Thursday, 19 October 2023

Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (10:07): I appreciate the call on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. This is a very sad bill. It is a sad bill because what it is is the efforts of this Labor government to sweep under the carpet once and for all the disgrace, the stain on Victoria’s legal system that was the scandal of Lawyer X.

For those of you playing along at home or playing catch-up, Lawyer X was the decision by Victoria Police and senior members of Victoria Police to use as a human source a criminal barrister – to use a criminal barrister Nicola Gobbo to inform against her own clients in order to secure convictions. This was an appalling decision. It demonstrated an appalling lack of judgement and fundamentally it betrayed the very principles on which our system of criminal justice is based. Any person in this state should be able to go to a lawyer to seek legal assistance in relation to a charge, and they need to know that the lawyer is on their side, not on the side of the prosecution. It really is as simple as that. When you go to your lawyer, your lawyer has got to be on your side, not on the side of the Crown. The actions of Victoria Police and the actions of Nicola Gobbo absolutely betrayed the interests of those clients and absolutely betrayed the principles of our legal system.

This is something that Victoria Police fought tooth and nail to stop ever coming to light. It only did because there was an IBAC investigation that was conducted by former senior lawyer and former Supreme Court judge Murray Kellam, who reviewed Victoria Police’s human source management. This occurred in July 2014 under the former coalition government, I note. The report was concluded in February 2015. It found that there was a high degree of negligence by Victoria Police in its management of human sources, particularly its use of Nicola Gobbo as a human source.

Full disclosure: I knew Nicola Gobbo at university, where we were both involved in student politics. Nicola Gobbo was a member of the Labor club, a very active member of the Labor club. She was a very strong Labor club member and she stood for the Labor club on many occasions and got elected as student newspaper editor and to a few other things. I was on the other side. I do know Nicola Gobbo from those days, but I have to say it has been quite a few years since I have crossed paths with her. I do not hold any personal animosity towards her, but I think her actions as a barrister in betraying the interests of her clients were absolutely appalling, and they have resulted in her being struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors of this state.

Having conducted this review of Victoria Police’s use of human sources and particularly Nicola Gobbo, IBAC advised the DPP about this, and the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time formed the view that, because of what had been uncovered and released to them, Victoria Police should let some of these people who had been convicted on the secret evidence of their barrister know about it. Victoria Police fought this tooth and nail. There was some excellent journalism that occurred to try and uncover what had gone on, and I acknowledge Anthony Dowsley and Patrick Carlyon from the Herald Sun. They worked on this for years, and they were blocked at every turn. Victoria Police spent millions and millions of dollars seeking suppression orders, but ultimately it wound up in the High Court of Australia, the highest court we have in our nation.

The case was known as AB v. CD; EF v. CD because they were all using pseudonyms at the time. It was handed down on 5 November 2018, and it was a unanimous judgement. All seven justices of the High Court of Australia came to the same view. In this case the pseudonym EF was used for Nicola Gobbo. I will read a particular passage and any reference to EF should be understood as a reference to Gobbo:

EF’s actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF’s obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF’s duties to the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system.

I do not think I have read a more damning indictment issued by the highest court in this country than that of the behaviour of Victoria Police and of an individual lawyer. At this point Nicola Gobbo’s identity became public knowledge. The actions of Victoria Police became public knowledge, and this led to a chain reaction of people who had been convicted having their convictions quashed, having their convictions overturned. Apart from being unethical, irresponsible, reckless and stupid, Victoria Police’s actions did not even achieve the intended results because people have now walked free from jail because they were convicted on that tainted evidence provided by Nicola Gobbo.

One of these cases was where a person who had been convicted on the basis of Gobbo’s evidence was appealing. This is a statement of the Court of Appeal of Victoria in the case of Faruk Orman v. The Queen dated 26 July 2019. The court was constituted by President Maxwell and Justices Niall and Emerton. Paragraph 11 says:

The Director –

meaning the Director of Public Prosecutions –

concedes that Ms Gobbo, while acting for Mr Orman, pursued the presentation of the principal evidence against him on the charge of murder. Self-evidently, that conduct was a fundamental breach of her duties to Mr Orman and to the Court …

The court goes on. Paragraph 12:

On the facts as conceded, Ms Gobbo’s conduct subverted Mr Orman’s right to a fair trial, and went to the very foundations of the system of criminal trial. There was, accordingly, a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appeal must therefore be allowed.

Faruk Orman walked free, but we know that Tony Mokbel, a convicted drug trafficker, Mr Big of the drug world, is seeking to use what Victoria Police and Nicola Gobbo did together to try and get out of jail now. So how many more serious crooks – dangerous people – will wind up being released back into the Victorian community because of the disgrace of the Lawyer X scandal? That is why the government’s attempt to sweep all this under the carpet with this bill we are debating today simply will not wash. It will not wash, because we know this has got a long way to play out, and the consequences of this, not just for the legal system but for Victorians, are still to be accounted for.

Following the outrageous conduct and its publication, the government had no choice but to announce a royal commission, and it did so. It made a misstep at the start and appointed as one of the royal commissioners former South Australian police commissioner Malcolm Hyde. Mr Hyde later had to withdraw from the royal commission when it became clear that he had been at Victoria Police during a period in which Gobbo had been working as a paid informer. So the commission continued with former Queensland Court of Appeal president Margaret McMurdo AC, and those recommendations were handed down on 30 November 2020. Amongst those recommendations was recommendation 92, and it provides:

That the Victorian government, within 12 months, develops legislation to establish a Special Investigator with the necessary powers and resources to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the commission of a criminal offence or offences (connected with Victoria Police’s use of Ms Nicola Gobbo as a human source) by Ms Gobbo or current and former police officers named in the Commission’s final report or in the complete and unredacted submissions of Counsel Assisting.

The royal commission recommended the Special Investigator be appointed, because clearly the royal commissioner understood that what had been uncovered to her in the evidence produced was clearly something which raised a big red flag that crimes had been committed. Now, the Parliament passed the Special Investigator Act in October 2021 and the government appointed as the Special Investigator former justice of the High Court of Australia the Honourable Geoffrey Nettle AC KC. Justice Nettle is one of the most eminent legal figures this country has ever produced. His integrity is beyond reproach. His intellect is beyond reproach. His independence is beyond reproach. He was an excellent choice as Special Investigator. As we will soon see, the government was not best pleased with the fact that he brought that independence to his role.

Having been established in 2021, the Special Investigator and the Office of the Special Investigator undertook their work to establish evidence as to whether crimes had been committed by Victoria Police, by Nicola Gobbo or by others in relation to the whole Lawyer X scandal. The OSI was given a very significant budget; tens of millions of dollars was provided to the OSI to help it do its work. It had very significant powers. Remember, the reason for this is because it is the greatest legal scandal in this state’s history, and the idea that nobody had committed any offence was something that the royal commissioner found very hard to believe, which is why she specifically recommended a Special Investigator be set up to obtain evidence of crimes. Just to give you one example, one brief of evidence that was collected and assembled by the Office of the Special Investigator consisted of more than 5000 pages of admissible documentary evidence, many hours of audio recordings and multiple witness statements.

The OSI – Special Investigator Justice Nettle and his team – worked tirelessly. They worked thoroughly, they worked carefully and they assembled thousands and thousands of pages of admissible evidence, all pointing to crimes having been committed. That was their job. Interestingly, the way the government set the OSI up did not provide for the OSI to have the power to bring charges directly. It is interesting because other organisations can bring charges without going through the Director of Public Prosecutions. Local councils can bring charges directly. WorkSafe can bring charges directly. Many organisations can bring charges directly without having to go through the Director of Public Prosecutions. But in this case the Labor government decided, ‘Oh, no, we’re not going to let the OSI make those decisions itself; we’re going to hand that off to the Director of Public Prosecutions.’ The trouble is – and this is one of the great failings of this government, and this is why I say the opposition opposes this bill – the DPP and the Office of Public Prosecutions had an inherent conflict of public interest. The OPP and the DPP work with Victoria Police every day on a whole range of criminal matters. There is a very close relationship between the OPP and Victoria Police in relation to their daily work. And with great respect to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and to Ms Kerri Judd KC, who is the current DPP, it was not appropriate that a Victorian DPP who worked so closely with Victoria Police should be the person making the call on whether charges should be brought against Victoria Police in relation to the Lawyer X scandal.

In other matters prosecutors have been brought in from other states to make those sorts of decisions independently. In relation to the Victorian Ombudsman’s current inquiry into the politicisation of the Victorian public service by this government, the Ombudsman decided not to undertake that work herself because there would be a perception of conflict of interest. She brought in a senior person from another state who would not have that same perception of conflict of interest. Honourable members would understand that whether or not there was an actual conflict of interest is one thing – and I do not go to whether there was an actual conflict of interest – but a perception of a conflict of interest is just as bad. When you have a Victorian DPP and Office of Public Prosecutions who work day in and day out with Victoria Police in assembling evidence to make decisions over prosecutions in a range of matters that go through the County Court and the Supreme Court, there is an obvious perception of a conflict of interest, and the government should have dealt with that.

The government should have dealt with that by providing the Office of the Special Investigator with the powers to bring charges directly. If for some reason the government did not wish to do that, then the DPP should have brought in a prosecutor from another state, who would not suffer from that perception of a conflict of interest, to make that call, but that is not what happened. The Victorian DPP, who works day in, day out, and her office, which works day in, day out, hand in glove with Victoria Police, made the decision not to bring any charges despite thousands and thousands of pages and years and years of investigative work and despite an admission by Nicola Gobbo that she was ready to plead guilty. The DPP said, ‘Let’s not bring any charges.’ It looks like a cover-up. It looks like one.

Again, I cast no personal aspersions on the DPP, but the government has allowed this situation to occur because the government did not provide the Special Investigator with the powers to bring charges directly and the government did not require that a person from interstate, with clean hands, with no perception of a conflict of interest, was brought in to make those decisions. The government is responsible for this. I read in the Australian newspaper this morning that people are concerned about attacks on or criticism made of the DPP. Well, the government engineered the situation in which the DPP was placed in that position, and they should never have done it.

The OSI, as members would know, tabled a special report to Parliament this year, and in that special report Justice Nettle explained that he was being blocked at every turn in his efforts to see charges brought, to see people brought to justice who were responsible for the Lawyer X scandal. I will quote directly from his report. In paragraph 32, he says:

… the Director added that she took the opportunity also to make “observations about the passage of time and the impact it has on the decisions ahead for our respective offices in relation to any further briefs of evidence”, leading the Director to conclude that: “As it stands, the passage of time will undoubtedly have a significant bearing on the prospects of conviction …[which] is also a matter I would have to take into account in determining whether it is the public interest to proceed with a prosecution …

Does the DPP seriously believe that because perverting the course of justice happened a few years ago it is no harm, no foul – that there should be no accountability, that people who engaged in what the highest court of Australia unanimously found to be reprehensible conduct should be able to walk free? That appears to be the view of the DPP: the passage of time mitigates against bringing charges. Well, I thought for serious criminal matters our criminal law provides that there is no statute of limitations. If you committed murder 30 years ago and the evidence is there to charge you, you get charged. You do not get to walk away on the basis that you concealed your crime for a few years and people only just cottoned on to it. You can sense the absolute frustration of Justice Nettle in this report. In paragraph 42 he says:

Since it now appears to me that the Director will not grant OSI permission to file any charge of relevant offence, I consider it to be pointless for OSI to continue. In my view, the appropriate course is for OSI to be wound up.

What a disgrace. What an absolute disgrace. What a stain on Victoria’s justice system that after High Court challenges, royal commissions, the establishment of an Office of the Special Investigator, years of work, thousands of pages of evidence and tens of millions of dollars of public money, the government’s answer is ‘Nobody did anything wrong. Let’s walk away’. But we know from red shirts that that is this government’s favourite type of scandal – a scandal where you get exposed, somebody says sorry, but no-one ever gets charged. That is this government’s favourite type of scandal: ‘Oops, we got caught. But that’s it; that’s where it ends’. No wonder the government is pushing this through, but it is wrong. This bill is wrong. The entire attitude of this government towards this scandal is wrong and disgraceful. That is why I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government puts in place measures to ensure that those responsible for the Lawyer X scandal are held to account’.

There should be no use-by date on corruption. There should be no use-by date on conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The government seems to think there should be and so does the DPP, according to the Special Investigator. It is not simply the opposition who is calling this out. Some of the most senior lawyers in the country have expressed similar views. Former justice the Honourable Stephen Charles, a former judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria and a former judge of Victoria’s Court of Appeal, is quoted in the Age as saying he was ‘appalled’ that Judd, being the DPP, had rejected Nettle’s recommendations to begin prosecutions against police.

“One of the main purposes of our criminal law is to deter crime. Over more than a decade, our police engaged in serious criminal behaviour which the High Court unanimously said should never be repeated,” Charles said. “The failure to start the prosecutions recommended by Justice Nettle is an open invitation to the police to repeat their appalling misbehaviour.”

This from former Justice Stephen Charles of the Court of Appeal. On that point, let us not forget that in this term of Parliament the government put through the Human Source Management Act 2023, which precisely allows for the Lawyer X scandal to happen again. Rather than passing a law that says that under no circumstances should a criminal lawyer be used to inform against their client, because the High Court has already said you cannot do it, the government said, ‘Let’s try and find a way to make it legal. Yes, there’s a few hurdles, there’s a few boxes you’ve got to tick, but let’s allow that to occur again’. The government cannot argue otherwise, because we moved amendments that would have explicitly prevented a lawyer being used as a human source against their own client, and this government rejected them. The Honourable Stephen Charles’s concerns are absolutely right, because this government has legislatively laid a path to have a Lawyer X situation happen again.

Gavin Silbert KC, a former chief Crown prosecutor, in the same article said the jury should be backed to determine if Gobbo’s evidence was credible. Silbert said:

Gobbo offered to plead guilty and give evidence now. What more do you need than that?

What more indeed? This DPP will not even take a guilty plea at its worth. Well, there will be a lot of champagne corks being popped down at Victoria Police headquarters and amongst the criminal fraternity of this state if this bill passes. This government wants to sweep it all under the carpet and pretend that nothing happened. But this is not going to go away. Tony Mokbel and people of his ilk are still going to try and use the Lawyer X scandal as a get-out-of-jail-free card. If those people wind up walking the streets, this government can look to itself as to why that has happened. This government was in place when the Lawyer X scandal occurred, and this Labor government is in place when it is trying to cover it all up. Of course the government cannot even leave it at that; this government has to try and pursue its critics. The former Premier, the former member for Mulgrave, decided to come out and attack the esteemed Geoffrey Nettle, the former High Court judge who was the Special Investigator:

“Investigators don’t make good prosecutors,” Andrews said. “There needs to be a separation. If you have investigated the matter, you are altogether too close to it to be making decisions about whether a conviction is likely.”

I had not realised that Mr Monash Arts Degree was all of a sudden a legal expert on the separation of powers. My goodness! To think of somebody like Daniel Andrews lecturing somebody of the ilk of Geoffrey Nettle is just unbelievable.

Gary Maas: He was Premier of the state – something you never were – Premier of the state. What are you talking about?

Michael O’BRIEN: Mate, if you were any further on the backbench you would be in the car park, so you just be quiet.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Malvern. Order, member for Narre Warren South.

Michael O’BRIEN: I do not think I have ever seen such a vociferous response to an outrageous attack by a Premier on an esteemed former judge. There was an open letter that was signed by I think over 30 senior Victorian barristers, who were absolutely appalled. Their statement says, in part:

… these statements published in The Age ought never to have been made in respect of such a distinguished and well-respected jurist as Mr Nettle. They ought to be retracted and a public apology published …

Also:

… they are misguided, wrong and inappropriate …

‘Misguided, wrong and inappropriate’ – that pretty much sums up this government’s approach to the entire Lawyer X scandal. This government really believes that after a High Court case, a royal commission, setting up an OSI, years of investigation and thousands of pages of documented evidence, audiotapes and videotapes, the answer is it all goes away, nothing is supposed to happen – nothing to see here, no-one held accountable. It is a massive slap in the face to Victorians who believe that we have a justice system that works. It is a massive slap in the face to Victorians who believe that they are all equal before the law. There is no equality before the law here. If you are mates with Labor, if the government wants to keep you on side, they are not going to push too hard. Why wasn’t the OSI given powers to directly bring charges? Why didn’t the government insist that a Director of Public Prosecutions from another state who did not have a perceived conflict of interest in relation to the Lawyer X scandal be brought in to make the decisions?

The answer is this government has got what it wanted: a nothingburger. This government has got exactly what it wanted: nobody called out who could make life difficult for the government. That is what this is all about. It is a protection racket, and this government is disgraced by it. This is the greatest legal scandal in this state’s history, and the government’s response is nobody is accountable and no-one pays the price except for Victorians. Victorian taxpayers pay a price. Victorians who want to go to see their lawyer and want to be sure that they are not going to be informing on them to police pay a price, because they cannot even be sure of that. Victorians who may wind up living next to a Tony Mokbel or somebody else who gets their conviction quashed because of this Lawyer X scandal will pay a price, but the government does not.

This is a government that has been here for too long. It is all about deals. It is all about looking after its mates. There is no principle left, and that is why this bill is terrible. This bill should be opposed. The opposition does oppose it. The Herald Sun editorial of 12 July sums it up:

If Justice Nettle – who was lauded by the government for his legal experience – was convinced charges should be laid then he should be given power to lay them.

In the end, public confidence in the justice system is at stake.

Public confidence in the justice system in this state is at stake, and with this bill this Labor government has comprehensively failed that test.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (10:37): Today I rise to contribute to the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. We have just heard a contribution from the member for Malvern. I can assure him that this is not a protection racket, but he can use that sort of language and try to create this hysteria, as the Liberal opposition does with most things in this state. This is about the Office of the Special Investigator’s (OSI) job being done. That is what this bill is about. Their job has been done, and it is about winding up that office.

As I am the first speaker for the government side in the debate, I want to thank the Attorney-General’s team and the Attorney-General herself for the thorough work that they have done on this legislation. It is the result of the complete implementation of every one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, and I want to acknowledge that. In the member for Malvern’s contribution he was unfortunately slurring our current Victoria Police members and our legal and judicial members, and I think that is really unfortunate because our VicPol members do a wonderful job. I will come to it later in my electorate, but they do a fantastic job, and most of the legal and judicial members do a wonderful job. That does not mean to say that all industries do not have some people that obviously do not perform to the best, and that includes in this chamber and in this Parliament. I extend my thanks to our VicPol members and those that work in the legal and judicial system for the great work that they do and in particular our VicPol members for keeping us safe in this state.

In 2021 the Victorian government stood up the establishment of the Office of the Special Investigator as an independent statutory office. Its core purpose was to investigate potential criminal conduct and breaches of discipline related to the Victoria Police’s use of Nicola Gobbo as a human source. It came with a substantial financial commitment of over $25 million to fund it and its investigations. This legislation before us today is designed to further ensure the future of the justice system and the accountability we expect of them, increasing transparency and the responsible use of public resources within our legislation.

Earlier this year our government made the significant decision based on careful evaluation and expert advice to wind down the OSI. We are doing this because, as I said earlier, its job is done. Its purpose is fulfilled; it is no longer required. We are grateful to Geoffrey Nettle AC KC and the Special Report to Parliament presented to the public earlier this year, in June, which outlined that after thorough investigation he expressed his views that given the Director of Public Prosecutions decision not to file criminal charges in relation to the cases presented the investigations into criminal actions and disciplinary investigations should cease and the Office of the Special Investigator should be wound down along with any disciplinary investigations. That is what Geoffrey Nettle had said. Of course with disciplinary actions against people you cannot take disciplinary action against individuals. In particular in relation to the suggestion of taking disciplinary action against Victoria Police members if they no longer work for VicPol or any other respective agency, the thought of taking at least some disciplinary action is impossible when they no longer work there or when most of them have either retired or resigned.

This bill is grounded in legal protocols and ethical considerations and, as I have mentioned, the complete implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations. It has been shown that every recommendation of the royal commission has been made real, every recommendation has been borne out and the changes have been done. One of the things that the royal commission specifically rejected was the idea that the OSI should have prosecutorial powers. I know that the member for Malvern was saying that he thought that the OSI should have such power. Again, we reinforce the question of whether an investigator should prosecute the charges, and we would say no.

The independent prosecutor has had the benefit of reviewing all of the evidence and all of the issues and cannot prosecute with the likelihood of any conviction. Failing to get a conviction helps nobody. One of the most important skills that a prosecutor has is the ability to assess whether or not a prosecution could lead to a conviction, and in every one of these cases it was determined that this could not happen. Again, I think we have to show respect to the DPP in regard to their judgement on that. Of course the DPP clarified that while she did not rule out the prospect of authorising future prosecutions, she needed strong credible evidence to do so. So it is still left open in some of these issues that that could happen, depending on what potential briefs may come forward, and she would consider the merits of those briefs in regard to that.

The government’s decision to decommission the Office of the Special Investigator was a difficult but necessary one; it was a decision rooted in the principle of upholding the law, ensuring fairness and respect in due process. For those not familiar with the process of prosecution, once the investigator considers enough evidence has been gathered to substantiate a criminal charge, cases are presented to the DPP, and again the DPP make a decision on whether to proceed with those matters. They are all assessed with the determination that the prosecution should only proceed if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and if it serves the public interest, which is in line with Commonwealth prosecution requirements. Again, the DPP obviously found that those measures were not going to be met.

I would like to be clear about the briefs provided by the Office of the Special Investigator. The independent Director of Public Prosecutions, with complete oversight of all of the evidence, the entire picture, found no reasonable prospect of conviction, and that led them to decide not to file charges. This decision was made following careful examination by that independent body in accordance with well-established legal procedures. Again, we saw much reporting of this in the media, and it does not matter what the media report or what the public think at the time, they do not have all the evidence before them, whereas the DPP did have all the evidence. We have full confidence in the independence of the Department of Public Prosecutions, and of course the speculation that has been made around future DPP prosecutions is not appropriate, noting that it has not been ruled out.

The past two years have seen a large volume of records, some of which are quite sensitive, that have been created. This bill makes provision for enduring the safe carriage and preservation of them to the Department of Justice and Community Safety. All those records are required to be retained – and will be – and be initially received by DJCS, and those determined to be worthy of preservation will be delivered to the Public Record Office Victoria. Those records that do not fit the criteria of worthy will be appropriately disposed of according to the developed retention and disposal authority.

It was concluded that there was neither merit nor public interest in the OSI continuing its investigations without substantial grounds to establish relevant offences, and recommendation 94 of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants explicitly recommended that the Director of Public Prosecutions be responsible for deciding whether to prosecute and for conduct of criminal proceedings arising from the Office of the Special Investigator’s investigations.

In the short time that I have left I want to come back to thanking again the great VicPol members, particularly in my area of Melton, for keeping us safe and for the great work that they do. I did visit them recently, and they are a fantastic group of people that we can rely upon. As I say, not everyone in industries meet the standards, but I can tell you out my way I am very happy with my local VicPol workforce. With the member for Kororoit I went out to Werribee last week to the Werribee police station. That is an amazing place, and amazing people work there.

This is an important bill. Obviously it will be debated heavily. I do not agree with the opposition’s position, but I do commend the bill to the house.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (10:47): I rise to make a contribution on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. Can I start off by reminding the member for Melton that this debate is not a reflection on the rank-and-file police – it is a reflection on some parts of police command from that particular time – and that we all hold our rank-and-file police in the highest regard in our communities, and the jobs that they do to keep our communities safe. But it is about making sure that everyone is accountable to the law.

If you go back in history, this effectively started with the police operations around what were called the gang wars of the late 1990s and early 2000s and effectively a culture that developed within some elements of the police force, particularly some of the higher command in the police force, of ‘We need to do whatever it takes to actually end this gang war’. Unfortunately ‘whatever it takes’ was not legal, and that is what the issues that come out through this are: there were means used that have been proven to be illegal, particularly surrounding Nicola Gobbo as a lawyer ratting on her clients. One of the greatest sins, I would say, of any lawyer is betraying the confidence of their client. Legal privilege is one of the major tenets of our law, and that trust between client and lawyer is very important in making sure there is justice done in our legal system. Once someone rats on that, that undermines the very tenet of what our legal system does. I think that is effectively what the High Court found when the High Court finally ruled that Gobbo’s name should no longer be suppressed. It found that Gobbo’s action in purporting to act as counsel for convicted persons while covertly informing against them was fundamentally an appalling breach of obligations as a counsel to her clients and to the duties of the court.

As I understand the law – although I am not a lawyer – the first obligation is to the court and the legal system, and then to the client, and both those tenets were broken by Gobbo in doing that, with the encouragement by some people in Victoria Police, because they were of the view that whatever it took, it had to be done to stop the gang wars that were happening at the time. Their Honours went on to say:

Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging –

Gobbo –

to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system.

That is what this is all about. The Special Investigator was to do investigations that came out of the royal commission, and as the Shadow Attorney-General said, there were views that there should have been charges laid against members that were involved in that particular process, but the DPP chose not to go forward with any charges there. That is why I would say to the member for Melton and other members on the other side: the job has not been done. No-one has been held to account. This is another example with the Andrews government where there are inquiries set up, there is a lot of talk and there are a lot of pages of reports actually produced but no-one is ever held to account for wrongdoing under the Andrews government regime, and I am firmly of the view that nothing will change with the new Premier.

We saw this with the hotel quarantine investigation. We had an inquiry and we had evidence. Watching it on the screen, even as a non-trained lawyer I felt with the prosecution by the counsel assisting there were always one or two more questions that I would have asked that might have got to the bottom of the hotel quarantine. But they always seemed to pull back at the threshold issue and did not ask the pertinent questions to get the answers that were needed around who was actually responsible under the whole debacle of hotel quarantine and who signed off on the $80-something million it cost. There was no-one held to account out of that.

This is just another example where there has been a long process followed and some very eminent people have been used who have made recommendations that have not been followed because this government does not want to hold their mates to account. Nepotism is corruption, and one day the lid will be lifted and the truth will come out that things have been covered up to protect Labor mates through this particular process. We have the issue of friends in high places who use that influence to make sure that people are not held to account. As the Shadow Attorney-General said, we believe the reasoned amendment that the Shadow Attorney-General has moved:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government puts in place measures to ensure that those responsible for the Lawyer X scandal are held to account’.

is the tenet of what we are talking about with this particular bill. We should not be getting rid of the office; we should actually be giving them powers. We should have different legislation coming into this place that gives that office the power to lay charges. It should not be left to the DPP to second-guess what they think should happen. We have had a pre-eminent lawyer do this investigation and make recommendations that there should be charges, there should be people held to account, but we are now saying ‘No, we’ll abandon it. We’ll put all the files away in the government records and everything will be hidden forever’.

This is why we need to make sure that this bill does not pass, that the office is not wound up and that the office is actually given improved powers, greater powers, to make sure that people are held to account, because unfortunately people are very cynical about the system here in Victoria now that no-one is held to account. No-one is held to account for the things they have done wrong, because if you are a Labor mate, you get covered up. There almost effectively needs to be a royal commission into the Andrews government –

Members interjecting.

Peter WALSH: No – and the nepotism, the cover-ups, all the issues that have happened –

Tim Richardson interjected.

Peter WALSH: I think you are out of your seat, mate, if you want to interject. But if you want to come back here and debate it, I am very, very happy to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, Leader of the Nationals.

Peter WALSH: You can just go through the list, and it all starts with the red shirts scandal – and scandal and scandal and scandal –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mordialloc is out of his seat.

Michael O’Brien: He’s trying to edge around to the right. He should go back to the left.

Peter WALSH: I think he is actually stranded in nowhere land, because neither the left nor the right want him. He seems to be a bit of a refugee. You have seen people who have been elevated in the pecking order above the member for Mordialloc, so perhaps he is a bit of a refugee that no-one really wants in their camp at all. He may laugh, but –

Tim Richardson interjected.

Peter WALSH: In all seriousness, this is a key issue before the house that goes to the fundamentals of our legal system, goes to the fundamentals of the separation of powers where the Parliament should be separate to the judiciary. I would suggest that there has been a merging of those issues with how this particular investigation has been carried out. There has been no result to this investigation. As I said to the member for Melton, the job is not done. People in Victoria are sick of cover-up. They are sick of investigations that never ever lead anywhere, and they are very cynical. They are very cynical of the fact that the Labor Party machine has infiltrated the public sector so far, infiltrated some parts of the judiciary and the police force so far, that no-one will ever be held to account for what happens if people break the law. What the Ombudsman is doing about the politicisation of the public sector is very critical work, because at the moment there is no frank and fair and independent advice being given. It is advice being given for what the Labor Party wants to suit Labor mates, to cover up for Labor mates so that no-one is held to account for the things that go wrong in this state.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (10:56): It gives me great pleasure this morning to rise and contribute on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. I would like to reflect on the Leader of the Nationals’ contribution for a small moment at the beginning of my contribution. It is always a journey with Walshy; you are just never quite sure what the destination is going to be. To go from the substantive part of this bill to then speak about red shirts, royal commissions into the Labor Party and all manner of other things – I sort of contemplated a point of order, but most of it was pretty funny so I thought we would just keep moving through.

In essence this bill represents the next incredibly important step in our ongoing commitment to ensure transparency, accountability and efficiency within our legal system. The Office of the Special Investigator, the OSI, was established by the Special Investigator Act 2021 back before my time in 2021 following the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, a royal commission that was born out of a situation that I think all of those on this side of the house agree was entirely inappropriate. It was formed to delve into matters relating to potential criminal conduct and disciplinary breaches, specifically conduct and breaches concerning the Lawyer X matter. Since its inception, OSI has operated with the objective of bringing clarity and resolution to the issues that it was tasked to investigate.

Upon the recent tabling of a special report by the former Special Investigator Geoffrey Nettle in June 2023, the conclusion was drawn that the OSI has in fact achieved its objectives. The report recommended the winding down of that office. In receipt of the report and those recommendations, that is exactly what this bill today aims to do. Recognising the comprehensive work done by the OSI, the Victorian government publicly acknowledged this recommendation and, as I said, has decided to decommission the OSI. Today’s bill therefore serves to implement the process of decommissioning and transitioning, ensuring all responsibilities, records and obligations previously under the OSI are seamlessly and securely transferred to the relevant state entities. Through this bill we also aim to preserve protections and safeguards that were established for the OSI records and its officers, making sure that the integrity of the information and the welfare of involved personnel are maintained. That is something that is critical as part of this legislation and something that this government takes very, very seriously.

As I said, the nuts and bolts of the real purpose of this bill are to decommission the Office of the Special Investigator; wind up the OSI and its statutory role; transfer assets, liabilities, rights and obligations to state; preserve protections for OSI records and officers, which as I said is an incredibly important part of this bill and something that this government takes very, very seriously; continue oversight for residual complaints; and repeal amendments made to other acts by the Special Investigator Act 2021.

In the short time that the Office of the Special Investigator existed it was able to carry out the work and achieve exactly what it was there for. The OSI completed its work per the commission’s recommendations. As I said earlier in this contribution, born out of the Lawyer X situation there was the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants in this state. It was absolutely appropriate to have that, and it was absolutely appropriate to pick up the recommendations of that commission. The OSI, in the short time that it has been in existence, has been able to complete that work quite thoroughly. All RCMPI recommendations related to the OSI have been fulfilled, and the royal commission implementation monitor supports the OSI’s decommissioning. So this bill implements the government decision and commitment to decommission the OSI, as I said. We announced relatively recently – it was a public announcement – that the OSI would be decommissioned on 27 June 2023 following the tabling of a special report in Parliament by the former Special Investigator Geoffrey Nettle, as I mentioned earlier. That report recommended that we decommission the OSI, and we were comfortable to do so because it had achieved its objectives, which were born out of recommendations of the royal commission to investigate potential criminal conduct and disciplinary breaches in relation to the Lawyer X matter. Where the OSI determined that relevant offences may have been committed, its role was to compile briefs of evidence to be filed alongside recommended charges for determination by the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions. And as I said, the OSI has fulfilled all of those obligations in line with the commission’s recommendations.

In the short amount of time that I have remaining I think it is, as the member for Melton did, entirely appropriate as we speak about this bill to recommend the police officers that serve my communities of Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing. We have quite a large police station and a large police force that service Wyndham North, where the suburb of Tarneit lies. I was lucky enough to visit Wyndham North police station only a month or so ago with the Minister for Police Anthony Carbines and to go into that facility and see the fantastic work that they do, not just stopping crime and catching people who have done the wrong thing but also the engagement that the local police force in Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing do throughout the community, which is absolutely amazing. I do not think it would be right of me or anybody else to speak on the substantive bill at hand without recognising the local police force that serves the community. As I said, it is not just about catching people that have done the wrong thing or stopping crime, it is about the community work that they do in schools, in sporting clubs and in places of faith that makes them so fantastic. I commend the bill to the house.

Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (11:06): I rise today to speak on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023, particularly as the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Corrections. This is a bill that I am very concerned about along with the Shadow Attorney-General and other colleagues. This bill repeals the Special Investigator Act 2021, abolishing the Office of the Special Investigator and revoking the appointment of the Special Investigator. It also transfers all assets and liabilities of the Office of the Special Investigator, the OSI, to the state as well as substituting the state as a party to all legal proceedings to which the OSI is a party. The bill has several other main transitional and savings provisions as well as changes to the Victorian Inspectorate.

The Minister for Police, Minister for Crime Prevention and Minister for Racing, in his second-reading speech of the bill, emphasised:

Victorians can be confident that the OSI has fully investigated criminal conduct and breaches of discipline arising from Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source to the extent possible.

This bill raises once again concerns of integrity and transparency of government actions. Is it that the government is nervous about the power that special investigators play in ensuring accountability and transparency within the government? Special investigators are, as we know, appointed to probe into matters of significant public interest such as allegations of corruption, misconduct or abuse of power. Taking away power from special investigators once again erodes the public’s trust in the government’s commitment to upholding the law and maintaining ethical standards. Such a move undermines the checks and balances necessary to prevent abuse of authority within government agencies. It creates an environment where government actions are less scrutinised, potentially allowing for misconduct to go unchecked or more unchecked. Indeed Victorians’ confidence in the government’s integrity record, I would suggest, is at an all-time low, and Victorians have every right to be sceptical about the Labor government’s integrity, with five separate corruption reports naming the Labor government in just 15 months.

The bill also ends the prospect of accountability for those responsible for the Lawyer X scandal, where former criminal barrister Nicola Gobbo was used by Victoria Police as a human source to provide information about her criminal associates. It was an unprecedented scandal, with the High Court ruling that Victoria Police’s recruitment of Ms Gobbo was ‘debased, reprehensible, atrocious and corrupted’. Likewise, there was appalling conduct within Victoria Police in knowingly encouraging Ms Gobbo to act as an informant and essentially sanctioning reprehensible breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all the duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law, without favour or affection, malice or ill will. That does not go to the matter that I would raise, which is that Victoria Police as a whole do a great job. We should be proud of each and every one of our police officers who are on the ground on a regular basis, but the circumstances in this situation are indeed concerning.

Winding up the OSI essentially means that those who were responsible for the Lawyer X scandal will walk away effectively scot-free without any accountability. This Labor government was never going to allow its buddies within Victoria Police who were responsible for the Lawyer X scandal to be held accountable. That is why the Office of the Special Investigator was never given any powers to prosecute. What did the government have to hide? And what does the government have to hide?

Other organisations can bring charges – local councils, WorkSafe and many others can bring charges directly without going through the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP works closely with Victoria Police every single day. It was never appropriate that a Victorian DPP should be the person making the call on whether or not charges should be brought. In other matters prosecutors have been brought in from other states. As my colleague the member for Malvern so well pointed out, in the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the politicisation of the public service the Ombudsman decided not to pursue that matter herself – she brought in a senior person from another state. We ask ourselves why: why was the OSI never given the power to prosecute? Why was somebody else not brought in instead of giving the DPP the final call? It is because this Labor government lacks integrity and is bordering on corrupt.

Not one Victoria Police officer will be charged over the unlawful decision to use Ms Gobbo as an informant against her clients. That is despite hours of audio and 5000 pages of admissible documentary evidence across multiple operations all pointing to crimes having been committed. The OSI did their job, and they did their job with diligence and determination. The intransigence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the refusal of the Labor government to give the Office of the Special Investigator power to bring charges directly means that justice has failed to be done. To be honest, I am not surprised. Doug Drummond, the Queensland special prosecutor whose work led to the jailing of a former police chief in Queensland Terry Lewis and other corrupt police, said:

The police and the Labor government of Andrews are so closely entwined that I wouldn’t have any confidence in a prosecution run by prosecutors who were subject to political direction …

How embarrassing. How absolutely embarrassing. For Mr Drummond to suggest that elements of our police institutions have been potentially corrupted by the Labor government is very worrying. It is especially worrying as there are institutions here in Victoria that have failed to protect the rights of the accused. The former Premier and the current Premier have had the power to correct this – to correct one of the most egregious assaults on our judicial system in Victoria’s history – yet they have chosen to do nothing. How did the former Premier respond to former High Court judge Geoffrey Nettle’s tireless hours of work and pursuit of accountability for all of those involved in the Lawyer X scandal? He stated:

Investigators don’t make good prosecutors … There needs to be a separation. If you have investigated the matter, you are altogether too close to it to be making decisions about whether a conviction is likely.

Justice Nettle is a highly eminent jurist who has served this country and our justice system with dignity and distinction. The same cannot be said about the former Premier. The former Premier’s comments were described by 38 of Victoria’s eminent legal practitioners as ‘misguided, wrong and inappropriate’. To somehow suggest that Nettle lacked objectivity and the capacity to form a reasoned and unbiased opinion just shows the extent of the arrogance of our former Premier and this government. Comments were also made by the 38 lawyers as a reflection of Mr Andrews’s:

… lack of understanding of the extremely high level of skills and professional objectivity that a former Judge of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal is trained, and more than well qualified, to bring to bear on all professional tasks.

These comments really should have been retracted by the former Premier, but they never were and they never will be. What is clear from this is that the $103 million Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants has, it seems, been largely a waste of time and taxpayers money. Not only this, the tens of millions of dollars dedicated to the Office of the Special Investigator have been seemingly a waste as well. It is clear that nobody in Victoria will ever be held accountable for the gross miscarriage of justice that was the Lawyer X scandal just because the former Premier, in his seeming arrogance at the time, decided to play hardball with the Honourable Geoffrey Nettle.

Being able to access and assess records to investigate and determine offences ensures the integrity of this state and this government and falls into the best interests of the public. The position of the OSI needs to be retained, with its full powers clear to extend beyond its original mandate of investigating the Gobbo and Victoria Police issue. The OSI was required to ensure the integrity of the state of Victoria in this issue, and this role was not redundant to maintaining the ethical standards into the future.

This bill is wrong. There is no equality under the law here, and the government’s incompetence has again been exposed, just as, for example, we have seen with the recent Commonwealth Games cost blowouts, as members and my colleagues have roundly pointed out and as indeed the member for Nepean rightly pointed out in his speech yesterday. There have been cost blowouts there. We have also seen the EV car tax ruled as unconstitutional by Australia’s High Court, not to mention that that is a tax seemingly flying in the face of Labor’s environmental claims of wanting to increase EV car purchases. So I join my colleagues in opposing this bill, and I support our reasoned amendment, put up by the member for Malvern, which states:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government puts in place measures to ensure that those responsible for the Lawyer X scandal are held to account’.

I hope the government will support this reasoned amendment. Public confidence in our justice system is at stake.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:16): I am pleased to rise to speak on this very important bill, and I do wish to acquit some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition. The Director of Public Prosecutions is independent. They have strict conflict rules and procedures, which are not engaged here as there is no conflict and the government is not going to interfere with the decision of an independent body. I just say that as a starting premise. The DPP obviously has the discretion to decide if a referral is necessary and appropriate. Further to the conflict issue – I want to address that straight up, because I think that is a significant issue that has been raised in the chamber at this point in time – I refer to page 158 of the report of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (RCMPI), and I will say ‘commission report’ from now on:

The Commission has not received any evidence to suggest that any past actions of any former DPP or their officers have compromised the independence of the current DPP. The Commission considers that the DPP will exercise her statutory responsibilities with independence, including the discretion to prosecute any matters arising from the proposed Special Investigator’s investigative work.

I also did want to refer to the media release of the DPP on 27 July 2023:

In relation to recent allegations aired in the media on 26 July 2023, the assertions are factually incorrect.

The DPP did not have a conflict of interest as asserted. The DPP has never acted for Simon Overland in any personal capacity and has in fact never met him. Recent media coverage refers to a 2010 coronial proceeding in which the DPP, as a member of the Bar, represented the Chief Commissioner of Police as the head of Victoria Police. It is common for the Chief Commissioner of Police to be a named party to legal proceedings involving Victoria Police. This does not mean instructions are sought from and provided by the Chief Commissioner of the day. The then-Chief Commissioner was not a party to that 2010 coronial proceeding in any personal capacity.

The DPP has never received a brief of evidence from the OSI against Simon Overland. The DPP has not ever met or acted for any of the individual police officers the subject of the OSI’s brief of evidence in which a special decision was made that there were no reasonable prospects of conviction. This brief was in respect of a charge for conduct that spanned a few days and was not a charge in relation to the entirety of the conduct that was subject to the Royal Commission.

On 26 May 2023, the DPP requested any further brief of evidence to be provided expeditiously. The OSI provided no further briefs of evidence to the DPP for consideration.

The DPP and OPP regularly give advice and prosecute matters in which the accused are police officers. The OPP has conflict of interest procedures to ensure that file allocation, decision making and access to material is not compromised.

As previously stated in the Director’s response to the OSI’s Special Report, any further briefs submitted by the OSI would have been considered on their merits.

Obviously we are here to debate significant issues, and having this bill is a good opportunity to do so and to get the necessary clarity, so we welcome discussion on these matters in in-depth detail. That is very important, but I do think there were some pretty broad, sweeping statements that were flat-out sledging public authorities and Victoria Police as well. I know VicPol in my area work very hard and do their best to protect the community, and I think just some care with the way that criticisms are delivered could be taken on board – just some respect. That does not in any way compromise the ability to raise questions about particular issues.

Looking at the issue of prosecutorial powers, this was considered and rejected by the RCMPI, and I have referred to that. I should note IBAC refers the prosecution decision for almost all matters, including most summary matters and all indictable matters, to the DPP. IBAC do this because they recognise that it is very difficult for someone who has been involved in investigating someone to be impartial in determining whether that person should be charged. That is a fair point, and it is not actually the issue of what I think; I think that is broadly accepted as a very fair and reasonable assessment and process which followed in this particular matter. I should further say that WorkSafe has an MOU with the Office of Public Prosecutions with regard to indictable offences via the OPP but that WorkSafe may do summary offences and that local council has never used the prosecution powers. Again I think there were some broad, sweeping statements which might add a bit of colour and flourish to the debate but do not necessarily go to the heart of the issues which we are discussing here in a way that pays credit to the very hard work and considered work of those involved in these matters.

In terms of the issue of trying to minimise the considerations of the DPP to the passage of time it should be noted that the DPP generally has to consider the reliability of witnesses, and whilst the member for Malvern may consider Gobbo to be reliable, it is certainly open for the DPP and a reasonable person to disagree with that. I just put that to the chamber. Issues that they have to look at – are there missing witness statements, are there gaps in evidence, and the reliability or otherwise of witnesses, inadmissible evidence – these things surely have to be taken into account and are reasonably to be taken into account. If on assessment of a brief provided to the DPP for consideration they consider that there are no reasonable prospects of conviction but there may be reasonable prospects after a curial process has been invoked and further evidence obtained, they will not authorise the commencement of that prosecution. These are fair, reasonable and sound elements when we are looking at, for want of better words, the rules and controls around the operation of the DPP, and I just think some care should be taken before holus-bolus sledging out our public officials. Nuance is important – that is all I am saying – with regard to this discussion. I am not saying we should not debate the issue, so I just want that to be very, very clear.

I think the other very critical point is to look at the commission itself. It was established in December 2018 to investigate matters that go to the heart of Victoria’s justice system and how police use informers with confidentiality obligations. No-one here is in any way contradicting the purpose of the royal commission. That absolutely had to be undertaken. It was an appropriate course of action. No-one is resiling, I should say, from the imperative to have the commission. The commission’s extensive and detailed inquiry uncovered significant historical shortfalls in the criminal justice system, and the government committed to addressing those shortfalls to ensure that this can never happen again. I think that is also important, because it was alleged that somehow nothing has resulted from this very critical work that was undertaken in the commission and that could not be further from the truth.

Government has followed through on its commitment, and the Office of the Special Investigator completing its work in line with the commission’s recommendations is a key part of that, adding to the significant work already undertaken by the government. That work includes the implementation of a wide range of changes, including to Victoria Police’s practice, policy, structure and culture in the use of human sources. Government has also made key changes to Victoria’s disclosure regime in criminal proceedings, and work is currently underway to implement the Human Source Management Act 2023, which passed Parliament in May 2023.

I do not want to reprosecute that bill. That is already on record in Hansard, but I just did want to raise one matter that could be considered by those opposite. If we play devil’s advocate, what would happen if the bill banned Victoria Police from registering lawyers as human sources outright, ever, under all circumstances? It could prevent lawyers from confidentially providing critical information to police to allow them to act to prevent threats. Surely that is a reasonable reason. The probability of that happening is probably extremely low, but we cannot absolutely exclude that. That is one of the important nuances that were glaringly avoided and trampled over, should I say, by the opposition. I think that these are the kinds of nuances that can be very dangerous if they are not actually taken into account when we discuss these bills and also the respect of the community as well as the hard work of the Attorney-General, who has certainly taken these very difficult matters into account to ensure that the bill has been drafted appropriately to allow for all contingencies that are probable. That is right and proper and reasonable under the circumstances, however unpalatable it may be to have to allow for such circumstances, but we know threats can occur – threats to national security, the community or life or welfare of a person. It is reasonably obvious that these are very, very significant issues that would lead to such circumstances occurring.

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (11:26): I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. On its face this bill proposes the repeal of the Special Investigator Act 2021 and the abolishment of the Office of the Special Investigator, and it introduces a series of consequential changes. While I understand the need for streamlined government operations, I believe this repeal is a step in the wrong direction for justice and accountability in our society.

Before we repeal this act, I need to remind the government what made it necessary in the first place. The Special Investigator Act 2021 was established for an important reason, even if those opposite have forgotten. It was created in response to concerns and controversy surrounding the use of Nicola Gobbo as a police informant and the need for a thorough investigation into potential criminal conduct and breaches of discipline relating to her recruitment and management. The Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants recommended the establishment of a Special Investigator, which subsequently led to the formation of the Office of the Special Investigator. Now we are all presented with a bill that proposes to undo all the work and resources that have been invested in this investigation. Justice should not be measured solely by the number of cases brought to court; it must also include the search for truth and accountability. The existence of this Office of the Special Investigator was a critical step towards achieving this. Once again the Labor Party has shown its true colours, acting as a protection racket for criminals.

Nicola Gobbo’s actions have affected over a thousand cases, resulting in the overturning of numerous convictions of possible criminals. Let me share some examples to illustrate the gravity of this situation. Tony Mokbel, who had been convicted of importing a commercial quantity of cocaine in 2000, saw his conviction quashed by the Victorian Court of Appeal on 15 December 2020. The president of the court Chris Maxwell did not mince his words when he described Gobbo’s actions and those who facilitated her informing as disgraceful. At the time of the ruling, Maxwell indicated that the court would consider whether the charges should be reinstated; however, Commonwealth prosecutors decided not to pursue the matter any further.

Faruk Orman’s case is equally troubling. Initially convicted of killing Victor Peirce on 1 May 2002, his conviction was set aside on 26 July 2019 due to what was termed a substantial miscarriage of justice. Gobbo’s involvement in calling Victoria Police to influence a key witness against Orman cast serious doubts on the fairness of the trial. Orman’s acquittal raises questions about the transparency of the process and the possibility of evidence being withheld from his defence. While Chief Commissioner of Police Shane Patton offered an apology for this miscarriage of justice, Victoria Police have argued against compensating Orman, placing the blame squarely on Gobbo’s conduct rather than their own officers.

Zlate Cvetanovski, who had been convicted of commercial drug trafficking, had his conviction overturned on 30 October 2020. After serving 11 years in custody, he had only around a year left in his sentence. Gobbo, while acting for Zlate, convinced a key witness to cooperate with Victoria Police and testify against him. The Court of Appeal declared that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice, and prosecutors noted that a retrial of the case would be unjust.

These cases are not isolated incidents. They highlight a systemic problem that warrants our attention and scrutiny. Because of actions of the government there are possibly murderers and drug dealers walking the streets in your community. The government’s role in this matter raises questions about the integrity of our justice system and its commitment to protecting the rights of all individuals. It is our duty as parliamentarians to demand transparency, accountability and fairness in our legal system. It interests me very much why the Labor government spends so much time protecting criminals. Whether it is the Bail Amendment Bill 2023 or the one we are debating now, it is the government’s priority and prerogative to make sure that those who seek to do harm to our community go free, while the state stands idly by.

You would think that after the biggest legal scandal of my lifetime the government would have made it harder for lawyers to be used as human sources. Funnily enough they are actually doing the opposite. The Human Source Management Act 2023, despite purporting to make it harder for lawyers to inform against their clients, actually makes it easier, creating an unchallengeable power of the chief commissioner to register a reportable human source. But do not take my word for it. Former judge Stephen Charles KC has said his view is that it is possible that under this legislation police could manipulate lawyers by threatening to prosecute them for other matters unless they register as a human source. Dr Matthew Collins KC, the former president of the Victorian Bar Association, said:

All Australians are entitled to know that, when they seek legal advice, the information they provide to their lawyer will be treated in the strictest confidence.

I think it was put best by the member for Malvern, who said this bill will result potentially in situations where people go to jail who should not and people do not go to jail who should.

Something I learned from the Andrews and Allan government is that it is very expensive to do nothing. Victorians have spent a whole lot of money on nothing. Victorians spent $1.16 billion for no east–west link. Victorians spent more than half a billion dollars for no Commonwealth Games. And to the issue at hand –

Sarah Connolly: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, as much as we are all closely listening to the member for Warrandyte’s contribution in this house, unfortunately she has strayed somewhat from this bill. I know it has been perhaps a wideranging debate since the time that I came here to sit down in this place, but I do have to say, if you could please bring her back to the bill.

Michael O’Brien: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Warrandyte was clearly talking about the waste of money through the OSI and royal commission with no outcome and comparing it to other wastes of money. It is entirely within the scope of the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Order! There has been a wideranging debate, but I do ask the member for Warrandyte to come back to the Special Investigator Repeal Bill, which is the subject of this discussion.

Nicole WERNER: Adding to the issue at hand, Victorians spent $120 million for no charges against any current or former police officers in the Lawyer X saga. Let us not forget the Office of the Special Investigator has been at the forefront of pursuing accountability and justice in the wake of the disgraceful Lawyer X scandal – a scandal that I think even those opposite can agree has rocked the very foundations of Victoria’s justice system. The Lawyer X scandal compromised the integrity of our legal system and perverted the course of justice, and its repercussions continue to reverberate through our legal landscape. The bill before us threatens to bring an end to the prospect of accountability for those responsible for this dark chapter in our legal history. If the Office of the Special Investigator is dismantled, it effectively means that those who played a role in the Lawyer X scandal may walk free without facing any form of accountability. This is a deeply concerning development, particularly when we consider that a highly respected former High Court judge has explicitly found that there exists sufficient evidence to secure convictions on criminal charges. The crux of the matter lies in the stubbornness of the Director of Public Prosecutions – DPP – and the refusal of the Labor government to grant the OSI the power to bring charges directly. This glaring oversight has led to an alarming situation where justice has failed to be delivered. The very purpose of the Office of the Special Investigator to ensure that those responsible for such a scandal face the consequences of their actions is undermined by this refusal.

The implications of this bill go beyond mere legal proceedings; they strike at the heart of our commitment to upholding justice and accountability. We must seriously question whether dismantling the Office of the Special Investigator is in the best interests of our society, our legal system and the values we hold dear. The Lawyer X scandal is a dark stain on our justice system, and to end the prospect of accountability for those involved is a disservice to all who seek justice, fairness and accountability. But do not take my word for it. To quote the commissioner for the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants:

… Ms Gobbo’s conduct as a human source for Victoria Police, while practising as a criminal defence lawyer, was extensive and sustained. It was also inexcusable. Her breach of her obligations as a lawyer has undermined the administration of justice, compromised criminal convictions, damaged the standing of Victoria Police and the legal profession, and shaken public trust and confidence in Victoria’s criminal justice system.

Although it may not be what they say out loud, their silence and inaction speaks louder than any well-rehearsed speech could. The lack of charges means that it is possible that another Lawyer X scandal is not far away.

In conclusion, it is evident that the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023 is a dangerous step backward for justice and accountability in our society. The establishment of the Special Investigator’s office was a crucial response to the Lawyer X scandal, a scandal that compromised the integrity of our legal system and continues to cast a shadow over our legal landscape. We must remember. Let us not forget the lessons of the past and ensure that justice prevails even in the face of powerful interests.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (11:37): I too rise to speak on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. This is a small bill that does exactly what its name suggests: it repeals the Special Investigator Act 2021. To put it more clearly, the bill facilitates the winding up of the Office of the Special Investigator and transfers all of its rights, assets, liabilities and obligations back to the state. The OSI was first established back in 2021 as part of our government’s response to the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, a very important royal commission indeed. In the time that I have been here I have seen quite a number of bills that we have introduced into this place over the past couple of years relating to just this royal commission, and I think by now we have taken action on just about every recommendation handed down in that report. This includes setting up the implementation monitor to see that the changes we – as well as Victoria Police and Court Services Victoria – are making are properly adopted. That was a very important bill put through this house. Earlier this year the government passed the Human Source Management Act 2023, which I had the privilege of standing in this place to talk about. It creates a new framework that oversees how Victoria Police go ahead with and then manage their informants. I believe that I did stand here to speak on that bill earlier in the year while it was being debated in the Parliament. In fact we should be very proud in this place of the 55 recommendations for our government to act on that came out of the royal commission. As I said earlier, it was a very important and very much needed royal commission. Forty-nine of these recommendations have been delivered, including this one, and the remaining six are on track. Of the other 56 recommendations, 41 have been delivered.

A lot has been said in this place about the substance matter of the royal commission and the Lawyer X matter that precipitated it. As I have said before, the circumstance that led to this royal commission was a grievous misstep by police and a violation of lawyers ethics. Confidentiality is one of the most fundamental duties that a lawyer has to their client. What we know from the royal commission’s findings is that Lawyer X was asked by police to break that duty and was used as an informant on her own clients. As a result a lot of people were put away – for very good reasons, I might add – with around 1000 convictions now at risk of being overturned, and some of them already have been. That is why this royal commission was so, so important in ensuring not only that this does not happen again but, importantly, that those responsible for carrying out this breach of justice are properly punished.

In this particular respect, the act that we are repealing set up the OSI, headed by the Special Investigator Geoffrey Nettle, to investigate potential criminal conduct and disciplinary breaches connected to the Lawyer X matter. Where it did find that offences may have been committed it would then brief evidence to be filed for determination by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The OSI’s role was to do exactly that and nothing more, and it has done just that.

The Special Investigator’s report has since been tabled in Parliament, which I believe was in June, and the implementation monitor responsible for overseeing our response to the royal commission is satisfied that the OSI has fulfilled its purpose. We have currently seen Sean Morrison in the role of Special Investigator to oversee its winding up, and this is supported by all relevant stakeholders including the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS), Victoria Police, IBAC and the Victorian Inspectorate. I know that many were quite vocally disappointed that there were no criminal prosecutions that resulted from the Lawyer X matter. We know from the report that the Director of Public Prosecutions ultimately made the determination not to proceed with these charges, as in part doing so would be unlikely to result in a conviction and also due to the passage of time. But I do take this opportunity to remind them that the Special Investigator was established with all the statutory powers that the royal commission felt that it should have, and it is really important to state that here today. I also know that those opposite have suggested the OSI should have been given the powers to directly lay charges in relation to its investigations, but I would remind the house that in fact the commission itself actively rejected the idea that the OSI should have powers to lay charges directly. The reason for that was that they believed doing so would possibly risk tainting the DPP by giving the OSI access to evidence which would create the risk of said evidence being inadmissible. That is a really big and serious problem, and that is not something that anyone would want if they did not want the people who are doing it to get away with it – right?

Coming back to the Special Investigator, the bill specifies how the winding up of the OSI will be handled. Firstly, we know that the OSI will be decommissioned at its statutory expiry date as of 1 February next year. This will ensure that costs are avoided with appointing a replacement Special Investigator – that is really important, to save those costs. All OSI records will be transferred to DJCS, who will be responsible for managing them, including transferring records, importantly, to the Public Record Office Victoria. These records will of course have the same protections that they currently have whilst also being held by the OSI. Staff security clearances will also remain the same, as will their obligations to maintain confidentiality. To facilitate this the offence of disclosing OSI information is preserved by this bill, and it carries a maximum penalty of 240 penalty units or up to two years imprisonment. This is going to ensure that the security and importantly the confidentiality of the material contained within the OSI will continue to apply after the winding-up period.

Further to this, the protections that the initial act provided to OSI officers, which are intended to give them legal immunity for acts done by them in accordance with their obligations and duties under the act, will be preserved. The people working in the OSI were, as we all know, working within a very specific and serious context relating to the Lawyer X matter, and their safety is incredibly important. That is why the offences associated with causing or threatening harm to a person who assists the OSI or former OSI officers will also be preserved in this bill, with the maximum penalty being 1200 penalty units or indeed up to 10 years imprisonment. So that is something that is taken very seriously in this bill – safety.

This bill acquits a key recommendation from the royal commission. We have made incredible progress since the report of the royal commission was handed down and recommendations were made. We certainly have not wasted time on this side of the house in delivering each of them. This is just one recommendation that has now been fully acquitted, one of 49 that have been fully acted on. Very soon the six outstanding recommendations will also be implemented in full.

Our government established the Office of the Special Investigator to look specifically at what potential criminal acts were committed in relation to the Lawyer X matter. It was something that was very specifically set up for a specific reason. The Office of the Special Investigator has done what it set out to do, and we now have that report tabled in Parliament. Its purpose has been served, and I think this bill coming before the house is really important to go ahead and acquit and wind up the Office of the Special Investigator. There is no reason to appoint another Special Investigator – that would incur more cost to the state unnecessarily. The member for Warrandyte so kindly pointed out that she does not want to see any cost being incurred that she does not otherwise think should, and this is certainly one that does not have to be – it is not necessary, and this bill will help wrap it up. It is for these reasons that I commend the Special Investigator for their work and thank them for their important work. In doing so, I commend the bill to the house.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:46): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The reason I am moving that the debate be adjourned is that the government, despite their protestations yesterday, are using this place, this chamber, in a way to stifle debate on important issues. We have seen with the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023, which includes a number of pernicious new taxes, that the government is seeking to hide the bill. It is seeking to hide the bill firstly from the community and from industry in trying to ram it through this place, and now it is not allowing the Parliament time to debate the bill. Is there any wonder –

Natalie Hutchins: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I am not sure that the member has the ability to debate the movement of an adjournment. Could I ask you to rule as to whether we are going to debate the debate ending or not?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member has moved the motion, and he has the opportunity to speak on it.

James NEWBURY: Thank you, Acting Speaker. It is embarrassing that the minister does not understand the standing orders.

This house should be considering bills of importance, and it has been this morning. But what we have seen this week is the government refusing to allow any debate on the state tax bill. Of course they are not, because we know that the government is in a shambles when it comes to that bill. We have seen today in media reports confirmation that a number of members in the upper house will not be supporting the government on that bill, so there is little wonder that the government is refusing to allow time for debate. We have been consistent on the bill in that we have said that the community deserves time to see it. We moved that they be allowed extra time. We have done that on a number of occasions. On a number of occasions we have asked for extra time for bills to be considered, and the government has said no. We have said the bill should be considered in detail. There should be some opportunity for debate on this bill, because the feedback we have received and the feedback that industry has provided is that they want proper scrutiny of those new taxes – new taxes that were announced absolutely by surprise. There is little wonder the government is trying to stop any debate on the bill. When the new taxes were announced, the Premier did not even know about them – the Premier did not even know.

We have a procedural motion being moved now to say to the government, you cannot keep hiding this bill, government. The government cannot keep hiding this bill. There has to be time in this Parliament. There is a guillotine at 5 o’clock today. For the rest of the day we have a number of other things, as we normally would – we have question time, we have other procedural matters that will take place throughout the day – and a guillotine at 5. We have three bills that have been moved through the government business program this week; within two days we dealt with one. That does not mean there were not other important matters that were dealt with; of course there were: the Middle East motion was a very important motion that many members in this place rose to speak on – but in the two days that this house has sat we effectively have only dealt with one of the bills. There are two bills left, and the government has scheduled them for one day. We are now not far short of question time, and how much time have we spent on the state tax bill? No time. The government is hiding it. They are strangling debate on it. Of course they are. Of course the government is stopping any debate on this bill.

So the coalition has moved that we adjourn debate on this bill and we consider the state tax bill, as we should. The Parliament should consider that bill and be provided time. There are so many members who want to speak on the state tax bill. The government is trying to ram the bill through. It is trying to strangle debate, and it is trying to hide the truth of what that bill is going to do and the impact on Victorians.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:51): And every second that we are delaying here you are reducing time to speak on this bill that we all want to speak on. What are you saying? We are hiding it? Where are we hiding it? Under here? Who is hiding the bill? I think the whole community would know by now. It has been in all the papers; the Treasurer has been out there. This is nothing more than a stunt. If they genuinely want to transact –

A member: Another one.

Nina TAYLOR: Another one, yes – clocking them up one after another – and what does that do? It wastes valuable time in the chamber which we could be using to prosecute bills. We are getting close to the closure of the bill that we are currently debating, the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. Who is hiding this? I mean, it is just a nonsense. I would be embarrassed if I was those opposite, because the bill is scheduled to be debated –

Members interjecting.

Nina TAYLOR: and you will be able to debate the bill. You will have your turn. We may not enjoy that process, but you will –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Order! The member for Albert Park has the call.

Nina TAYLOR: Sorry, I could not hear above the din. I am not sure – nobody has in any way tried to conceal this bill from anyone in the chamber or anyone in the community. We are proud of the reforms that we are continuing to bring forward for the betterment of the whole community. We do not resile from debate, so I think that there was actually a factually incorrect proposition being put forward by the member for Brighton, and I wonder why. If you genuinely want time to debate the bill, then allow time in the chamber rather than wasting time faffing about and saying all sorts of ridiculous propositions that have no benefit. I do not understand how any of those silly propositions could in any way benefit the community.

The best thing to do is, when we do discuss the bill and debate the bill in this house, put your name on the list, stand up and say whatever you like within parliamentary requirements and rules. Get up there and take your opportunity. No-one is stopping you. Am I stopping you? I cannot see anyone here saying you are not allowed to speak on this bill. For goodness sake, if there are those opposite who genuinely want to transact the bill, they should put their name up. I do not know what system you have for deciding who gets to speak on bills, but if you genuinely want to speak on it, I would suggest you put your name down. Normally the whip will organise this. I am sure you can organise these operational arrangements on your side of the house. I do not know how you organise it, but I have confidence – well, I do not know, because it sounds like they do not know if they can be organised enough to speak on the bill. That is a concern too. It should not be that hard, but I am sure that you can get to that. I have. I am just saying that the signal that is being sent by those opposite is that they cannot organise themselves to be ready to speak on the bill when it is transacted in the house. I am sorry for them. I am really sorry about that, but I have confidence – well, I do not know –

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Well, there could be that too. I will say – and I have made my point clear – that we are very proud of bringing forward these reforms through this bill, and we will allow appropriate time in the chamber for you to put forward whatever particular points you wish to on this bill.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:55): Following the contribution of the member for Albert Park, I want to be absolutely clear for you, Acting Speaker, for members of the government, for the Greens, for members of the opposition both in the National and the Liberal parties, that as Shadow Treasurer –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Order! There is a bit too much noise. I would like to hear the member for Sandringham.

Brad ROWSWELL: Thank you for your protection, Acting Speaker. I want everyone in this chamber to know – those on that side, those on our side, everyone – that I am ready. I have never been readier. I have never been more prepared, and I am sure the great people in Hansard will correct any mistake that I make. I have never been more ready to be on my feet –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Sandringham should take his – sorry, I thought there was a point of order. Keep going.

Brad ROWSWELL: Missed opportunity, Mary-Anne, missed opportunity – and to talk about things that are important to the state of Victoria and important to the people of Victoria. The inclination of this government time and time again – it is in their DNA; we know it, they know it, people inside this place know it, people outside this place know it – is to tax Victorians more.

I am ready to speak about the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023. I am more prepared than I have ever been before. I have got the bill. I have got the statement of compatibility. I have got 26 pages of notes here. I have got previous media releases. I have got something which I will address when we finally get there. I have even got this, the tax discussion paper launched by the coalition to assess the taxes that this government has imposed upon every Victorian, now more than 50 taxes – 52 taxes in fact – imposed upon the people of Victoria since this government was elected nine years ago. I am ready. I want this debate to be adjourned. I am not saying the bill before the house at the moment is not an important bill. I am sure that the member for Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General, would agree, especially if the house agrees to the reasoned amendment that he has moved, that this bill before the house at the moment is a very important bill. But can I propose to you, Acting Speaker, can I propose to those people in the chamber at the moment that there is a more important bill to be debated right now, which is why I support the member for Brighton’s motion to adjourn this bill and to start talking about the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023.

The member for Albert Park said that we were not ready. She said we were not ready, that there was a bit of a rabble going on, and that there is this process whereby there are members on that side who pop their hands up and want to talk about it. This procedural motion in fact prevents us from addressing this very important state taxation bill before time. Can I tell the house that we have a number of members on this side of the house who are very keen to address the new taxes imposed on the people of Victoria by the Andrews, now Allan, Labor government. I am looking forward to the Leader of the Nationals contributing on this bill, to the member for Brighton, to the member for Eildon, to the member for Shepparton, to the member for South-West Coast, to the member for Polwarth, to the member for Gippsland South, to the member for Kew, to the member for Nepean, to the member for Mildura, to the member for Morwell, to the member for Lowan, to the member for Euroa, all good colleagues on this side of the house, who know that every single day that this Labor government is in power they wake up in the morning and they think ‘What can we tax today? How can we make Victorians’ lives harder?’

That is the reason why the Allan Labor government is pushing this particular bill out to the very last minute of the day. It will only be brought on after question time today because the Allan Labor government and all of those people that support her or support the Deputy Premier – the choice is yours, member for Wendouree, the choice is yours –know that they do not want to talk about this bill for any longer than they absolutely need to because this bill adds two additional new taxes to the already more than 50 that have been imposed by this Labor government on the people of Victoria.

Ros Spence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member has strayed from the procedural motion and started to debate the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister. I did notice as such. The member to continue on the procedural motion.

Brad ROWSWELL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. With the 6 seconds I have remaining, we need to adjourn the current bill before the Parliament so the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023 can be debated immediately.

Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (12:00): I am going to confess a bit of affection for the member for Sandringham, because I have known –

Members interjecting.

Nick STAIKOS: I went to school with Brad.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Correct titles, member for Bentleigh.

Nick STAIKOS: I have known the member for Sandringham for a long, long time, so I am in the unique position of knowing what we are missing. I have seen him in action on the St Bede’s debating team, and I am gagging to hear him speak, I really, really am. But we have got to do this the right way. We have got to get this business over and done with with this current bill, and then we will move on to the next bill. That is the right way of doing it.

James Newbury: When? When?

Nick STAIKOS: We are getting there, member for Brighton. We are getting there. But I will just say to the member for Brighton that this opposition is very good at wasting its own time. We have seen a number of examples this week. We had another one of those usual 13 days versus 14 days arguments, which wasted quite a bit of the Parliament’s time earlier this week. We had that big waste of time yesterday – wasted hours – on a pointless motion from the other place. And here we are on this procedural motion. The reality of the numbers in this house is that you are going to lose every single vote; therefore by moving these motions you are just wasting your time. Our seats start from there and they go right around and end there.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Bentleigh.

Nick STAIKOS: It is simple. I thought you were more numerate than that, member for Brighton.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, this is a tight debate. Every member in this place represents a constituency, and the arrogance coming from the member is outrageous.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On relevance, I would like to have us all stay on the procedural debate.

Nick STAIKOS: I am sorry that I hurt the member for Brighton’s feelings.

James Newbury: Twice now.

Nick STAIKOS: Twice now; sorry. I am really, really sorry. But I would just say that given the realities of these things, they might have a little bit more influence in the upper house, where the government does not command a majority. Perhaps if they had a bit more faith in the ability of their members in the upper house, they might be a little more calm and rational about everything today. But here we are on another pointless procedural motion. The member for Brighton needs to realise that all you are doing is wasting your own time.

The Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023 is also an important piece of legislation. We only started debating it this morning, and we need to get through both our speaking lists. I am sure you have got more speakers on your side who do want to speak on this bill, so let us just get through this bill. It is an important piece of legislation. I will be here for every second of the member for Sandringham’s 30-minute contribution on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023, because I am always interested in what the member for Sandringham has to say. I do not think everybody in their party room is always interested in what the member for Sandringham has to say, but I have more faith in the member for Sandringham. I will be here; I will have my office clear my diary for whatever time the member for Sandringham is going to get up. I will –

James Newbury: What a fanboy!

Nick STAIKOS: He is a decent member. He is a good member, you know. He is all right. He is a good person. I will be here.

Brad Rowswell interjected.

Nick STAIKOS: It’s going on a flyer. That will not do any good for you in Sandringham, I am afraid, member for Sandringham. That will work against you. That will usher in a new wave of teals, I think, if you do that.

But here we are. All right, I have got 45 seconds left. This is a bit of a stand-up routine now, but here we are. You are wasting your own time. And you have given me the opportunity to waste your time now, and I have taken it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bentleigh knows the word ‘you’ refers to the Chair.

Nick STAIKOS: So here we are. I speak against this procedural motion, another example of them wasting their time. Just build a bridge and get over it.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (12:05): I speak in strong support of the member for Brighton’s motion to adjourn debate. We have spoken quite extensively on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023, and I think that the contributions from all sides have been very, very eloquent and succinct. However, we have two bills to debate today, and over the past two days of sitting we had one bill. It is so important when new legislation comes through that is another big tax bill for Victorians that everybody has the right to have their say and particularly that we have an opportunity to represent the people who will be most impacted by Labor’s new taxes. Now, I understand Labor might be a little bit confused. They have been talking a lot about tax in special places this week, and in fact it was in the High Court, wasn’t it, where it was found that it was actually unlawful to have an electric vehicle tax put in place.

Ros Spence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think you might have a fair idea what my point of order is going to be.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will wait till I hear it.

Ros Spence: The member has strayed from this very narrow procedural debate, and I would ask you to have her return to that debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Lowan to continue on the procedural motion.

Emma KEALY: This is an important tax bill of course – an important tax bill for Labor to bring in – because if there were no Victorians to tax, then how on earth would they pay the massive debt from the massive project cost blowouts that we have seen over the past 20 of the last 24 years? That is what happens. It is something we hear quite often from our side. When Labor run out of their money, they come after yours. That is exactly what they are doing. What we hear in this place time and time again is Labor members talking about how they are taking credit for things –

Ros Spence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member has again strayed from the narrow procedural debate and defied your earlier ruling.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do uphold the point of order. Member for Lowan, please continue on the procedural motion of the adjournment of the bill.

Emma KEALY: Thank you very much. I would like to speak just to a point that was made by the member for Albert Park. The member for Albert Park did the equivalent of mansplaining to this side of the chamber on how you add your name to a contribution list to be able to provide debate on a piece of legislation. I will explain a fact to the member for Albert Park: this is our list of people who want to speak on the state taxation bill. There is an extensive list available. There are so many people available, and given we have 10 minutes each, we would be here until midnight to get through all of the issues that the people of Victoria have raised with us and that businesses have raised with us, which they would want to get on the public record if we did have that procedure of simply putting your name on a list. That is the entire point for the member for Brighton bringing on this adjournment debate. We need sufficient time to be able to put the views of Victorians on the public record. This is not necessarily about us having the opportunity to have a speaking moment, because all of us have spoken this week on various bills and other opportunities that we are given, but it is this particular piece of legislation on which we want to also represent our community views. This is something that certainly in my electorate of Lowan has received an enormous amount of interest, because Victorians are struggling at this point in time. They are struggling with all the additional taxes, including these new proposed taxes, and are worried about how it will impact on their family homes, on their businesses and even on the ability to build new houses for the state.

Ros Spence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, once again, the member has strayed from the procedural motion and started debating the bill. I would ask you to have her return to the very narrow procedural motion that we have in front of us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lowan, please continue within the adjournment procedural motion.

Emma KEALY: I was responding to the points that have been raised by other members in this place on the importance of giving everybody in this chamber the opportunity to contribute to the very important legislation before the house. That includes two new additional taxes which will be included in the state taxation acts by Labor – more new taxes on Victorians, which will just drive up the cost of living at a time Victorians need it least. This is why I strongly support the member for Brighton’s motion. I would think that all members of this chamber, no matter where they sit, whether they are in government or not, would like to represent the views of people in their electorate, the businesses that employ their people and the people who pay the bills and pay these taxes to make sure that government have funds available to spend, and that they would support this motion as well. We need to see this debate adjourned. There have been significant points already made on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill. Let us make sure we also get comments about Labor’s great big new tax also on the record.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (12:10): I rise to oppose the member for Brighton’s motion, and in doing so I also mourn the sad death of irony, or at least the complete absence of awareness of it within those opposite. At the start of the week I believe they opposed the government business program – did they not? – and yet now we have the member for Lowan touting just how many speakers – and that makes a change, I would say – they apparently have lined up to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023. I am certainly looking forward to the member for Sandringham’s contribution on that bill this afternoon. He did, I note, try to table every single piece of tax reform and policy development work that has been initiated in this state and other jurisdictions just before. I think he was slightly pre-empting that debate. I will not do so, but I do look forward to his contribution. I also note that he sought to filibuster a little bit of his time, but he can only go so far by naming every single member of his colleagues in the Liberal Party room, whereas if I encounter some of the trouble that the member for Sandringham has had, I could filibuster slightly longer later on.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Speaker, it is a narrow debate, and I ask you to bring the member back to the bill.

The SPEAKER: The member to come back to the motion before the house.

Iwan WALTERS: I appreciate the member for Lowan’s guidance, and I am sure that she will be reflecting upon that in her next contribution as well. As I say, I do reflect upon the death of irony, because it is a profound paradox of seeking to gag debate in this place through a procedural motion that I feel quite keenly. As a member of this place I want to speak on behalf of my constituents on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023, and I fear that because of the standing orders and because we are going to be approaching question time and then the adjournment at the end of the day I will not get that opportunity. It is an important bill. There is nothing more important in this place than the strength of our institutions and our legal system, and I think the Special Investigator Repeal Bill speaks to that and talks to those institutions. Of course the state tax system is an important part of the work we do here and matters to every single one of my constituents, and I look forward to having the time to contribute to that debate later. But in bringing this procedural motion, it diminishes the amount of time that we have as a house to consider these very important bills. So having voted against the government business program earlier in the week, by now seeking to close down debate on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill, it drains the time that we have as a house to consider these important pieces of legislation. So I do mourn for the irony that appears to be lost on those opposite in not appreciating that paradox.

We had more time lost yesterday, as the member for Bentleigh and the member for Albert Park talked about, in terms of the motion that was brought to seek the Premier to go to another place. Given the extensive lessons we had in exclusive cognisance yesterday, I will not re-tread them. But it did strike me that if these bills are so important – and I believe they are important – and if they are as important as the opposition is professing, then I do not think we should have been spending several hours yesterday discussing a motion that by its very nature, by the nature of exclusive cognisance, was never going to be a successful one. It is not because of the nature of this house, where obviously the government commands a majority, it is because it is not an appropriate thing for the Premier, the leader of this house, to be called by another house. So I am hoping –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, reflecting on the Council is certainly not in line with the tight procedural debate. On relevance, I would ask you to bring the member back to the motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Greenvale was not reflecting on the other house. The member for Greenvale, on the motion.

Iwan WALTERS: Apologies, Speaker. I certainly was not; I was reflecting on the nature of the motion that was brought to this place and its fundamental futility, the fact that it also drained time away from me and from all of my colleagues – who I do not need to go through individually because unfortunately there is only 50 seconds left in my contribution – who were precluded from contributing to other very important, substantive pieces of legislation.

I do note that we spent a very good proportion of Tuesday considering the kinds of motions that I think do matter in this place, such as the motion that spoke to this house’s collective concern and disgust at the actions that have inflicted harm upon so many innocent people in other parts of the world. That is the kind of substantive work that we should be undertaking as a house, considering important motions like that and important bills like the Special Investigator Repeal Bill and the state taxation bill. I hope that in filling out my time I have enabled the member for Sandringham to work on his notes, because I look forward to hearing his contribution this afternoon.

Assembly divided on James Newbury’s motion:

Ayes (28): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Noes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (12:21): I rise today to speak on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023, and I would like to show my support for the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment, which states:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government puts in place measures to ensure that those responsible for the Lawyer X scandal are held to account’.

The Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023 is yet another bill that has come to this place following the Lawyer X fiasco, something that drew considerable scrutiny and media attention and introduced new concerns over legality and due process – I am conscious that Hansard is listening. Ultimately this situation resulted in a royal commission that recommended several changes to legislation to uphold the integrity and effectiveness of our legal system.

When it comes to this Special Investigator Repeal Bill it is important to provide some broader context to the Lawyer X scandal. As many will be aware, this case involved Victoria Police’s use of criminal barrister Nicola Gobbo as a police informant. Within this role Gobbo secretly gave evidence against her own clients to Victoria Police, which ultimately resulted in many of these clients receiving criminal convictions. In July 2014 there was a review of Victoria Police’s human source management, and a subsequent report found a high degree of negligence by VicPol and directed VicPol to provide a copy of the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In reviewing this report the DPP formed the view that Gobbo’s clients should be informed about her actions as a human source for VicPol.

This led to VicPol seeking court orders to suppress this information and a highly public media investigation into these matters. After numerous Victorian courts issued suppression orders to ban the reporting of these facts, the High Court of Australia ruled unanimously that Gobbo’s identity should no longer be suppressed. In their judgement the court determined that Gobbo’s decision to covertly inform against her clients while also acting as their counsel was fundamentally an appalling breach of a lawyer’s obligation both to the clients and to the court. The language used back in February by the Law Institute of Victoria’s president Tania Wolff was strong:

… if we have learned anything from the Royal Commission, it’s that lawyers should never be used as human sources …

She also outlined how the use of lawyers as sources is contradictory to the trusted role they play in the integrity of our legal system. Victoria Police’s decision to encourage Gobbo to act as she did was heavily condemned by the courts too. This condemnation came down to a breach of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill will. While the actions of the police in this situation were well below what is expected, I want to thank all our officers for the excellent work they do in keeping our community safe. Ultimately the prosecution of each convicted person was corrupted in a manner which brought the fundamental premise of our justice system into question. Both the exposure of the Lawyer X scandal and the High Court’s findings led to a number of convicted persons having their convictions quashed.

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to speak on the Human Source Management Bill 2023, which also arose from the Lawyer X case and the subsequent Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants that was brought forward to address several of the issues raised in this scandal. In total the royal commission made 111 recommendations, with 55 of those directed to the state government. Then Attorney-General Jill Hennessy announced on 30 November 2020 that the government would implement all of these recommendations.

When it comes to the technicalities of this bill, there are essentially three main components: repealing the Special Investigator Act 2021; abolishing the Office of the Special Investigator, making necessary transitional arrangements; and making consequential and related amendments to other acts. Through this, all assets and liabilities of the OSI will be transferred to the state and the state will be substituted as a party to legal proceedings in which the OSI was involved. Through the dismantlement of the OSI this bill effectively ends the prospect of accountability for those responsible for the Lawyer X fiasco. This was a scandal that compromised Victoria’s justice system, perverted the course of justice and has had repercussions that continue to reverberate throughout the legal system.

The government has said that Victorians can be confident that the OSI has done its job and is no longer necessary. They say it has fully investigated the criminal conduct and breaches of discipline that arose from Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source to the extent possible, although this is simply not enough. Those involved in this case have avoided accountability and will walk free. This goes against findings from former High Court judges as well as the court of public opinion. A reasoned amendment to this bill would ensure that those responsible for the Lawyer X situation are still held to account and that those involved in this reprehensible conduct are subject to the criminal charges that they deserve. Due to the several shortcomings in this proposed legislation, I oppose this bill.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (12:26): I am happy to rise today to follow the member for Laverton and many of the previous speakers on this side of the house to speak on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. As we have heard from members, the Office of the Special Investigator was established by the Special Investigator Act 2021, the SI act, as recommended by the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, the RCMPI, or the commission, to investigate potential criminal conduct and disciplinary breaches in relation to the Lawyer X matter.

It was back in December 2018 that the former Premier announced the establishment of the royal commission. I remember the announcement. It was a very important announcement and a positive step towards investigating the matter – to go to the heart of the Victorian justice system and to help police use informants with confidentiality obligations. The royal commission uncovered significant historical shortfalls in the criminal justice system. The government has been working to deliver the recommendations of the royal commission to address those shortfalls and to strengthen and restore public confidence in our justice system. This is what we are doing, and this is what we have been doing. I am very proud of the government’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. We have seen some fantastic progress. We can see that in the last progress report and through the implementation of a wide range of changes, including in Victoria Police’s practices, policies, structures and cultures and the use of human sources.

I would again like to take this opportunity to say thank you to our hardworking police officers across Victoria and in my electorate of Clarinda. We are extremely lucky to have so many amazing people in the police force working hard to keep us all safe. I am also looking forward to having the Minister for Police come out to the Clarinda district later next month with some of the great people in our local and neighbouring district, the district of Mulgrave. I am proud to be a member of the Allan Labor government, which supports that great work. We have seen record investment in Victoria Police with funding for more than 3600 new police.

I am also proud of the work that is continuing to deliver the recommendations of the commission to ensure our justice system is trusted by all. There has been considerable progress. To date, 49 of the 55 recommendations directed to government have been delivered and 90 of the total 111 have been delivered too. The remaining recommendations are on track. As we have heard, there were changes to Victoria Police’s practice, policy, structures and cultures, and this government has also made key changes to Victoria’s disclosure regime in criminal proceedings.

We have also seen a great deal of progress through legislation here in this place. Work is currently underway to implement the Human Source Management Act 2023, which passed Parliament in May 2023. I was proud to be part of the debate on that bill. It established the legislative framework that will ensure Victoria Police’s use of human sources remains appropriate and justified, provided for independent external oversight and ensured stringent protection to manage risk, in particular where high-risk informants are involved. There have been other related justice legislation amendments and of course the Special Investigator Act 2021, which all go to demonstrating the government’s dedication to implementing all of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants.

Today we continue that legislative work here with the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. Among the royal commission’s 111 recommendations, the commission recommended that a Special Investigator be established, and those were mainly recommendations 92 through to 99. The government in its response committed within 12 months to developing a framework to establish a Special Investigator with the necessary powers and resources to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the commission of a criminal offence or offences, through the use of Ms Nicola Gobbo as a human source, by Ms Gobbo or the current and former police officers named in the commission’s final report or in the complete and unredacted submissions of counsel assisting. This was done in October 2021, and I was also privileged to make a contribution to that debate. It was pleasing to see Justice Geoffrey Nettle AC KC appointed as the Special Investigator not long after that.

Earlier this year the former Special Investigator tabled the Special Report to Parliament, on 21 June 2023, which indicated his view that the Office of the Special Investigator had completed its investigations and had submitted briefs of evidence in relation to all matters that he considered might lead to criminal prosecutions. He also recommended that the OSI be wound up, and the government has accepted that advice. We have also heard that the OSI has completed its work in line with the commission’s recommendations, having investigated potential criminal conduct and disciplinary breaches and subsequently prepared and referred extensive briefs of evidence for consideration by the DPP. This is at the heart of this bill of repeal.

As other members have done, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Honourable Geoffrey Nettle and his office for their work and service over the past few years. As such, today we have before us the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023 with its fairly straightforward objective, and that is first to repeal the Special Investigator Act 2021 and dissolve the Office of the Special Investigator, or OSI. In terms of detail, the bill will repeal the Special Investigator Act and be the principal act with ongoing operation to provide for the necessary transitional provision to support the dissolution of the OSI. Further, the bill will repeal amendments to other acts made by the Special Investigator Act, and there are several. I would just like to run through them. These include the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, the Police Informants Royal Commission Implementation Monitor Act 2021, the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012, the Public Administration Act 2004 and the Witness Protection Act 1991. I would like to say finally that the bill also provides for the operations of the Victorian Inspectorate’s oversight function in relation to the OSI for a period of two years after commencing, to ensure that the inspectorate can investigate and finalise any complaints in relation to the OSI. Again, it is a straightforward proposal that has broad support from stakeholders, several of which have been consulted, including Victoria Police.

I would like to join the many speakers on this side of the house to commend the Attorney-General for bringing the bill forward and for all the work that has taken place in delivering on the recommendations of the royal commission. As I said earlier, considerable progress has been made on the recommendations and some 49 of the 55 recommendations directed to government have been delivered, as well as 90 of the total 111. The work to deliver all of these recommendations is well and truly on track. I am really proud of this work, and I am so proud to support the bill.

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (12:36): I rise to contribute to the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. Before I get started, I thank the member for Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General, for the work that he has done on this bill. We know this bill has been introduced to abolish the Office of the Special Investigator, the OSI, and make the necessary transitional arrangements. It also makes consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I am sure everyone in this chamber and most Victorians would be familiar with the Lawyer X scandal. It involved Victoria Police using criminal barrister Nicola Gobbo as a police informant. Gobbo gave secret evidence against her own clients to Victoria Police, which helped in securing their convictions, something that many here in Victoria would have found to be almost like from a far-fetched TV series, let alone a First World justice system. Unsurprisingly an IBAC investigation commenced in July 2014 – it concluded in February 2015 – and found a high degree of negligence by VicPol. It directed VicPol to provide a copy of the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now, the DPP formed the view from the Kellam review that Gobbo’s clients should be informed about her actions as a human source, and it led to VicPol seeking court orders to suppress this information. There were also media investigations into the matters, notably by the Herald Sun.

Following numerous Victorian courts issuing suppression orders to ban the reporting of these facts, the High Court of Australia ruled unanimously that Gobbo’s identity should no longer be suppressed, and she was subsequently named in the media. In their judgement Their Honours held that Gobbo’s actions in purporting to act as counsel for the convicted persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of Gobbo’s obligations as counsel to her clients and of Gobbo’s duty to the court, and that likewise Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging Gobbo to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill will.

The exposure of the Lawyer X scandal and the High Court’s finding that it corrupted a number of criminal convictions have led to a number of the convicted persons having their convictions quashed. It led to people accused and previously convicted of serious crimes having their convictions quashed. I note also that the member for Malvern has moved a reasoned amendment that the house refuse to read this bill a second time until the government puts in place measures to ensure those responsible for the Lawyer X scandal are held to account. I note that winding up the OSI now means that those responsible for the Lawyer X scandal will walk free without any accountability despite a highly respected former High Court judge finding there was sufficient evidence to secure convictions, and I note that the member for Malvern had a couple of recommendations around the OSI having direct power to bring those charges. If that is not possible, the DPP should have brought in an interstate DPP to make decisions because the Victorian DPP, the DPP in this state, was probably too close to those matters to actually be able to rule on them in a sufficient manner.

I note that the opposition oppose this bill. I also note the reasoned amendment and support the position of the member for Malvern, and we will be opposing this bill. I am not going to take up too much time, because I look forward to the member for Sandringham getting up on the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (12:40): I too rise to make a contribution on the Special Investigator Repeal Bill 2023. I will pick up on something that the member for Nepean just said. We should be listening to the member for Sandringham at this time, but it appears that the tactical genius of the opposition means that the State Taxation Acts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023 will not be debated at the time that it should be, which is now. We have pushed that back some 20-odd minutes through extraordinary reasoning that can only be put down to some tactical genius.

A member: Time wasting.

Gary MAAS: Yes, absolutely – tactical genius. The bill implements the government’s decision and its commitment to decommission the Office of the Special Investigator. The bill does all those necessary things to wind up the OSI and provide for the continuation of critical protections and oversight. The bill is split into several parts. There is the repeal of the Special Investigator Act 2021. The second part of the bill repeals the act, abolishes the OSI and transfers its records to the Department of Justice and Community Safety. It also addresses the public interest disclosures in the final report of OSI operations. Part 3 of the bill makes consequential amendments to the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011 to remove references to the OSI and its functions and retains the Victorian Inspectorate’s ability to receive complaints and investigate OSI conduct during a transitional period. Lastly, parts 4 and 5 make consequential amendments to the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012 and other acts, removing references to the OSI, ‘OSI officer’ and ‘Special Investigator’ as well as discontinuing related functions.

The background to this bill is well known. The government publicly announced that the OSI would be decommissioned on 27 June 2023. That followed the tabling of a special report in Parliament by former Special Investigator Geoffrey Nettle on 21 June, which recommended that the OSI be wound down. Just to address the comments that were made by the Shadow Attorney-General the member for Malvern, he did selectively refer to Justice Nettle’s evidence, but in so doing he conveniently seemed to neglect that it was Justice Nettle’s report that recommended the winding up of the OSI. The purpose of this bill is to acquit those recommendations, and indeed the implementation monitor agrees that the OSI-related recommendations have been implemented and have now been acquitted.

The OSI, as we know, was established by the Special Investigator Act, as recommended by the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, to investigate potential criminal conduct and disciplinary breaches in relation to the Lawyer X matter. Where the OSI determines that relevant offences may have been committed, its role extends to compiling briefs of evidence to be filed alongside recommended charges for determination by the Victorian DPP. The OSI has carried out its line of work with the commission’s recommendations. As I said, the implementation monitor appointed to oversee the implementation of those recommendations is satisfied, absolutely satisfied, that all recommendations relating to the OSI have been acquitted and supports the decommissioning of the office.

The OSI was established as recommended by the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants to investigate potential criminal conduct and disciplinary breaches in relation to the Lawyer X matter and to compile briefs of evidence for determination by the Victorian DPP as to whether to prosecute. It was established with all of the statutory powers which were recommended by the commission. The former Special Investigator tabled that report back in June, as I have alluded to, and indicated that in his view the OSI had completed its investigations and submitted briefs of evidence in relation to the matters that he thought would lead to criminal prosecutions. On that basis he recommended that the OSI be wound up, and the government has now accepted that advice. That advice, as I said, has been supported by the implementation monitor.

The Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants was established in 2018 and investigated those matters and how police use those informants with their confidentiality obligations. With its work completed, the recommendation has been that the OSI be wound up, and the bill does that throughout its five parts. The OSI has completed its work in line with the commission’s recommendations. It has investigated the potential for criminal conduct and disciplinary breaches and subsequently prepared and referred extensive briefs of evidence for consideration by the DPP. Like the member for Clarinda, I too would like to take the opportunity to thank Mr Nettle and his office for their thorough work to acquit those recommendations of the royal commission in relation to the OSI.

The bill will repeal the Special Investigator Act 2021 and facilitate the decommissioning of the OSI. It dissolves the OSI, which will serve to formally close it down as an entity and remove the statutory role of Special Investigator. It is intended the bill will commence by proclamation at the expiry of the current SI’s appointment on 1 February 2024. Notwithstanding this, the bill provides a default commencement date of 30 June 2024. All the obligations of the OSI will transfer to the state. That includes all assets, properties, liabilities, rights and obligations currently held by the OSI, and they are to be managed by the Department of Justice and Community Safety. It will ensure that anyone who may have an enforceable right against the OSI will not be denied access to justice or legal redress because the OSI no longer exists. By way of an example, this could potentially include something like a WorkSafe claim against the former OSI, but the transfer will ensure that those legal obligations of the OSI will continue to be met. It could include responding to legal proceedings, FOI requests and subpoenas. It will also include financial reporting obligations and all remaining contract agreements, leases and other arrangements to which the OSI is a party. They will also transfer to the state.

In the remaining time I have I will just say that the bill ensures that by dissolving the Office of the Special Investigator all the necessary transitional arrangements have been put in place. It includes those necessary provisions to protect the OSI’s sensitive records that have been accrued in that time and to ensure the safety of people employed by or who have indeed been assisted by the OSI. Victorians can be absolutely confident that the OSI has fully investigated criminal conduct and breaches of discipline arising from Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source to the extent absolutely possible. The OSI has played a really crucial role in ensuring the events that led to the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants will not happen again. On this basis I commend the Special Investigator Repeal Bill to the house.

Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Carers and Volunteers) (12:50): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.