Sam a warning or a direction to move on and instead took his details and sent him an infringement notice in the mail for failing to comply with the COVID-19 directions.
Less than 1000 people of the 19 000 who have been issued fines have paid them. I think it is obvious these fines are an inadequate justice instrument. We gain nothing from giving fines to children. Many children will graduate at 18 and will go straight into the justice system thanks to COVID. We cannot let that happen. So the action I seek is for the government to rescind all COVID-related fines for people under the age of 18.
China trade
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (21:09): My adjournment matter is for the Premier. On 22 October last year the Premier told members of the Chinese Communist Party:
You will find the Victorian market accessible, and my government will welcome your participation and do what it can to facilitate success.
Last week the CCP’s propaganda mouthpiece, the Global Times, confirmed that the dictatorship was planning to implement significant tariffs and import suspensions on a series of Australian products: wine, lobster, copper, coal, barley and timber. Exports of agricultural products underpin the economic vitality of rural and regional communities in Victoria and especially western Victoria. Every year country Victoria exports approximately $167 million worth of wine, $1 million worth of lobster and millions of dollars worth of barley and timber to China. China’s protectionist measures will shatter already fragile rural communities in Victoria. It is repugnant that a Victorian Premier boasts of our state’s markets being open and accessible to Chinese businesses while they close their markets to our prime agricultural products. The Premier said that his nefarious Belt and Road deal with communist China was all about jobs. Well, what about jobs outside the tram tracks that depend on our agricultural exports? The Premier has no regard for jobs, for country Victoria or for our national security. The cost of this relationship will only increase Chinese political influence and punish Victorian farmers. In June the Premier said:
… if you want a good trading relationship, if you want to send more Victorian-made product to China, to create jobs here in Victoria, then a good relationship on the things you can agree on is very, very important.
Well, clearly less Victorian-made product will be sent to China now, not more. This deal is a complete failure by his own standards, unless perhaps he thinks we all ought to cosy up to the communist dictatorship more. Results so far indicate a very one-sided relationship. China is punishing our farmers and our rural communities, and Labor thinks it is appropriate to be a party to a deal that expands China’s influence in our country. The action I seek from the Premier is to tear up the memorandum of understanding on the Belt and Road Initiative with China in light of the appalling trade restrictions they intend to inflict and are inflicting upon Victorian farmers.
Learner driver training
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (21:12): My adjournment today is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, the Honourable Ben Carroll. It relates to new online training programs that can better prepare our young people to drive competently and safely on our roads. There are currently over 120 000 young people on the waitlist to get their learners and provisional licences. Unfortunately COVID-19 has created significant delays and many of these young people will be unable to get their licences until March 2021 and beyond. On top of this, many young people who already had their learners have been unable to practise as restrictions on movement meant it was more difficult to get more hours on the road. Without accessible educational resources these young people will be unable to start learning to drive for some time.
I believe this is an opportunity to improve the way we teach our kids how to drive and to provide some much-needed support towards the end of a tough year. I have heard of virtual simulation training, such as myDRIVESCHOOL, that could provide students with valuable practice and create a junction for the missed opportunities many have experienced. A program such as this can help appease parents and kids who have been so patient in waiting for the opportunity to get some real driving experience. Simulation training can help in understanding in-cabin controls, intersections and basic driving skills. This leads to less anxiety for all the kids and their parents before they actually get in the car.
I believe learning to drive is based on experience; reading a book does not sufficiently prepare our learners for getting into the driving seat. If they cannot get this experience now, we need to come up with solutions that can effectively bridge the gap between theory and practical driving. When it comes to addressing the lack of driving experience afforded to these young people, the stakes are high. Serious injuries and fatalities in our 18-to-25 age group are disproportionately over-represented, and this is as we focus on moving towards a zero road toll. We often focus on improving our road safety through cars, legislation, infrastructure and medical intervention. However, we have not adequately addressed the way we teach people to drive. The younger they start training, the better it will be. These virtual simulations are effective, cost and time efficient and, most importantly, safe. Therefore the action I am asking the minister to take is to meet with the team from myDRIVESCHOOL so he can see the benefits firsthand.
COVID-19
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (21:14): My adjournment matter this evening is for the attention of Minister Pakula in his capacity as Minister for Business Precincts. It relates to the very serious issue that we have been dealing with all year, and that is COVID, but I am more interested in businesses, the retail sector and a whole range of services that should be, and could be, having QR codes on their premises so that they can fully assist Victorians to go about their business and have everybody protected by having details recorded in a way where technology can be used rather than just pen and paper and having the responsibility for businesses to—
Mr Rich-Phillips: And fax machine.
Ms CROZIER: And fax machine, as Mr Rich-Phillips interjects. Exactly. Because it has been pen, paper and fax machine, Mr Rich-Phillips, that this government has relied on for contact tracing. It has been absolutely woeful—catastrophic, as we know—and that has led to the widespread community transmission and decimation of just so much and the tragic outcomes with the loss of lives.
But I will go back to this matter in relation to how important it is to have the use of technology, like has been done in other states—in New South Wales—where there is an openness and willingness by the community to do that. Now, we have got a QR code in the Parliament. You come in, you scan it, you put your details in and sign off—away you go. I went out to dinner this evening—the same thing—and sat down. It is so easy, and the businesses are very, very happy to assist all of us. They want their workers back. They want to protect the community. They want everybody protected.
I think it is just absolutely appalling that the government has failed in this matter. It is now mid-November and businesses are crying out for that assistance. As one business said to me, ‘The government needs to accept that they’ve done a poor job preparing the small businesses with QR codes and tracing hotlines’. Now, it is absolutely a fact that that is the case. So the action I seek is for the minister to absolutely make this a priority—to get those QR codes out to businesses and to provide the support. What support is the government providing? What is the minister providing for these businesses to have those QR codes right across the state?
Local government elections
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (21:17): My adjournment tonight is for the Minister for Government Services in his capacity as having responsibility for the Victorian Electoral Commission. In particular I raise the administration of the 2020 council elections and the failure of the VEC to publish any preliminary or progressive results over the course of the last two weeks. As recently as this morning, some 18 days after the close of the polls—I think it has been corrected now—there were some councils where no results of any form had been published by the VEC, and this is to the great frustration of many members of the Victorian community. I understand information was made available to candidates and their scrutineers, and even to council officers in the respective municipalities, but the VEC in its wisdom decided not to provide any information publicly.
Now, this is simply not acceptable. The elections do not belong to the VEC, they do not belong to the candidates and they certainly do not belong to the council staff. The elections are held in the interest of the Victorian community, and the information as to the outcome of those elections should be disseminated to the Victorian community. Democracy and electoral integrity are served by transparency. They are not served by secrecy. We have seen very recently, in another jurisdiction across an ocean, the corrosive effect on confidence of withholding information, of not having transparency around scrutineering et cetera in an election. So it is incredibly important for community confidence in an election result that details are disseminated as to vote counts as quickly as possible.
A number of comments and concerns have been raised on the VEC’s Facebook page over the last two weeks about the failure of the VEC to provide progressive totals on those counts, and those comments have been rebuffed by the VEC. Now, it is 2020 not 1920, and it is not unreasonable to expect that progressive election data is published on the VEC website. There would be an outcry if we saw the same practice in the case of a state election or in the case of the AEC and a commonwealth election—if no election results were released for more than two weeks after the election was held. So it is ridiculous that we have not been able to get even preliminary results published on the VEC website for the Victorian public to have access to.
So the request I make of the Minister for Government Services is that he take whatever action is necessary—and he cannot direct the VEC under the legislation, but he can change the legislation and he can change regulations—to ensure that in future when public elections are held, be they state, local government, whatever, information is disseminated on the VEC website progressively and in real time, as we have come to expect with state and national elections.
COVID-19
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (21:20): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in the other place, and the action that I seek is for the minister to explain why the health of my constituent from Williamstown and others from my community were put at risk of infection with COVID-19 by police while peacefully protesting on 3 November.
A member of my community explained that she was forced into a crowd of people, detained for several hours and then charged with breaching the chief health officer’s orders. I can confirm my constituent was moving about within the 25-kilometre limit, wearing a mask and physically distancing. She informed me that she had planned to stay only for a very short time to show support and to maintain appropriate distancing at all times and that she was walking peacefully in solidarity.
As she was leaving to get home to her family, she found herself squashed into a throng of people by police—a quite frightening experience. My constituent was then denied the ability to physically distance, denied communication with police as to what was happening and also denied the use of toilet facilities. She was handled by police wearing gloves, but they did not change these in between handling other members of the public also peacefully protesting. It was a hot day, and those who were thirsty were offered water literally scooped from a bucket with a communal cup. In that same crowd families with children, elderly people, people with disabilities and people with medical conditions were detained for about 4 hours. No explanation was given, and their distress was not acknowledged appropriately.
I am deeply concerned that we think it is acceptable to treat people like this in Victoria. It was not as if the protest was a surprise to police, nor were the conditions in which it was undertaken. The police response could have been better coordinated. Surely with the peaceful nature of the protest, as described by my constituent, there was no need to squash people together. There could have been bottles of water available and better coordination of the processing of people if this was indeed necessary. We are in a global pandemic, and the police should understand this, do the appropriate distancing and adhere to a COVID-safe plan.
Responses
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (21:23): There were 13 matters for ministers that were not me. I have got four responses to adjournment matters.
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (21:23): President, as you are aware, ministers are given 30 days to respond to adjournment matters. I draw your attention to a matter I raised for the Attorney-General on 18 June this year, which is almost five months ago now, and to which I am yet to receive a response. I would like to know if indeed I am going to get one, and if so, when?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (21:24): I will endeavour to personally ask where that is up to, Mr Finn, and report to you tomorrow.
The PRESIDENT: The house stands adjourned.
House adjourned 9.24 pm.
Written adjournment responses
Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers.
Tuesday, 10 November 2020
Mildura electorate projects
In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15 October 2020)
Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations):
Thank you for taking the time to raise with me the matter of potential infrastructure projects in the Mildura region.
The COVID‐19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for both regional and metropolitan areas of Victoria.
The Victorian Government has assisted many Victorian communities, businesses and employees throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic.
The Government is looking to get Victorians back to work, as well as kickstart local economies and provide the basis for a sustained and rewarding economic recovery.
We remain committed to supporting Victoria’s regional communities, including Mildura, to ensure they are the most liveable, visitable and economically successful in Australia.
Public transport
In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15 October 2020)
Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):
This matter does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities. You may wish to direct your question to the Minister for Public Transport, the Hon Ben Carroll MP.
John Fawkner College
In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):
The Andrews Labor Government has invested more than $7.2 billion over the past five years to build new schools and modernise existing educational facilities across the State. Our ongoing challenge, however, is to responsibly balance and prioritise the needs of over 1,530 government schools, all in varying condition.
The Department of Education and Training’s Rolling Facilities Evaluation (RFE) commenced in 2018. The RFE, which updates the findings of the Department’s 2012 condition audit, is delivering condition assessments to every government school on a rolling five-year cycle. Information collected through the RFE will inform state-wide school infrastructure planning and investment decisions.
I understand the college’s facilities were assessed under the RFE program in 2018. The college’s School Maintenance Plan (SMP), which was completed with the assistance of the Victorian School Building Authority (VSBA) and endorsed in October 2019, incorporates findings from the college’s RFE condition assessment. As you are aware, SMPs enable schools to prioritise and address maintenance issues and to build a routine maintenance program to prevent their recurrence.
When school upgrade projects are funded in the State Budget, the VSBA works with schools to undertake an Asset Management Plan Phase 1 and 2, with the second phase resulting in a masterplan for the school.
I am aware that the college has capital requirements. I can assure you that the needs of all schools, including John Fawkner Secondary College, will continue to receive fair and equitable consideration when determining priorities for our capital works program. We will continue to use all available data, including condition assessments, when allocating funding in future State Budgets.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Murray Basin rail project
In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (30 October 2020)
Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):
The Murray Basin Rail Project (MBRP) is a vital project for Victoria’s farmers and the freight industry and is already delivering better, more efficient freight services.
The Victorian Government has recently released details of the business case review.
The Victorian Government was disappointed to see the MBRP was the only project on Victoria’s infrastructure wish list not funded in the recent Federal Budget. The Commonwealth has had the revised business case since May, and Victoria has been working closely with them to determine the next steps for the project.
The revised business case noted that our freight and passenger rail networks have evolved significantly since the original business case was first developed in 2012.
The review proposes a package of works which requires an additional $244 million toward the project, taking the overall investment in the MBRP to $814 million. The Victorian Government has committed $48.8 million in further funding towards the project and is seeking $195.2 million from the Commonwealth.
After significant industry consultation, the package of shovel ready works will benefit freight operators by enhancing the network, reducing journey times, enabling more freight paths and delivering a more efficient freight task. It will support around 500 local jobs in construction across the project.