Thursday, 30 November 2023

Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (10:52): I rise in relation to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023, and the Victorian opposition will not be opposing this bill. I am going to go through parts of this bill bit by bit in relation to what it is about. The first part of this bill will be amending the Child Employment Act 2003, and this is in relation to the working with children check for PSOs. Currently Victoria Police do not have to have a working with children card. They are exempt for obvious reasons. Victorian police, if they have anything with a charge or criminal aspect to it, will automatically be suspended from Victoria Police, so the disciplinary action will actually prevent them going into a place of education whilst they do not have that working with children card. So whilst they are working there has been an exemption for a long period of time. This is just expanding that to PSOs. PSOs and police all work with young people at different times, whether it is in public areas like railway stations or proactively when they are meeting up with groups.

One of the things the opposition know when we are talking about it is the importance of Victoria Police when it comes to young people here in Victoria, and one of the things we miss is that proactive engagement. We do not have the same proactive engagement that we had in the past, and we are seeing the consequences of that now, which are a growing divide in disrespect between youth and Victoria Police. We are seeing some specific areas where that is increasing faster than others, and we know some concerns have been raised from teachers and from former police officers. One just recently was whilst I was out in Dandenong at Emerson School, which is a specialist school in Dandenong. It is an amazing school with John Mooney, and I know the member for Dandenong regularly visits his school. They have got a fantastic reputation in our local community. Before coming into Parliament I was actually lucky enough and had the honour to work there as a police officer for a 12-month period with young people. Working with young people in a specialist setting is so important, and having Victoria Police do that to break down a lot of the barriers is one of the best crime prevention models that we can have for people with intellectual disabilities and for people who have other disabilities in life – learning disabilities – that can prevent them going into occupations et cetera later in life and who may become engaged with Victoria Police.

I have also met with a good friend of mine, Dave Glazebrook, who is at Melba Support Services, and we have opened the discussion now. We have got too many people in the justice system, particularly who are incarcerated – so they have actually got a penalty involving jail – who do have intellectual disabilities or other disabilities. Using the right treatments, we probably could have prevented them coming into the prison system itself. I think that is a really positive step forward if we can start to engage them at a different time when they enter the justice system rather than when it is too late and they end up with a sentence in prison.

Using services like Melba in the future, I think there is a great opportunity that we could actually remove these people from the prison system, saving a lot of money, which I am sure everybody would be very pleased with – getting these people back out into the community but giving them the support and services that they need. These are the things – changing the working with children checks – which make a big difference in how the police can do this and also how Victoria Police and the PSOs can do it in future.

The second part of this is:

to amend the Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958 to further provide for the allocation of certain property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Country Fire Authority to Fire Rescue Victoria …

This is in relation to Fire Rescue Victoria, formed after CFA and MFB merged, with legislation that came through this place, and there are obviously certain parts of this which are still a carryover from what happened at that time – to make sure that we can combine them and to make sure that the right assets are transferred across to the right place now we have got FRV so we have that protected.

We have raised concerns. This has taken a long period of time to come through, but I think the concern – where this bill could be expanded or needs to be reviewed – is that some of the cost savings that were supposed to come about with the merger to FRV of CFA and MFB were around the HR departments, the payrolls, the back end of the services and support staff. The problem is those savings have not come forward because of the fact you have still got two effective enterprise bargaining agreements (EBA) running within the fire services. You have got a division A and a division B – former MFB and former CFA. They have different conditions in their contracts, so there are certain aspects of what they can and cannot do, programs they can attend. There are differences in allowances, differences in overtime. All of these things, by having them in two different areas, have sort of meant that the FRV have to keep a huge back end of bureaucracy staff to assess and work with each as individual organisations rather than what was planned to be one. So we say to the government: there still needs to be a lot of work done on that.

We sent this out for consultation, this section, and we did have responses from the union, from Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, that there were no great concerns in what this was about but there were still issues raised on how we could save money within the fire services to reduce the costs which are costs passed onto Victoria. And as we know from the Report on Government Services that has come out, Victoria is the most expensive place to deliver fire services in Australia by a long way. The outcomes do not match that cost. Our outcomes are not greater than every state in this country. They are greater than some but not all. Our volunteer sector is also one of our most powerful, but when it comes to the paid side of it, I think the government need to reassess this on how we can reduce those costs that do not need to be spent and maybe even reinvest some of that saving into the fire trucks that are needed here in Victoria that we know not just the union is asking for but the volunteers across our state are asking for.

On the next part of the bill, I note that the member for Murray Plains, who has been looking forward to me talking on this, is not here.

Members interjecting.

Brad BATTIN: Oh no, he is going to get me now – and the Speaker in the chair! I am about to talk about the amendment to the Firearms Act 1996 in relation to the surrender of firearms, licensed firearms dealers and special conditions for long-arm licences. First of all, to those from the department who are here, excuse me if I get this totally wrong when I try and describe a firearm that this is in relation to. But from the notes I took, this is not going to change most firearms here in the state. What it does refer to is a firearm with a lever action – I am looking for a nod on that one. It is a lever action that has a cartridge. If you have a cartridge in it, you can only have a cartridge that has five bullets inside that cartridge. This is actually something that we believe is common sense. We have raised this with the shooters associations et cetera. I have kind of got a nod from over there. I am hoping it was a nod to say it was right. Having just the five bullets does make sense here.

We are very lucky here in Australia that we have got some of the best and tightest gun laws in the world, and there are reasons around that. These are the sorts of things that bring us into line with other states but also bring those firearms into line with other firearms here in Victoria. The associations have, as a rule, said they are quite supportive of this when they have given feedback to us, or they have given feedback to us that indicated they did not have any concerns with it. One thing that appeared to be pretty welcome broadly was the surrender of firearms to licensed firearm dealers. Any way we can get illegal firearms off the street is a positive – not all but any illegal firearms – and to give access to alternatives for some people who have a fear of taking those into police stations I think does actually open it up for firearms that we do not want out in the wrong hands to get handed in rather than disposed of by illegal methods or in illegal ways where they could end up potentially with someone who we definitely do not want to have those firearms. So we do welcome that.

The next part was to amend the Road Safety Act 1986 to further provide for the use of vehicle-immobilising devices, and that is in relation to the spikes if you put them out there. When you can put spikes out on the road, it gives the Chief Commissioner of Police more powers on that. While we are talking about road safety, I will put in here that road safety, we know, right at the moment is one of the most important topics probably we should be talking about as we approach Christmas. We have had 269 – that was the last count that I saw – people die on the road here in Victoria. I read in Parliament this week a letter from Commissioner Grant Stevens, who is in South Australia, whose son at just 18 became a statistic. People will hear of him as ‘101’, and the reason the commissioner wrote that was that his son was number 101 for deaths on the road in South Australia. I have said before that having children who are driving – one is two years into her driving, one is about to get her licence – does have an impact. I think many in here would be in a similar boat where you have got young children who are going through that phase of learning or have learned to drive, and it is a great fear, the first day they go out on that road without someone sitting next to them. Road safety is something that we need to do.

We would love to see the government as well consider future legislation in the Road Safety Act or bringing back into the Parliament the road safety committee, a very, very important and – we talk about powerful committees – a very powerful committee when you think about the things that it achieved when it was here in the Victorian Parliament, dating back to the introduction of seatbelts – we know seatbelts save lives; in relation to changes on Victorian roads around drink driving and how we can assess drink driving; and recommendations around safety devices on cars, including things like ABS upgrades of cars that end up becoming Australian national standards. These committees provide an opportunity for members of this place to call in the experts, those that understand, and genuinely find out what the impact on our roads is and about road safety across Victoria. At the moment the national road toll is up 6.5 per cent and Victoria is up nearly 20 per cent, and we need to ask why. At the last look I had, it was 52 deaths above the five-year average. We did have a reasonable few years in there which were quite low.

We in here have all heard and seen the TAC ads of Towards Zero, which I think were quite effective ads. Again, another section they should look at in the Road Safety Act is how we actually have an impact in the ads we run. Now, many would remember the most recent ads around target zero. It was a gentleman walking down a laneway, and they asked him what he thinks a reasonable road toll is and he said 50 or 60. And then they had 50 or 60 people walk around the corner, and he was standing there and it was his cousin and daughter – it hits home. It is 50 or 60 people. If one of them is your family, that is bad enough, but we have seen recently two, three and four in one car; five people who were out having a celebration. These are statistics that are getting to the heart of everybody, and it is something we really need to focus on, that target of zero.

But I would go back further, and I would say some of the best TAC ads were ‘Drink and drive, you’re a bloody idiot’. I think that had a massive impact and started to change us from our record road tolls above 1000 down to where we are today. We saw ads of a Kombi van and a person who was fatigued and ended up driving in front of a semitrailer. Anyone who saw that ad for the first time at the movies, it will never leave you because the ad stops as the truck is about to go over this kombi van, and then the next scene is a kombi van effectively crushed in the background. We need those ads back out there again, but putting them on channels 7, 9 and 10 is a waste of time because not many people watch 7, 9 and 10. Excuse that, my media friends upstairs, but the reality is most people watch or get their daily news online, so we need to have a focus on a road safety education program that is very much online. The other side of this is that we need a lot of work done on our road conditions, but going across into this bill, we are in support of these police powers to ensure that they have the ability to take people off the road who are the most dangerous on the road. That is what this is about, effectively, being a bit more pre-emptive, proactive and able to use those spikes.

I would say in addition to this that there is one thing that has changed over time. Whilst we do not ever want to see any pursuits on the road – in an ideal world we would see no pursuits on our roads. However, we do have to get to a position – because pursuits now are very, very difficult for Victoria Police. Someone has to make a call on what you can and cannot do, who is going to be responsible, who is going to be liable, and it only takes one person to call off a pursuit, who may not actually be at the pursuit at the time: it could be a radio operator; it could be a sergeant who is sitting at another location. There are all these different spots that they could go out to and then have people who could make that call on stopping a pursuit.

The challenge with this is it is actually getting to a stage where those who are the offenders driving know what they can get away with, when a pursuit will be called off and what they have to do to get a pursuit called off. Again we have got to be very cautious about where the line on this is, but I think it is about time we give a bit more protection to Victoria Police to make that call without risks to them that they are going to be sued or placed in a position for criminal charges if they do the right thing in a safe environment, which they generally do. Coppers do not go out there and try and go flat out through lights at 120 kilometres an hour when they are red. They would call that off. They would not do a pursuit through a school zone at 3 o’clock on a Tuesday; they just would not do it. But it has got to a stage where it has gone so far the other way that there is more interest in calling it off and saying we can try and find or identify the offenders later. I think that is a bit of – in my view – a concern and something we need to address going forward, to give them back those powers.

The bill is to amend the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003 to provide for the procedures and operations of the Countering Violent Extremism Multi-Agency Panel and for the powers of the courts and Secretary’s delegates in relation to support and engagement orders. Although it will not affect it, it is probably prime time to talk about this, considering what is going on with the federal government. We have had questions in this place in relation to how many of the 141 people that have been released from the federal system are in Victoria and what we are doing to ensure that people in Victoria are safe from those people who are out on the street. I think it is something we need to very much address, and again it is something that we support in here.

The bill is also to amend the Victoria Police Act 2013 in relation to the code of conduct for members of Victoria Police personnel; medical assessments of fitness to participate in inquiries relating to an alleged breach of discipline; conditions that may be imposed on a police officer or protective services officer for a breach of discipline or an offence punishable by imprisonment; the restorative engagement and redress scheme for current and former members of Victoria Police personnel; and unauthorised access to, use of and disclosure of police information – all very important topics. I know that the Police Association Victoria, when we discussed this, did have a couple of issues, but I will put on record I understand that there is an agreement now with the association and the government to iron out who can do the assessments et cetera. I think the police association through an exchange of letters are quite happy with that, which is a positive outcome.

If only we could have the same outcomes at the moment with the police negotiations that are currently happening, where the government has refused to sit at the table with the Victoria Police Association and Victoria Police members around what is happening with their current EBA negotiations. I know, Acting Speaker Farnham, one that will impact with you is when they are starting to talk of the removal of the protections for one-man stations across our state. These are the things that the Victorian government need to be talking about. It is not in the legislation – the one-man stations – it is in the EBA. Maybe we should consider putting it into legislation to protect these one-man stations, because regional communities and towns deserve and have the right to that protection. One of the changes – if anyone has not been following it – in the EBA is simply to remove or change one of the clauses which effectively says a member at a one-man station is protected in that role and can only be taken away in extreme circumstances. It might be a terrorist attack, it might be a flood or a fire where they are needed in extreme circumstances at a different location, but the police management have the power to move them. The change to this particular ruling in the EBA would be that it would effectively go back to management to move them for an operational purpose. It does not sound like a big difference, but an operational purpose could mean a station in Forrest – a one-man station – could be told that his shift will now be in Colac, 45, 50 minutes away, because they are short staffed. Rather than fixing short-staffing at Colac by removing the only police officer in Forrest, we should be addressing the issues we have with where our Victoria Police staff are located or what divisions we have them in. We are taking them off the street when they should be out protecting our community and we should be keeping our police stations open. This also links into the 43 stations that are going to have reduced reception hours. At first, when people saw that, they did not believe it, to be honest, because they thought no way in the world can you close 43 police stations in Victoria for between 8 and 16 hours – that does not fit. But it does. It is even in areas like Sunbury. Not only are we talking out in regional areas, we are talking about closing down the stations in metropolitan Melbourne, so the stations will have locked doors.

The stations are used all day and night. People say, ‘Oh, Brad, they don’t get used at night.’ I would love to sit with you one night down outside Prahran police station if you tell me it is not used at 3 in the morning on a Friday night or a Saturday night. And the people that are using it are victims of crime. They are not coming in to get their stat dec signed, they are not walking in to get an affidavit signed by a sergeant; they are coming in because they are victims, and when they are in the street they know that the place of safety is their local police station. In Sunbury now when you do that and you get to the police station at 1 in the morning and the door does not open, there will be a little sign on the door to tell you where you can go: ‘Here’s another place that you can go and relocate to to get the support you need’. In Sunbury that might be 10 minutes away, which for a victim is a long way. But if you are in Colac, that could be an hour away in any direction, and you cannot go anywhere with it. You can press a little button on the door. It would be fantastic if you have just been sexually assaulted to press a little button on the door and have someone talk to you through an intercom and say you can go to Geelong if you like. Stations are used for that; it is what they are about. There are some stations across the state that were already closed at night. Everybody knows about them. It is these ones that they are saying are temporary – that they are going to close temporarily – which takes away the right of the victim to go somewhere as a place of safety.

Just last night we saw an incident in Melbourne where people who visited this Parliament – and we have heard the member for Brighton talk about this – went back to their hotel and were effectively blocked out of their hotel by a group of extreme-left protesters who think it is okay to stop people who are coming to our Parliament to talk about the concerns in Israel at the moment, about their family members. They came here in desperation. They are travelling around so everybody gets the message that they have still got family members that have been kidnapped or killed. They got back to their hotel, and they could not get in. Victoria Police could not go and move them on, because they have not got the move-on laws. As we understand it, these victims then had to go to the local police station. When they got to the local police station, there was not a room or availability at the police station to support them at that time, so they had to wait in their car for half an hour. That is bad enough in central Melbourne when a station is open. Imagine if we start closing those receptions.

There is so much more that Victoria Police could do and need to do, but they need the support of the government, or they need the policy direction of the government. The government will come in here – I would say the Minister for Police, but he does not often come in here and talk about police issues. The police minister should be coming in and talking about it. They always say, ‘We’ve given record funding. We’ve given them all the tools they need. We’ve given them everything they asked for. If the Chief Commissioner of Police wants it, he gets it.’ Well, maybe you could do it a little bit the opposite way. You could put some policies forward that the chief commissioner has to follow in relation to opening stations. You could ensure that the priorities are around community safety – and not departmental staff effectively who are sworn police officers – and get them back out on the street. You could stop lying about the numbers that you have within the Victoria Police. You have had a decline for three years straight now in Victoria Police numbers – full-time equivalent roles – here in Victoria. Three years in a row those police numbers have declined.

We have got a massive issue with morale through the Victoria Police, not just because of the enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations but because of the 2½ years where Victoria Police became the front line of what was happening in COVID. No police officer signed up to go and prevent children in a park from going down a slide – no-one did – but that is what they were forced to do. So if we want to make some changes, we have got to build that respect back with Victoria Police. We have got to install the policies that direct the Victoria Police so that our goal is a community-focused and community safety plan, so that we provide places of safety like stations as a standard. We think our priority should be having police on the beat preventing crime, because if you prevent it, there is less use for some of the other departments in the background after those crimes are committed, because we can stop them.

There is so much that we could do and change in what we are doing with Victoria Police. When it comes to Victoria Police there is a section in here around discipline. The one thing and aspect that I would say we could and should change is the way that we talk in this place and in the media about Victoria Police based on minimal information that we get from one small YouTube clip or one small social media clip. It is time that we actually started to back Victoria Police. There are incidents that will end up going through a process, and if a police officer has breached the rules they should have the book thrown at them in whatever way it needs to be done. But we have got into a habit now where we cannot go out and defend the police in here or in the media, because the media will go ‘Here’s one little image’ – and there is nothing of what happened prior; there is no context for what is happening – but all of a sudden we are expected to go ‘That’s fine’. I have seen instances where police use a vehicle to go and knock someone off their feet. That in itself looks terrible – if you watch that clip with no context, that looks woeful. If you then put a weapon into the hand of that person and see them threatening other police officers, it does change the context.

I am going to say one of the things I would love to see – which cannot be changed through legislation but can be done through changed attitudes in this place and the media – is us starting to back our Victoria Police and building up the respect for those men and women who go out and protect us every day. I will say that for our PSOs as well. Our PSOs do an amazing job in this place. We had James in the past who was injured out the front here in a hammer attack. We know they come under a fair bit of pressure in this place, particularly around some of the protests. And it is quite confronting too. We have seen protests in this chamber; it is quite confronting for PSOs trying to deal with that. It is easy, sitting down here, to go come on, just grab them and take them out, but you are also in a position where you have to protect your safety. Generally the places up in the galleries are safe, but if they get up into the galleries and you have got a protest, then you have got other people to think about – there are a whole lot of things. So to the PSOs can we say thank you as well.

As I finish my contribution, as I said, we are not opposing this bill. Can I put on record our appreciation for Victoria Police and PSOs, those men and women that will be out this Christmas while we are at home celebrating – they will be the ones that are on call. They will be doing the night shift; when we need them the most they will be the ones that turn up for us. I want to thank them and wish them all a very merry Christmas, from management the whole way through. Every single police officer will be there for you when you need them during this holiday period. That includes those members who I can almost guarantee you on Christmas night – so those on the afternoon shift on Christmas Day going into night shift – will have to attend an increased level of family violence, because it does become a high-risk day for family violence. Can I thank them – those police members that turn up, that go out into those circumstances and protect the most vulnerable who desperately need it at the time they need it. We cannot thank them enough for the work they do.

The next part of it is: do not have a go at a Victoria Police officer when you get pulled over for speeding, do not yell at the police officer if you get done for drink driving, do not have a go at them if you have done something wrong – take responsibility for what you have done – but thank them for saving your life, because the Victoria Police pull you over for speeding because speed kills. The Victoria Police will do a breath test on you and take you off the road because if you drink and drive you are a bloody idiot and you will kill someone. We need to start thanking them for the work they do.

To all my fellow colleagues in the Victoria Police, the PSOs and all of those who have served us over the time, I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a safe Christmas, and I look forward to working with you all over the next few years to get policies in place that build respect for Victoria Police and ensure that we can keep the community safe.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (11:19): I too rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023. I have to say, it was great to hear the member for Berwick talk about the importance of road safety and being sensible this Christmas and the festive season. What we do know is that year upon year, ultimately we see lives lost over the holiday season for a variety of reasons, and very, very tragically every single loss of those lives is preventable.

This bill makes a number of important changes that strengthen the way our police force is disciplined, ensuring that they keep our community safe to the very best of their ability. It deals with a number of different community safety issues, ranging from dangerous drivers to firearm protections.

I too would like to start by commending the work that Victoria Police do to protect our local community. I have to say, it was fantastic on a personal and professional level, not so long ago, to have the Minister for Police join me in the electorate of Laverton to visit not one, not two, but three police stations that operate in and around my part of the western suburbs. We took the time out and we started at Sunshine police station, we went to Wyndham North police station with the member for Tarneit and also visited the new police station – the quite astounding, incredible build that it is – in Werribee. What an extraordinary investment that is – a great, great investment. I know many of my colleagues from the western suburbs sitting in the house this morning have indeed visited that police station.

It gave such incredible insights – for someone who does not work in the police force – into the types of work that our local police are doing in and around my local community. We talked about many things. I have constituents raise with me – on a regular basis, from the inner west to the outer west – their concerns, issues and challenges. Sometimes they have got suggestions to improve police activity in their local area. It was great to be able to take all that information and then have open, honest, full and quite frank conversations with local police officers in the community and draw to their attention some of the things constituents have been raising with me.

I have to say, Wyndham North police station in Tarneit did a tremendous job in assisting me over the four years that I was the member for Tarneit by providing me with a community liaison officer. When constituents would raise their issues with me – from quite simple matters to others that were quite serious matters, where people had been victims of serious assault – I was able to connect that community liaison officer with those constituents and residents, and they were able to go and have whatever the issue they had raised with me addressed in a more timely matter. That was something really great that Wyndham North police station did, and it is wonderful to have that type of assistance now being offered to me as the member for Laverton by Sunshine police station. I do really want to thank those police officers who have lent me a hand in that way.

The bill before us today is further going to improve the police’s ability to keep our community safe. What we do know in this house – I think regardless of what party and background you come from – is the safety of all Victorians is absolutely paramount, and that is what this bill is about. It is really important for good governance and long-term governments like ours to keep introducing legislation to further improve the laws and the regulations that are all about keeping Victorians safe.

The first section of this bill deals with Victoria Police’s discipline system. I think the community would well agree that the vast majority of the 20,000 employees of Victoria Police do the right thing each and every single day. They perform their jobs to the highest possible way in which they can, each and every single day, and it is really important to recognise that. It is also really important to recognise that on occasion there are those that do not do the right thing, and that there are safeguards, preventative measures, disciplinary measures and systems in place for those who do go ahead and do the wrong thing. It is important not just for those to be in place but also for the community to know they are in place to safeguard them against police pursuing the wrong action, particularly when it involves individuals. Victorians of all persuasions and views do expect our police to conduct themselves to the highest professional standards, especially when they are interacting with members of the community. It is members of the community, it is people like you and me, that need the police to protect them, to prevent crimes from happening and to intervene as they are happening but also to follow them up, sadly, after the fact. Now, this bill ensures this through a number of changes.

Firstly, it is going to empower VicPol discipline inquiry officers – the DIO – to direct a police officer, or PSO for that matter, to undertake a medical assessment if they believe that it is necessary to prove that the officer is physically or indeed mentally fit to participate in a discipline inquiry. Under the current legislation what we know is that police and PSOs do have the right to request an adjournment of a disciplinary inquiry on medical grounds. However, it is really important for a verification process for any medical evidence provided that does not actually exist. So in this way there is a process where the DIO can verify those medical reasons by way of a medical assessment. I would say it is also going to streamline things. Guidelines will be made available for DIOs to assist them with knowing when to make those determinations, which is really important. In addition to this, it is going to provide further integrity measures. Victoria Police will also update their relevant internal policies so that not only approved medical officers will be utilised for this purpose. It ensures that the medical assessments conducted through the process are less likely to be biased or partial.

The second important thing that this bill does in relation to police discipline is make breaches of the police code of conduct a disciplinary breach as well. You can see that by making it a disciplinary breach – by breaching that police code of conduct – it increases the seriousness and the serious nature of non-compliance with that code of conduct. The one thing that I think is common sense – and maybe this is something you could ask a person on the street – is that if the police code of conduct is not enforceable, what is the point of having it in the first place? This instead will make it binding on all police personnel and subsequently makes failures to comply with it subject to disciplinary action.

We have made the decision not to write the code into the Victoria Police Act 2013, and that is because doing so would make any changes to the code subject to legislative change. We want to make this code a living and evolving document. It is meeting community expectations, it is doing what it is supposed to do and it allows it to be updated in the future to reflect those community needs without needing folks like us to get involved every time this needs to happen.

The third change made by the bill in this space relates to the conditions that Victoria Police can attach to a good behaviour bond for officers found to have committed disciplinary breaches, and this will include adding a non-exhaustive list of all relevant conditions that are linked to the relevant breaches.

In the almost 60 seconds that I have got left I do want to take this opportunity to thank Victoria Police for all of their outstanding and hard work this year. Being here in this house, the work that they did over the two years that we had of COVID – that one-in-100-year pandemic in this state – was absolutely extraordinary. It was above and beyond. I do hope that our police officers, particularly my local ones in the western suburbs, have a period to spend their time getting some rest and relaxation to be recharged for 2024. To all of those officers, including PSOs, that are working over Christmas, over New Year and on our public holidays and indeed having to attend, as the member for Berwick talked about, scenes of family violence, speeding accidents and drink-driving accidents, I thank them very much for their service. They are an incredible attribute for Victoria. On behalf of my community, I would like to wish them a very merry Christmas.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:29): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

I do this because this morning on the front page of the paper we saw an outrageous hit on one of Victoria’s most important watchdogs, the Attorney-General, and this house must take the time to debate these continuing attacks by the Labor government on our watchdog agencies. This is not the first time we have seen a hit on an agency based on leaks from a committee in this place. In fact we are now seeing a track record. We have seen it across multiple committees. We have seen it today with the attack on the Auditor-General. We have seen it with leaks from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC). We have seen it previously with the integrity committee, and also we have seen the behaviour of the Electoral Matters Committee spoken about publicly. All of these leaks have occurred because the government is concerned about the work these agencies are doing.

Today the Auditor-General released an important report into major projects, and at the same time we have seen the Auditor-General hit in the media. This follows two previous reports over the last weeks, one into consultants and contractors and, further to that, one into the state’s finances. At a time when the important watchdog who provides transparency about government actions and behaviour is releasing reports that are embarrassing and calling out the waste, the mismanagement and the obscene behaviour of this government, we see another attack on that watchdog by this government.

Earlier this year we saw similar attacks on the eminent Robert Redlich after he spoke out about his concerns, especially about the former Premier and his government. We saw then leaks – confirmed leaks. This is not something that has been made up, this is something that has been confirmed. There is no question about it that the government, through PAEC, leaked information to hit a person of integrity, one of our chief watchdogs. It was extraordinary, but now we have seen it again today on the front page of the paper.

The Labor government is attacking our state’s watchdog. It is outrageous. There is no question about it, and there is no question that it is a pattern of behaviour. How can this occur? How can we in this state have a government that is attacking good people who are doing important work to ensure the mechanics of government and the spending of government are appropriate?

Of course we support what they are doing. Any good-minded person would support the work they are doing. No-one would expect reports that these agencies release to be glowing. We would expect them to look through the work of government and suggest improvements. Of course we would. No government is perfect, but what any good government should do is take the learnings from those reports and do something about them – make changes where it is required.

We have not seen that today. What we have seen is an outrageous attack, a revenge hit job, on one of the most important watchdogs. This house needs to immediately consider why our committees are leaking like sieves to the media for one outcome: hitting integrity agencies that are reporting on the workings of government. We have never seen such an outrageous display of leaks which are aimed at and designed to be revenge attacks upon the important work of these agencies. That is why this Parliament needs to consider these matters. That is why this Parliament must now turn its mind to these outrageous leaks, these outrageous hit jobs on our agencies on the days on which these agencies are releasing reports which are critical of government, and say enough is enough. This Parliament must deal with these important matters now. We cannot allow these revenge hit jobs to continue.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (11:35): It is disappointing to have to rise to oppose the member for Brighton’s motion –

James Newbury: Don’t – don’t oppose it.

Iwan WALTERS: which of course I do. The member for Brighton has had a chance to speak, and now it is mine. The reason I oppose the member for Brighton’s motion is that it feels like we have just restarted debate on a really important piece of legislation that is about ensuring that Victorians can have confidence in our police force, who represent all of us, and about ensuring that we have consent in our policing model. That is a really important piece of legislation that this motion seeks to interrupt. I think the member for Brighton began his contribution by slandering and verballing the Attorney-General and by making allegations which I do not think are –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, personal reflections are unparliamentary and they are out of order.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Iwan WALTERS: The simple fact of the matter is that the government has reappointed the Auditor-General. It is ironic that the member for Brighton suggests that I was making reflections on other members. To initiate the debate with profound reflections upon other members of other place, members of this Parliament, I think was inappropriate. To simply regurgitate some kind of unsubstantiated allegations that were made in the newspaper this morning while interrupting debate on a profoundly important piece of legislation before the house, I find deeply disappointing.

Michaela Settle: Frivolous.

Iwan WALTERS: It is frivolous, as the member for Eureka comments. It is a frivolous interruption of scarce time that we have in this place today, which is scheduled to be the last sitting day for the year. We may be here late, and I am looking forward to being here late tonight because there is plenty of material that we need to debate in this place. But it feels a shame that we have been waylaid away from dealing with, as I say, a really substantive and important piece of legislation designed to ensure that there is appropriate regulation of firearms in Victoria – that Victorians can have confidence in the police’s own internal disciplinary processes – and to be again engaging in a 30-minute stunt that the member for Brighton has initiated that adds nothing to Victorians’ confidence in institutions. It seeks to demean the Auditor-General and the work that he does. Whatever newspaper commentary the member for Brighton is talking about I think is just that – commentary for a newspaper.

The simple fact of the matter is that these institutions are indeed very important and that the government has reappointed the Auditor-General to his position. As a member of Parliament, I find the work that the Auditor-General does really important. It is helpful for me as a member of the Parliament, and not a member of the executive, to better understand the work of our agencies, of our departments, and I say this as a former member of SARC and indeed a former chair of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. There are mechanisms for us all as parliamentarians to be able to scrutinise and hold to account the executive. But to do it in this way, by seeking to interrupt debate on, as I say, legislation that is doing exactly that – strengthening Victorians’ confidence in institutions – I find really disappointing. It is a shame that we have to be again interrupting time – important and scarce time – on debates of really important pieces of legislation that I hope to return to very quickly simply so that the member for Brighton can unfortunately make some base political points that I do not think will have any traction. I do not think that the debate on this motion will succeed, again, because the government in this place has been elected by the people of Victoria to do just that – to govern on their behalf, to enact our agenda as the governing party.

I think the member for South-West Coast suggested earlier that pointing out this simple reality is arrogant. It is not a question of arrogance. I come here with profound humility to represent my constituents in Greenvale. But I also do it with a sense of obligation and responsibility that, having been elected upon a platform, we need to use the time that is given to us – the very scarce time – to work as productively and efficiently as possible. Every single half-hour that is taken out of the government business program when we get railroaded into this kind of procedural debate I think undermines our capacity to enact that legislative agenda and diminishes the confidence of Victorians in this house and our procedures. So for that reason, and for many others, I oppose the motion.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (11:40): It is sometimes said that if you stay in this place long enough you will hear everything. It was only earlier this morning when we were debating whether we should cognately debate the SEC bills that I think it was the member for Yan Yean, if my memory is correct, said ‘The thing about us, we can multitask’. And the member for Greenvale seems to think it is not possible to both debate the police bill and also debate a very important matter relating to attacks on integrity officers in this state. I think we are absolutely capable. I think we are absolutely capable of debating both motions. We can, and that is why I support the member for Brighton’s motion to adjourn this current debate. I have got a lot to say about the police bill, but I have also got a lot to say about attacks on the Auditor-General.

As the member for Brighton indicated, we are starting to see a pattern emerge here. Now, I have been here for a long time. I have been here long enough to remember when the Labor Party used to regard itself as the champion of the Auditor-General, champion of the independence of the Auditor-General. They used to take great pride in saying ‘We defend the Auditor-General, we protect the Auditor-General’. But now – what happens now? We see these little leaks emerge, designed to personally target the Auditor-General. Now, what possibly could have led to this? Well, maybe it is complete coincidence – it could be a complete coincidence – but last Friday the Auditor-General tabled his audit of the –

The SPEAKER: Member for Malvern, I ask you to come back to the procedural motion.

Michael O’BRIEN: Absolutely. And this is why we need to debate the appalling attack on the Auditor-General now, because just last Friday he tabled in this house, out of session, the annual financial report, and here is what he said:

Debt rose again this year at a pace faster than revenue and economic growth … The government have not laid out a plan for when and how the state will pay down existing and future debt.

Tim Richardson: What’s your point?

Michael O’BRIEN: My point is: why is it that suddenly after the Auditor-General has pointed out that the emperor’s got no clothes and that the government has got no idea how it is going to repay its debt, all of a sudden this personal attack on the Auditor-General comes out? You do not have to be there on the grassy knoll with a second shooter to put two and two together and understand that this government is attacking –

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Speaker, can I ask that the member is brought back to the matter before the house. Can I also remind the member that the government has actually just reappointed the Auditor-General.

The SPEAKER: Order! On the point of order in relation to relevance I do ask the member for Malvern to stick to the procedural motion before the house.

Michael O’BRIEN: The procedural motion is about interrupting the current debate so we can move to discussing the attack on the Auditor-General. I am very happy to discuss why that is important, because we have seen a pattern of attacks on independent officers of this Parliament, be they the former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich or now the Auditor-General Andrew Greaves. The Auditor-General is the ultimate umpire when it comes to the state’s finances, and they should be performing a role that should be respected broadly by everyone in this house and indeed by those in the community. But the trust in the Auditor-General is undermined when we see political hit jobs like we saw on the front page of the Age this morning. Now, where possibly could that information have come from? Where possibly could information about the inner workings of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee come from to inform that article? I think that is an important question that we need to understand now, which is why I support the member for Brighton’s motion.

No government is beyond independent checks and balances. IBAC is one independent check and balance; we saw the former IBAC Commissioner get attacked and traduced. The Auditor-General is an important independent check and balance, and now we are seeing a similar pattern of behaviour. The clear message from this government seems to be: if you are an independent office-bearer and you seek to hold the government to account, you will be attacked – you will be attacked in personal terms. Well, on this side of the house we say we are not going to cop it. We are not going to cop it on behalf of those independent officers. Also, we are not going to cop it on behalf of the Victorian people, because independent officers should be just that – independent. They should not be looking over their shoulder worrying that if they say a single word not in line with the government’s philosophy, they are going to get attacked on the front page of a major newspaper. The member for Brighton is absolutely right: let us adjourn this debate and get on with protecting our independent Auditor-General.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (11:45): In rising to speak on the procedural debate, I am a bit concerned about how this has come to be and what this means for this place. Having served with the member for Brighton on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC), I am a little concerned about the information we were provided as members in a confidential setting and then the discussion of the Auditor-General’s role. I think it is inappropriate to use procedural motions to be led around on the procedures of this house, and if there was to be an inquiry into serving independent members in the auditing space or oversight space, this is really an inappropriate place for that to be considered or discussed, and that is why I will say members should strongly oppose this procedural motion.

When you come in and you misname the Auditor-General as the Attorney-General and when you misname the paper – whether it is the Herald Sun or the Age – the rushed nature of such a procedural adjournment shows that this has not been considered in depth. It has been rushed and it has been brought forward here to landmark, for whatever reason. Maybe it is just that again the coalition is running out of speakers, running out of time, running out of people who want to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023, which is a significant and serious bill in this place. I think it is also upon members who have served on PAEC, who have some of that privileged information – some that was outlined and detailed in the Age, but there is a substantial amount more to some of the discussion that we were privy to under confidential matters – to then not use that as a political grandstanding point.

I am not surprised by the member for Brighton. I am a little more surprised by the member for Malvern, who has shown in this place respect for procedure and respect for some of the functions and the approaches here. This is a serious diversion. The reasons that they stated and outlined in their concerns around former Commissioner Redlich of IBAC is the exact same as to why you would not bring a procedural debate to then discuss the Auditor-General’s role. It is a significant overreach in this Parliament’s assessment or otherwise, and to suggest that we debate the Auditor-General is a serious misstep, in my mind. The member for Brighton might want to consider that in the time – maybe in amending the naming of the Attorney-General and the Herald Sun and misappropriating a couple of things, the member for Brighton can reflect on rescinding this procedural motion and owning up that this was an overstep. The member for Brighton, if you have talked to him enough, has served in the federal Parliament as a staffer and a senior in that and respects those procedures there. The overstep here and the overreach are a significant and egregious approach to this Parliament towards debating that position.

There is a standard form for that, which we teased out as PAEC members on an extended basis for months. We had advice from the solicitor-general, we had advice from the Parliament on where our approach to this issue would be. We found that it was very delicately in PAEC’s remit and we had to be extremely careful. Some of that is now in the public domain and has been described and discussed. If there is an approach, if there is a consideration, there are forms of this house to go through. It is not through a half-attempted, half-baked, quick type-it-up-and-print-it-without-proofreading-it procedural motion and adjournment right here.

I say again and make the point: the Auditor-General has been extended. The Auditor-General has made a substantial amount of reports on behalf of Victorians that are a really important and appropriate discussion. Some of them are uncomfortable for government, but that is the work and the role of the Auditor-General that we respect and admire. It is why in the work that the Auditor-General’s office does they consult with members of Parliament on things that are important and that they might see as appropriate for their consideration. So not only is there the consultative frame from the Auditor-General, there are also the reports that are put forward.

The notion that one report and the allegation that was submitted by the member for Malvern – he knows that does not stack up, because there have been reports that the Auditor-General has done that have been critical of government or critical of the public service and that require scrutiny and require consideration of recommendations, and they have done that for decades. That is the appropriate system and form for the house that we have. The notion that this has been, as described by the member for Malvern, suddenly an attack is an outrageous suggestion. The procedural motion and its use, I think, need to be reflected on. If we are going to come into this Parliament and sling and throw mud and take down the standards of this house through procedural motions each sitting week, we are lowering the colours of this Parliament and we are lowering the standard of how we operate in this Parliament. Let us get on with the business before the house.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:50): I also rise in support of the member for Brighton’s very important motion to suspend consideration of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023 for this very good reason: we should not read on the front pages of the newspaper a political hatchet job, a political attack on an independent officer of this Parliament who is charged with the responsibility to oversight the actions of this government, its departments and its agencies – and that is exactly what this is.

Ms Smethurst of Fairfax press has clearly been in contact with members of the government. She has clearly been fed information by members of the government seeking to undermine the independence of the Auditor-General, seeking to undermine the credibility of the Auditor-General and seeking to undermine the credibility of the work of the Auditor-General, who just in the last week has produced a number of reports which have cast this government in a light which is –

Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural matter where we should be debating whether we are going to move into the substantive debate on the motion that has been put. Putting the arguments and the substance of what you want to discuss in a motion – this is not the time and place. You are better than that. It is about procedure.

The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair, member for Wendouree.

Juliana Addison: Sorry, Speaker. So I call on you to say –

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Juliana Addison: I call on the Chair – that is what I am saying – to please ask the members of the opposition to speak to the procedural nature of this, not the substance of what they would like to discuss.

The SPEAKER: Members are reminded that this is a procedural debate. There has been some straying already, member for Sandringham. I hope that you can speak to the procedure that is before the house.

Brad ROWSWELL: Certainly, Speaker, and I will do just that. The motion moved by the member for Brighton is worthy, absolutely worthy, in my view, because as important as the consideration of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023 may be to this Parliament and to the people of Victoria, the matter before the chamber at the moment is far more important. A government member made the point before that the bill before us –

Tim Richardson: The member for Greenvale.

Brad ROWSWELL: the member for Greenvale – thank you, member for Mordialloc – that effectively we can only be doing one thing at once. Well, we have the ability. I would like to think, looking around the room, looking around the chamber, that we are more or less adults and that we can do more than one thing at once, and the reason why the member for Brighton has moved this motion is because of the shock at and the unacceptable nature of the way that the Auditor-General has been undermined on the front pages of the paper this morning.

Members on this side of the chamber respect our independent agencies. We deeply respect and value our integrity agencies, our watchdogs. They provide an important service on behalf of all Victorians to keep the executive accountable. Speaker, you know, I know and members of this place know that time and time again – not just in this Parliament but in the last Parliament – independent officers, commissioners and leaders of independent integrity agencies and watchdogs in this state have historically been undermined by members of the government.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Speaker, can I ask that the member is please brought back to the motion that is before the house? It is a procedural motion that is quite narrow.

The SPEAKER: Member for Sandringham, I ask you to come back to the motion before the house.

Brad ROWSWELL: We on this side of the house – yes, on the opposition benches for at least another three years, sadly – respect the role of the Parliament. We respect the role of the Parliament, we respect the rule of the executive and we respect the role of committees. But the fact that there has been a leak from a committee that has ended up on the front page of the newspaper today is completely and totally unacceptable. I look to the Auditor-General’s report of last week, which identifies that this government have absolutely no plan whatsoever to pay down the debt they have incurred over the last nine years. The largest debt of any state in the nation – more debt than Queensland New South Wales and Tasmania combined – is the debt of this state, and that is something that was highlighted in a report by the Auditor-General just last week. No wonder there is a political attack – (Time expired)

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (11:55): I am profoundly disappointed by this motion. I have never spoken in a procedural debate before – I have spoken on a government business program – but I felt the need to jump up on this one, given I was the next speaker for the government on the piece of legislation which was outrageously interrupted by this motion. This is important legislation that is seeking to enhance Victoria Police’s capacity to keep our community safe. This interruption based on a news article, I am sorry, beggars belief – it really does. I actually refuse to deign to discuss the spurious claims brought into this place by the member for Brighton, based on an article in the Age.

Members interjecting.

Daniela DE MARTINO: I think you may –

The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Apologies, Speaker. I think Ms Smethurst was writing for Fairfax newspapers, if they are still called that.

As both the members for Greenvale and Mordialloc have raised, this place is simply not the place to discuss such matters, and the opposition diminish themselves by doing so. The opposition has consistently opposed our government business program throughout the entirety of this year, with the exception of a handful of times, to the point that when there is actually support from the opposition for our government business program, we are surprised.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is not a debate on the government business program.

The SPEAKER: I will give the member for Monbulk the benefit of the doubt and hope that she is referring to the procedural motion.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Where I was leading with that was that after opposing the government business program this week, this motion feels like another way to attack it by stealth. It is an interruption to the legislation which has been agreed upon for us to debate. This is our final sitting week for the year. Our time is being wasted here. This is the time that the Victorian public have given us in good faith; they have elected us to this place. It is not an arrogant thing to claim this, by the way. That is often what is lobbed at us when we remind the opposition that we were voted in to get on with the job. We have a vision for this state. We have clarity of vision for this state. Our legislation before us today is here because it is important. We need to get on with debating it. Half an hour will have elapsed, half an hour will have been chewed into of the time for us to bring this legislation before the Parliament and, with all the goodwill in the world, hopefully get the bill passed today. It has been interrupted by the opposition. I must say I think we just have to call it a stunt, because that is what it is. We have heard from the member for Berwick, himself a former police officer. I was listening intently because there is lived experience there. I do appreciate that the member for Berwick would like to see Victoria Police have the capacity to keep our communities safe, as we all do in this place because we have a shared, common interest. If the opposition continues to oppose merely for the sake of opposing, I am afraid to say they will consign themselves to those seats for a very, very long time.

I implore those opposite to discontinue the stunts and let us get on with the business of governing for our state. We are all here with a shared, common passion, purpose and vision to improve the state of Victoria. We can only do that by continuing to pass legislation which we know serves the benefit of all Victorians. That is why we are here. That is the reason we turn up in this place. It is the reason we turn up to our electorate offices. It is the reason why we spend long days and long nights and give up our weekends. It is the reason we all work really hard, each and every one of us – because we believe in a better Victoria. That does not occur by playing games, by pulling stunts and by interrupting the important business that we are all here to undertake. So I must say I am profoundly disappointed, which is why I put my hand up to jump up and speak on this – against my better judgement possibly, but it is with an absolute driving passion to make sure that we get on with the job.

Assembly divided on James Newbury’s motion:

Ayes (26): 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, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, 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, Daniela De Martino, 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, Sonya Kilkenny, 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, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:05): I rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023. In starting off my contribution on this bill can I put on the record the Liberals and Nationals’ support for our police officers right across Victoria but particularly for our police officers that are in our one-man stations and our small stations throughout regional Victoria. They are the core of our communities. They are looked up to and respected in the communities and relied on when there are tragedies and crises in our communities. That is why I want to put on record our support for them and our respect for what they do.

I am very, very, very disappointed that the government would be considering closing down those one-man stations. It is very disappointing that the government would be considering closing down those one-man stations and forcing those officers to go into the larger stations. It is also very disappointing that most of our larger 24-hour stations in regional Victoria now are closed at night. They do not have the staff to have those police stations open at night. Despite the rhetoric of the government that they are putting the resources in to keep Victorians safe, the police do not have enough police officers, do not have enough resources to make sure the stations that are supposed to be open for 24 hours in our larger regional communities are actually open because police officers are being drawn back to other duties. It is not the police officers’ fault these things are happening. They are under immense stress with the work they have to do in the community. It is a fact that the government have not resourced and anticipated these things happening in our communities. I think it is a slight on the government that they have not sufficiently resourced the Victorian police force to make sure that those stations can be open 24 hours a day and that there is a threat to our country one-man police stations into the future.

This bill does a number of things as it works through various pieces of legislation. One of those is around the working with children checks under the Child Employment Act 2003. What this does is make sure that those people who are working for the Victorian police in the justice system who currently have to have a working with children check do not actually have to have one of those in the future. It also changes some property rights and makes some changes to the Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958 around property that should have been transferred to the Country Fire Authority at the time of the firefighters presumptive rights legislation going through.

It makes a number of changes in the policing sector: it strengthens the integrity of the Victoria Police disciplinary system and supports Victoria Police and other agencies to maintain community safety. But I go back to what I said before, that it is so disappointing that the government has not made enough police available to make sure all the positions are filled in Victoria.

It amends the Firearms Act 1996 to allow licensed firearms dealers to receive, accept and take possession of firearms from unlicensed persons who are not exempt from the Firearms Act for the purpose of sale, registration or destruction.

It makes some changes, as I said, to the Child Employment Act and the Worker Screening Act 2020 so that police custody officers come into line with Victoria Police and protective services officers and do not need a working with children check as part of their employment conditions. It is a sensible change because these people have already had the same background and security checks as police and PSOs.

The bill makes some amendments to the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003, and when I read this particular part of this legislation, it came to mind that if police actually had move-on laws in this state, some of their problems would be solved. They could make sure that where there were inappropriate gatherings, where there were people that were coming together where police were concerned that it could lead to trouble into the future, they would have the powers to move those people on. It is very disappointing that the current Labor government took those powers away after the coalition put them in when we were in government between 2010 and 2014. It was something that the police wanted at the time to give them the powers to make sure that they could actually control crowds, control issues, control situations that can get out of hand. I think it is very disappointing that the police do not have these powers, and last night was probably an example where those powers would have been beneficial. As was said earlier today in this house, it is extremely disappointing that there appear to be some members of this place using the current situation in the Middle East, in Gaza, to incite threats to people in this state.

People come to Australia because of what we are and how we value our multicultural society. They do not come to Australia to create division and trouble. If it is true that a member of this house was actually involved in inciting the actions that we saw last night, that goes against the integrity of a member of Parliament to uphold the law and do the right thing by Victorians. It is very, very disappointing that it looks like that has happened. It is a challenge for us as a Parliament as to how we deal with these issues. I do not think we can just wash our hands of it. I think the collective of this Parliament has a responsibility to make sure that that does not happen again, and we need to find a way as a Parliament as to how we actually hold any MP to account that might do that and what penalties may be put in place for an MP in the future that may incite those sorts of circumstances. For the families of people who have been kidnapped in Israel – who are here to tell their story, to seek support, for the friendship our country offers – to be put in a situation where they had to go to a police station, where they could not go back to their own hotel, is just so very, very wrong. If it is true, I condemn the people that were involved from this house that did that. We need to make sure we do something about that into the future.

This legislation also amends the Road Safety Act 1986 to enshrine a police code of conduct into the legislation, which VicPol requested to support the Chief Commissioner of Police. VicPol wanted to highlight that the act would strengthen how important it is to officers to comply with the rules and regulations in the future. It gives the police the ability to employ vehicle-immobilising devices in a great range of proactive situations. This change will give blanket approval, but specific situation approval will still be sought from local commanders on each occasion. I think with these issues around the fact that perpetrators now think they can outrun police – that if they do something wrong, they can actually speed away, cause risk to the community, cause risk to individuals with collisions or with pedestrians being hit by vehicles that are fleeing a police pursuit – this will gives police more power to make sure that people into the future will not think they will get a get-out-of-jail-free card if they speed away because police do not intend to chase them because of the risk it puts to the rest of the community.

As has been said by our lead speaker, this makes a number of sensible changes to quite a few pieces of legislation, and the Liberal and National parties will not be opposing it.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (12:15): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023. This bill amends the Victoria Police Act 2013, the Firearms Act 1996, the Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958, the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003, the Road Safety Act 1986, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and the Worker Screening Act 2020. So it is evident, just by listing all the acts that this bill seeks to amend, that it is a fairly comprehensive bill, and it is very pleasing to hear that it has bipartisan support.

This bill will introduce a suite of reforms with the purpose of maintaining community safety, which is paramount for all of us here. It will do so by increasing Victoria Police’s capacity to regulate firearms, by making administrative enhancements to the operation of the countering violent extremism multiagency panel and by expanding the circumstances in which police officers are authorised to use vehicle-immobilising devices. Strengthening the integrity of the Victoria Police discipline system and ensuring that Victoria Police personnel operate in a way that is consistent with community expectations is another key aim of this bill. It will also enhance the privacy of participants of the restorative engagement and redress scheme for Victoria Police – I will refer to that as the redress scheme – and make minor technical amendments to other Victorian legislation.

Safety of all Victorians is foremost in the minds of each and every member of this place, and this bill will ensure Victoria Police have what they require to keep our communities safe. I echo the members for Berwick and Laverton in calling for all Victorians to drive safely. I would like to put that front and centre before I continue speaking. As we enter the Christmas holiday season, please stick to the speed limits, please do not drink and drive and please do not be distracted by mobile devices. If you are in my area of Monbulk, please slow down as you approach the curves, because it is interesting terrain up there. I do implore people to drive particularly carefully at this time of the year, because our road toll is simply a tragedy. This bill will also enhance Victoria Police’s disciplinary system and support Victoria Police and other agencies to maintain community safety, with dangerous drivers to be targeted earlier and stronger safety controls placed on recreational firearms, as I mentioned before.

I have much admiration and respect for Victoria Police. It has more than 20,000 employees. It delivers policing services to over 6 million Victorians, with approximately 14,000 interactions with members of the public every day. They work to ensure our safety, and for this I am eternally grateful. My oldest and dearest friend Jane – her father Dennis was like a second dad to me growing up. He was the first police officer I ever knew, so from childhood I developed quite an appreciation for the demands of the role through knowing him very, very well. Dennis was actually at Russell Street when it was bombed – he was in the building – and Constable Angela Taylor was his colleague. I was just reading up about that before, and I always forget how young she was. She was 21. As the mother of a 19-year-old son, it is quite a frightening thought to think that someone so young lost her life in the course of her duty.

Dennis was also shot in the shoulder in the line of duty. It is an injury which more than 35 years later still causes him physical pain. He also attended Melbourne Zoo back in I think it was 1989, when a poor soul decided that he wanted to end his life by climbing into the lion enclosure. Dennis was there and saw that horrific scene. He saw far too much in the line of duty, so much more than most of us here can even contemplate, with the exception of the members for Bayswater and Berwick and other frontline first responders the members for Melton and Frankson. Dennis is a man of the highest integrity, and I wanted to take this opportunity to pay homage to him. He is one of the finest men I have ever known. As I say, through knowing him I have admired police officers and the work which they do, and I agree wholeheartedly with everyone else that they are incredibly deserving of our thanks.

The local police across my electorate also do marvellous work, I have got to say. I had the opportunity to visit both Emerald and Monbulk police stations with the Minister for Police and discuss the local challenges for them. I was very pleased to also attend Belgrave station, and they gave me a very comprehensive briefing on their emergency management plans. The work that goes into planning for emergencies, in particular bushfires of course – I mention them often here; I know I sound like a broken record, but they are forefront in the minds of the people across the Dandenong Ranges – and the work that they do in the background to ensure our safety is just unparalleled, and I owe them a debt of gratitude, as the member for Monbulk, on behalf of all people who live there. We are in very, very good hands.

I would also like to mention that as we do come into the holiday season, as we discussed yesterday when talking about frontline workers, our police are not going to have the luxury of taking time off to be with their loved ones like the rest of us will be able to do. They will probably be working harder than ever. I know New Year’s Eve is one of those days where no-one can get leave. It is a blackout day for taking leave because it is such a busy one for them. So while we are all doing whatever we choose to do on New Year’s Eve, be it being in your PJs and in bed at 10 pm or being in the city watching the fireworks – whatever floats your boat – they will not have the luxury of that choice. They will be out there making sure that we are all safe. So a huge and hearty thanks to them for that too.

I would like to join the members for Berwick and Laverton in giving a huge shout-out to the PSOs who work here in the parliamentary precinct, day in, day out, to ensure our safety. I have got to say their presence makes me feel safer. I hope they can enjoy potentially a quieter time over the next couple of months until Parliament resumes again in 2024.

The member for Laverton spoke at some length on the disciplinary process reform which this bill will amend, so I do not want to cover that ground, but I want to talk about protecting the privacy of redress scheme applicants. The scheme is available to former and current Victoria Police employees who have experienced workplace sexual discrimination or sexual harassment. It is a topic really close to my heart. When I was a national industrial officer at the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, I actually in the end became the trainer for sexual harassment. I would travel around to the branches around the country and train up union officials and delegates on how to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace when members approach them with their stories. It is something that is all too prevalent in workplaces, unfortunately, so it is really important – and this bill will make amendments to ensure this – that participants of the redress scheme have confidence that the private and sensitive information they share with the Department of Justice and Community Safety to facilitate and support redress is confidential. So many people hold back from divulging information because they do not want their name put to it or they do not want to be identified for a whole range of reasons, and I am really pleased to see the amendments which this bill makes to ensure that people can feel confident in coming forward and knowing that their privacy will not be breached.

The secretary will be authorised to provide de-identified and thematic information from the redress scheme to IBAC instead of listing people’s names. This scheme provides participants with an opportunity to access personal support and redress in a really non-adversarial setting, and that is key as well. In other words, participants are not required to make a formal complaint or pursue legal proceedings to access the benefits of the scheme. We do need to make it easier and less threatening for people subject to sexual harassment or sexual discrimination in the workplace to come forward, and privacy is absolutely paramount in ensuring that this occurs, because the reality is many participants will not come forward if they think they are going to be named. They want to improve the culture of Victoria Police, so this bill really supports that happening. I am really proud that as a government we have identified this, and we have ensured that this bill contains the levers to ensure that this occurs.

The bill is, as I said before, quite comprehensive, and I cannot list all of the amendments. I do want to just say one more time thank you to Victoria Police for keeping us safe, but safety is also a personal responsibility, so people need to ensure that their behaviour out there is smart, especially on roads, especially over Christmas time. I would love to see our statistics not increase anymore, and I implore all Victorians to go carefully and safely and not to create more work for our amazing police officers.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (12:25): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2023, and I will start by endorsing the remarks of the member for Monbulk in relation to the –

Members interjecting.

Michael O’BRIEN: It is the season of goodwill to all. In that spirit, let me endorse the remarks of the member –

Members interjecting.

Michael O’BRIEN: Do not make it hard for me, this is difficult as it is. I endorse the remarks of the member for Monbulk in praising the great effort and dedication of our frontline service workers, including Victoria Police. I think that is a sentiment that we all – well, at least most of us – can get behind coming up to this holiday season.

There are two aspects of the bill I will concentrate on. One is a fairly dry legal issue – which is probably appropriate for a Shadow Attorney-General – but it is an important one. There have been some decisions by Victorian courts recently, particularly the Victorian Court of Appeal, which have had a big impact on the jurisdiction of VCAT. VCAT was established by the Liberal–Nationals government in the 1990s as a consolidation of a whole lot of different tribunals that were operating. It brought them under one roof. It is a very sensible approach, and it is one that has been adopted in other states – you have got a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and you have got other states who have got their own version of VCAT. It is designed to offer relatively low cost, relatively informal access to dispute resolution.

But what we have seen with some recent legal decisions is the jurisdiction of VCAT has been cut down. That is a great concern to me because the purpose of VCAT was to try to avoid putting matters into higher, more expensive courts – if you could avoid it. Why litigate a matter in the Supreme Court if it could be dealt with more quickly, more effectively and at a lower cost in a jurisdiction such as VCAT? But in a couple of cases, including Thurin v. Krongold Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd, the Victorian Court of Appeal determined that VCAT does not have the power to hear matters that invoke federal jurisdiction. For example, if a claim is made using the Australian competition and consumer law or a defence is raised under such an act, or if a claim is made under the Corporations Law or a defence is invoked using a similar sort of act, all of a sudden VCAT is out of the game.

Now, that has provided a great problem, because a lot of work that VCAT had done previously was work that involved mainly state legal issues, but occasionally a plaintiff or a defendant would throw in a federal claim or a federal defence. As soon as that happens, under these new rulings, VCAT can no longer continue to hear the matter. These matters are now having to be referred on to another court – to a Magistrates’ Court or a County Court or the Supreme Court. That is a problem. This bill, in part 8, clause 60, seeks to address a tiny little issue that has arisen in relation to it. This amendment is one that I have called for, and it is one that is good so far as it goes, but it does not deal with the bigger problem. But I will deal with this particular amendment first.

There is an issue where if a matter which is invoking federal jurisdiction is raised in VCAT, that matter is then effectively sent to, or referred to, another court – a Magistrates’ Court, the Supreme Court or a County Court. There is an issue there if somebody has been joined to that action at a later date, the statute of limitations could then run against them. So you may well have sued a number of parties within time, but a defendant, for example, could join another party and they could say they do not believe they are negligent, but if they are, somebody else is really responsible or somebody else shares responsibility, you can join a party to an action. If that is done, depending on the timing, it could potentially mean that that party cannot be sued at all, because if the statute of limitations has expired once that matter is referred to a different court it means that person has effectively gotten off scot-free. So what clause 60 of the bill seeks to do is insert a new section 4A into section 77 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. It says:

To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (4) to the commencement of a proceeding includes the joinder of a person who was not a party to the proceeding in the Tribunal referred to in subsection (4)(a).

I did warn the house that this is fairly dry legal stuff, but it is important. What this means is that effectively if a matter is then referred to a court the fact that somebody has been joined at a later time will not be held against the party joining them for statute of limitations purposes. At least that is my understanding of what the intent of this clause is to do, and to that extent we support it.

There is a bigger piece of work that needs to be done, and that bigger piece of work is: how are we going to provide for VCAT to continue to be a forum where a lot of issues can be dealt with so not every single matter dealing with a federal issue has to be referred to a court? Goodness knows our courts have big enough backlogs. VCAT has big enough backlogs for that matter as well, but our courts are suffering at the moment. We cannot have a situation where every single legal issue that raises a smidgen of a federal matter is suddenly out of the jurisdiction of VCAT and has to go off to a more expensive court and for a longer wait. So my question to the government is: what is the government going to do to fix this ultimate problem? The government could declare VCAT to be a court. It could pass legislation to do that – that is a possibility. The government may not want to do that, but the government cannot simply say we have done all we can, because the government has not done all it can, and the government needs to fix this. They are my comments in relation to that aspect.

In relation to the police disciplinary matters, we need to do everything we can to encourage more people to want to serve in blue. We need to do more to encourage recruitment, because we are seeing at the moment that the lack of recruitment under this government is causing massive problems on our streets. I received an email a couple of weeks ago from my local area police inspector. It says:

Good morning, Michael.

Victoria Police has made the decision to temporarily –

we hope –

reduce public reception counter hours at 43 police stations across Victoria. Malvern is one of the police stations where the public enquiries counter will, from the 19^th of November 2023, be reduced to 8 hours per day.

Malvern has been a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week station for as long as I have been the member and I suspect long before that. We are now going from 24-hours-a-day public access to 8 hours a day. And the reason why – because there are not enough police. Whose fault is that – the government’s. This government has been in for nine years.

Nick Staikos interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: Who else does the member for Bentleigh want to blame? The government has been in for nine years. At what point is this government going to start taking responsibility for the proper resourcing of Victoria Police? Do not blame Victoria Police. You cannot blame the opposition. There is only one person the government can blame, and that is to look in the mirror. The reason why my police station is being closed 16 hours a day is because members opposite have not provided Victoria Police with the resources they need to recruit the people they need to keep that station open. It is fine for them to say it is only counter hours; who wants to get an affidavit sworn at 3 in the morning? Victims of family violence fleeing home want to go to a safe place, and often that safe place is a police station. If those doors are shut, telling you to go and find somewhere else is no help to somebody fleeing family violence. This is a serious issue, and the government needs to take it seriously – it absolutely needs to take it seriously.

I recently surveyed my community. I sent out a community safety survey right across the electorate. I have had hundreds of responses so far. And no shock to me, maybe a shock to those opposite: 92 per cent of respondents want to see our police station returned to being a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week police station. There is an enormous amount of concern. In my electorate of Malvern we have seen burglaries go up by 42.6 per cent in the past 12 months alone. That is a real blow to people’s sense of safety, not just for those who are affected but for all the neighbours and everyone who hears about it.

We need to get serious about improving community safety in this state. We need to get serious about tackling crime, but we cannot do it when we have a police force which simply are not recruiting enough people to keep stations open. That is my challenge for the government over the next 12 months – make sure Victoria Police recruits members and get our stations back open to the public as they ought to be.

Lily D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park – Minister for Climate Action, Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (12:35): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.