Tuesday, 13 August 2024

Bills

Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (15:01): I rise to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. The institute is a very important institution in Victoria. It is important in our justice system, and it is important in our health system; it is important for lots of Victorians. Many Victorians only have interactions with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine as a result of some trauma in their lives or the lives of those they love. The VIFM is obviously involved in providing coronial services or services to the coroner where required. The VIFM also provides services to support Victoria Police in investigations, and that is why it is so important that this institute be placed on a proper legislative footing, which is what this bill seeks to do. Whether it does it or not is open for debate.

This bill effectively seeks to reinstate the previous legislative basis. There was the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 1985. This bill seeks to re-establish the legislative basis for the governance of the VIFM in 2024. Obviously, governance standards, practices and procedures have changed quite a bit since 1985, so I understand the reason why the government is keen to update the legislative arrangements that underpin the VIFM.

One of the concerns that I do have and that I note at the outset is that we are advised that in 2023 the government conducted a review into the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 – that is the existing act – to determine whether the act was fit for purpose. The government says that this bill seeks to implement the findings of that review, but the government has refused to provide a copy of the review. I ask: if this is a government that is serious about better public policy, why would the government keep secret the review which has led to this bill coming before the Parliament? What is it in the review that is so earth-shattering, that is so controversial, that is so politically embarrassing for the government that it wants to keep it secret? I would have thought good public policy would suggest you undertake a review, you release that review to the public and the Parliament and you say, ‘Well, this is what our findings were. This is why we want to make these changes, and here are the changes.’ That way the Parliament and more broadly the Victorian community could judge whether the government has got it right. The government has provided no reason as to why it is keeping that review secret, and it is very much to this government’s discredit that even when there seems to be no obvious reason for keeping things secret, this government does it anyway. It is almost a habit with this government.

They undertake a review and they keep it secret, and they tell us, ‘Well, this is what you’re getting. You can’t see what the review says, you can’t see what problems the review found and you can’t see what the recommendations were, and therefore you can’t judge whether our bill is actually up to scratch or not.’ This is why we approach this bill with some degree of scepticism. If this government was up-front and genuine and demonstrated good faith with the Parliament and the public about why it wants to bring forward this bill, it would have released the review on which it is based.

There is still time. The bill will obviously go through the house this week, based on the government business program and based on the numbers in this place, but the bill will then be debated in the other place, and I would urge the government to release the review or explain if there is some reason why they think it should not be produced. If there is concern that reputations of individuals at the VIFM might be adversely affected, then say so. But at the moment we are being kept in the dark and treated like mushrooms. The opposition, the crossbench and, more importantly, the Victorian people are being kept in the dark and treated like mushrooms by this government.

After 10 years this is what we see all too regularly: a government that has grown old, that has grown tired and that has grown arrogant, a government that does not believe it needs to explain why it seeks to change things and a government that does not believe it needs to justify the reasons for the bills it puts forward. It simply says, ‘We undertook a review. You can’t see it. This is what you’re getting.’ So excuse me for being a little bit cynical about these matters.

We do know there are some issues with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, and I should say at the outset that that is not to slight anybody who works there. As I said, it is a very important institution in the Victorian justice system and it is a very important institution in the Victorian health system, and I have no doubt that the people who work there are extremely capable and committed professional people who do their best, often dealing with very traumatic subject matter. So nothing I say that is critical of the government should be seen as a reflection on the people at the VIFM at all, because I have nothing but respect for the people who work for the VIFM and for the very difficult jobs that they undertake with skill, with care and with compassion.

My concern is with the government’s funding, and I refer to a story on the ABC’s 7.30 from 5 ‍September 2022. The headline is ‘Victims of violent crime forced to wait for forensic examinations in Victoria due to “dire” shortage of doctors’, and I will quote a little bit from that piece because I think it is very important. It demonstrates how vital a well-functioning, well-funded VIFM is to Victorians. The article starts:

Victorian victims of sexual assault are being forced to wait in bloodied and soiled clothes, sometimes for more than a day, to see specialist forensic doctors.

On some nights in Melbourne, a city of 5 million people, there are no forensic doctors available to see victims of violent crime, in a situation experts have labelled “dire”.

In 2020, Grace Stewart was one of hundreds of women forced to endure the consequences of this shortage.

Ms Stewart alleges she was raped In January that year.

She says it took her hours to comprehend what had happened to her and to muster up the courage to call a rape crisis line.

For 15 hours after that, nearly 30 hours in total, she remained in the same underwear that she was wearing when she was allegedly raped.

If she wanted to see the alleged perpetrator brought before the courts, she couldn’t shower or change until she saw a forensic doctor.

That night, none were available.

“That’s something that was quite traumatic,” Ms Stewart told ABC Investigations.

“It made me feel icky. It was definitely gross, because you want to try and get the experience off you.”

I could go on, but anybody who could read that, let alone watch the story, as I did, on television, and not be emotionally affected by it would have to be a very stone-hearted person indeed.

We do need a system that does not compound the trauma that victims of sexual assault already feel, and yet that is what we have in Victoria at the moment. The government has allowed a situation to be created over its 10 years in office where in a city the size of Melbourne not a single forensic doctor was available on the night that Grace Stewart needed one. She was forced to wait 30 hours in soiled clothing before she could see a doctor and have the relevant tests. I am sure we all say that that is unacceptable.

My question is: what is it in this bill that is going to make a difference? What is in this bill that is going to make a change? Not a lot. VIFM – yes, you can argue about the governance and you can argue about the leadership. What is beyond doubt, what is beyond argument, is that the institute of forensic medicine needs more funding, and I do not believe enough is being done. The government will say, ‘Well, we announced a budget package a couple of years ago and a bit more’s being done.’ The reports I am receiving through people in the industry are that not enough is being done.

I do not doubt the government has got its heart in the right place when it talks about wanting to better support victims of sexual assault, and particularly female victims of sexual assault. I would like to think that we are all on the same team when it comes to these matters in this place. But we hear Grace’s story, and I commend her courage on speaking about it publicly. I cannot even imagine how difficult that was for her to relive that trauma and the trauma piled on top of trauma. I admire her courage. It needs people to speak out. Grace has spoken out. She has shown courage. She has done her part. It is now up to the government to do its part and make sure that Grace or somebody like her is never placed in that position again. The idea that in a city the size of Melbourne no forensic doctor is available to treat a rape victim when they need one is unthinkable.

We know there have been some cultural issues at the institute. The same report went on to detail that doctors at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine have lodged complaints with WorkSafe Victoria about dangerous working hours. It is clearly not a very happy place, based on that. I acknowledge that was almost two years ago, but apart from a couple of budget announcements here and there I do not know that a lot has been done to really fix the problems, and for the sake of people like Grace Stewart we need to fix those problems. So I would be interested to hear from members on the government side what is being done to make sure that somebody like Grace, God forbid in that horrible position, will never have to go through that sort of compounded trauma ever again.

This is a very important bill, but I do not know that the bill is the answer. There are concerns that have been raised by the medical profession that the VIFM has a justice focus but it does not have enough of a health focus. I know that groups including the Australian Medical Association have expressed some concern about the level of consultation regarding this bill and about the extent to which the medical profession has been brought in as a partner with the institute. I know their concern is that the VIFM is seen as being very much a part of the justice system, and the health aspects, the systemic health aspects of the VIFM’s work, are not given the prominence that they deserve.

As the house would understand, I consult with a lot of different organisations on bills that come before this Parliament, and we have got a lot of bills this week. We have got this one, we have got the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024, we have just had the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 come back down from the other place and I think we are getting the ‘cover up Lawyer X problems bill’, or whatever the official title is, coming on tomorrow. But in consulting with the Law Institute of Victoria about this bill, I note that they expressed some real concerns as well about the way in which this bill deals with people’s personal information. As I mentioned, the VIFM deals with people at a very vulnerable point in their life. Generally somebody is using VIFM services because they have been the subject of trauma or because maybe a loved one or next of kin of theirs has suffered death. For that reason we need to be extremely sensitive about how personal information obtained by the VIFM in the course of its work is used.

In consulting with the Law Institute of Victoria, I wrote to them and they provided me with a letter detailing some of their concerns with this bill. They noted that clause 34 requires that, prior to the use or disclosure of information by the institute under clause 32 or 33, the institute must (1) notify the State Coroner of the proposed use or disclosure if the information relates to an investigation under part ‍4 of the Coroners Act 2008 and allow them an opportunity to advise if they reasonably consider that the proposed use or disclosure of such information would prejudice an investigation and (2) notify the Chief Commissioner of Police of the proposed use or disclosure if the information relates to a criminal investigation or a criminal proceeding that has or may be commenced and allow them an opportunity to advise if they reasonably consider that the proposed use or disclosure of such information would prejudice such an investigation or such proceedings. In a nutshell the bill says that the VIFM could use or disclose personal information provided they have notified the coroner and/or the Chief Commissioner of Police and provided them with the time to respond. Under the bill any advice must be received by the institute within 21 days after the institute notifies the State Coroner or chief commissioner of the proposed use or disclosure. The law institute makes the point that with something as important and something as sensitive as the use of personal information collected by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine it should not be a case of silence equalling consent. The fact that the institute does not hear from the coroner or does not hear from the Chief Commissioner of Police within 21 days should not be taken as a green light – that it is okay for the institute to use or disclose personal information as it sees fit. In matters so sensitive and so important there should be a positive obligation to get a response.

I do not believe that the law institute is being finicky or nitpicky in saying that. We are talking about personal information of people who have either died or suffered trauma themselves – let us face it, that is what the VIFM deals with – and the idea that that information could be used or disclosed by the VIFM without absolutely obtaining a positive affirmation that is not going to prejudice an investigation that is being undertaken by the coroner or the police is, I think, the least that the bill could do. I would ask the government to reconsider these matters, because I think that a positive obligation to wait for a response or to receive a response would be a far stronger safeguard, but the government has chosen not to do so, and I think that is absolutely the wrong call.

The law institute also raises, I think not unreasonably, the question of: what about the consent of the individual where it is their information? What about the consent of the individual’s next of kin where the information might relate to a deceased person? If we are talking about personal information, shouldn’t there be an obligation not just to contact the coroner or to contact police to see if releasing this is going to interfere with an investigation in some way but to contact the person concerned or the person’s next of kin to ask if that is okay too, or to at least consider whether they have got a view? Again, I think those matters were put to the government, and the government’s response was effectively, ‘We don’t believe that it’s necessary.’ We are dealing with people who have died in tragic circumstances or people have had horrific things happen to them such that the VIFM is involved in conducting examinations. I think that respecting the individual and respecting their rights and their autonomy is a very important thing, and I would again urge the government to reconsider it, because I do not think the government has got the balance right in this bill.

There are some aspects of the bill which we think are marginal improvements in terms of the governance of the VIFM, and I will come to them shortly. But it is probably appropriate for me to now place on the record that I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government:

(a) properly consults with the medical profession in Victoria on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine;

(b) ensures that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services; and

(c) improves safeguards for the use and sharing of personal information held by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine.’

I do not move that reasoned amendment lightly, but I do so because I think these are three areas in which the government has dropped the ball. I think we do need to see far better consultation with the medical profession in relation to not just this bill but how the VIFM operates more broadly. I think we absolutely need to ensure that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services, and I do not know that playing around with governance structures and tweaks here and tweaks there are going to get that done. I think it is far more important for people like Grace that services are available when she needs them than it is to split up the CEO’s role and the director of forensic medicine’s role, which this bill seeks to do. There is a time for worrying about governance niceties and there is a time for worrying about making sure that victims of sexual assault can get examined exactly when they need it – which is not in 30 hours time.

In terms of improving the safeguards for the use and sharing of personal information held by the institute, I think that is a no-brainer. The law institute has put together some very sensible concerns. I am disappointed that the government I do not think has treated those concerns with the respect, frankly, that they deserve, and it is for that reason that I move the reasoned amendment which is now before the house.

In terms of the governance changes – and to some extent these are some of the niceties, the formalities, but I do not think they go to the real issues that are confronting the VIFM at the moment – let us go through what the bill actually does.

Clause 4 outlines that a person should have regard to principles relating to professional standards, community benefits, sensitive conduct, the promotion of public health, the administration of justice, respect for cultural beliefs and recognising the diverse needs of Aboriginal communities.

I would agree with all that, although I would note that the reference to ‘sensitive conduct’ seems to be at odds with the lack of safeguards on the sharing of personal information, because there are requirements to consult the Chief Commissioner of Police, there are requirements to consult the State Coroner, but there is no requirement to actually consult the person whose information is proposed to be shared or disclosed. And there is no proposal to consult the next of kin of a deceased person whose information is proposed to be shared or disclosed. I think it seems that the guiding principles established by the bill are actually at odds with some of the specific provisions of the bill.

The bill seeks to clarify the objects, the functions and the powers of the institute. Clause 8 outlines the objects of the institute as follows, and I am probably not quoting exactly verbatim but enough so that Hansard will get the gist:

to provide or assist in the provision of forensic services and human tissue services;

as far as is practicable, to oversee and coordinate the provision of forensic services in Victoria;

to assist the Coroners Court with its functions under the Coroners Act 2008;

to contribute to public health and safety and the administration of justice;

to contribute to reducing the number of preventable deaths;

to contribute to the development of knowledge …

in regard to forensic research and to assist in the provision of teaching and training. I do not think anybody would have any grave objections to that and I certainly do not, but, as I said, it is really the actions rather than the words that I think Victorians are more concerned about.

Clause 9 sets out the functions of the institute, and they are pretty much as you would expect. They include – and again I will not go through all of them – assisting the registrar of the Coroners Court, conducting medical examinations under the direction of a coroner, conducting forensic medical examinations in respect to deaths other than reportable deaths, receiving reports of reportable and reviewable deaths for referral to coroners, taking possession of bodies and releasing bodies following a coroner’s order and carrying out actions in relation to human tissue – all the sorts of things you would expect the VIFM to be dealing with.

When it comes to the institute’s board and governance, this is I think where some in the medical profession are not overly enthusiastic, it would be fair to say, about the way in which the government has gone about it. It says the board must consist of a chairperson and six to eight other members appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Attorney-General. My understanding is that many equivalents to the VIFM in other states are located in the health department rather than the department of justice. Through my consultations and those of Ms Crozier in the other place, the Shadow Minister for Health, many in the Victorian medical profession have flagged that they do not believe that the VIFM has enough of a health focus. This is a government that has shown enormous appetite for machinery-of-government changes over the years. The amount of government departments and authorities and agencies and bodies and committees and taskforces that have been created and merged and demerged and destroyed and rebuilt – you could fill War and Peace with it. This is a government that has shown itself quite willing, when it suits it for political purposes or for presentational purposes, to say: ‘Well, we’re creating a new body.’ There was a new one last week. Was it Hospitals Victoria? Another new body.

Jess Wilson interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: Yes, well, new stationery, new business cards, no doubt a number of new communications directors – I am sure that will be the first thing they hire, member for Kew. It is lots of window-dressing and not a lot of substantive change. The question is: why, when we have got a government that is quite happy to engage in machinery-of-government changes for political spin purposes, won’t it actually look at whether the VIFM should be at least co-shared maybe between the Minister for Health and the Attorney-General? I think bringing the medical profession and the Minister for Health into it may allay some of those concerns that Victorian doctors have expressed.

There is a requirement that board members must have appropriate knowledge, skills and experience in one or more of a number of areas. They include forensic medicine or a relevant field of science – well, I think that is pretty self-explanatory; commercial, operational, legal or financial matters; clinical governance; the criminal justice system; or any other field relevant to the functions of the board, which would seem to be very, very broad indeed. So to the extent that this is seen to be some gatekeeping to make sure that only suitably qualified people can get onto the board of the VIFM under this new structure, I would not have thought that it excludes many people at all. I would have thought many people – in fact almost anyone who is interested in serving on a board anywhere – could lay claim to one if not more of those qualifications. Board members are appointed for up to three years and are eligible for reappointment but not for more than three consecutive terms. Well, I think it is useful to have some turnover from time to time.

Clause 20 provides that the board must establish a stakeholder advisory group to assist the board in its decision-making and the performance of its functions. There is not really anything which explains what the stakeholder advisory group is supposed to do apart from assisting the board in its decision-making and the performance of its functions. Clearly, if it is an advisory group, it does not actually have any real power. It can provide advice, but that is about it. So I would love for the government to explain how it sees this working. Is this supposed to be some sop to the medical profession, who are clearly unhappy with how the VIFM is being run and feel a bit cut out of it? Are they supposed to be all, ‘It’s okay’? Is the government’s answer, ‘Well, you can be on the stakeholder advisory group’? I do not think that is necessarily going to cut it, though. I think that the medical profession will say they should have a role in decision-making, not simply advising whoever the Attorney-General chooses to put on the board.

The bill provides for the appointment of a chief executive officer in clause 24 and also the role of director of forensic medicine in clause 26. You might say that is probably modern corporate governance, that is good practice. You have one person there who is responsible for the forensic medicine aspects of the organisation – a forensic medicine professional, a specialist, an expert, one would hope – and then you have a CEO, who is responsible for the other aspects of running the organisation. But no, because interestingly, the bill also provides that the same person may be appointed to both roles.

I ask: what is the point of setting up a structure where one role is to be in charge of forensic medicine for the VIFM and the other role is to be in charge of effectively everything else as CEO, but you can have the same person doing both jobs? If the purpose of splitting them is to make sure that there are appropriate checks and balances and that there is appropriate specialisation given the highly specialised nature of the functions of the VIFM, so you want to have somebody concentrating on the forensic medical services that it provides and you want to have somebody concentrating on the organisational leadership, why would you then allow it to be the same person? You could only wonder: is this designed to tell either a current or a future incumbent that you can have two jobs? I do not understand why this is something that is useful. You would not see it in other organisations. Where there is a split based on professional qualifications versus organisational leadership, you do not then say the same person can do both jobs. It makes no sense at all. It undermines the intended separation of the two roles.

This is a concerning bill in many ways. It is why I have moved the reasoned amendment that I have moved. Most importantly, while at this stage we do not oppose the bill, people like Grace Stewart deserve so much better from this government and from the VIFM than they have received to date, and I do not think this bill is going to fix it.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:31): I am a little bit surprised that there are concerns about strengthening the governance with regard to this organisation. I think that premise of the bill being brought forward here today has surely got to be a positive as opposed to a negative; strengthening governance in the modern era makes sense. But I also take the point that it is not only about the bill today. There has been a steady process of reform in the lead-up to the reforms that we are bringing about in the chamber today.

What does the bill include? Well, it includes principles to guide the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine’s work, a new governance structure and clarification of VIFM’s objects and function, as well as the introduction of a new information-sharing framework, really providing greater clarity in that regard. I think if we get to the core elements of the reform process being brought about here, on the one hand it is seeking to support VIFM in exemplifying contemporary standards of public sector governance and service delivery, but it also ensures VIFM remains well positioned to continue to provide world-leading and best practice forensic services, factoring in the gravity of matters – very, very serious matters, and I do not think there is any dissension on that element per se – that VIFM has to deal with day in, day out, seven days a week.

I do want to speak, before proceeding to the nuanced elements of this bill, to the progress of reform that has led us here today. There are some important matters that have been raised in the chamber, and I think that it is a good opportunity to speak to the reforms that have been brought about to get the best possible service delivery. Our government has invested $100 million-plus in VIFM since the 2021–‍22 state budget. I am just pointing that out as a factual statement, because one can see that that is a significant investment, as is appropriate when you look at the seriousness of the matters which VIFM has responsibility for. The purpose of that investment has been to enable VIFM to build its capability and essential service delivery, including through the addition of magnetic resonance imaging capability, infrastructure improvements and a new case management system.

The boost in funding has also enabled VIFM to continue its transition to a new clinical forensic medicine service delivery model across metro and regional Victoria, factoring in, without being too blunt on the issue, that crimes can occur anywhere in the state, hence the need for service delivery. I am stating the obvious, but just to emphasise that whether it occurs within a metro context or a regional context it is about guaranteeing that forensic medical examinations can be available to victim-survivors of sexual assault on their terms 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So you can see that when it comes to having a model that is able to be replicated across the state, there has been a concerted investment, because it is recognised, the importance of providing such a critical area of service delivery, among many aspects and matters that the service has to deal with.

How does the bill operate? It replaces the current Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 as VIFM’s enabling legislation, noting that VIFM’s enabling legislation has not substantially changed in over 30 years, despite the expansion of its services and changes to public governance best practice. I am probably going to go contra a couple of points that were made there about ‘Why governance now?’ Well, 30 years have transpired. I think it is good and proper and it is timely to be able to bring about these changes. Furthermore, VIFM’s statutory objectives and functions have been updated in an ad hoc fashion over time to reflect its service expansion, resulting in a disjointed expression of and confusion about VIFM’s responsibilities and priorities. The reason I am making that point is that it shows there is a direct imperative to make these important changes that we are bringing about in the chamber today.

Moreover, the question was posed, ‘Why these changes?’ The current act does not provide guidance on how VIFM can use or disclose data and information for purposes other than the primary purpose of collection. So again here we have a very important and good opportunity to provide clarity where it is needed. To date, prior to this bill – and I am anticipating the positive passage of this bill, but of course that will happen as it happens – the legislation has limited VIFM’s ability to use data collected to support important public health policy and research. One of the best ways to improve service delivery and outcomes of course is to be able to properly assess the functioning of the body or the service that is being delivered, and hence data collection and information sharing – I should say, with important caveats built into the system – are appropriate if we are to continue the process of reform in this space.

What changes to the current act does the bill introduce? The reforms will modernise VIFM’s enabling legislation to assist VIFM to meet community expectations and reflect its role in supporting government, the coronial and justice systems and VIFM’s engagement with other service users and partners. They will enable VIFM to operate from a more contemporary foundation, enhancing its independence to better perform its critical role in the justice system, and there within itself you can see, as I have emphasised, that the point of independence is to ensure that it does have exemplary standards of public service delivery.

The bill also introduces principles that will guide VIFM in exercising its powers and functions. I think this is a really important element. When I attended a panel that VIFM undertook a few months back, what was very apparent and certainly a priority for the organisation – and I say that objectively – was that they reflect a people-centred approach to service delivery and require the highest quality clinical governance and rigour. That probably goes without saying because we know the ramifications of the outcomes of the testing and so forth that are undertaken when you are looking at forensic medicine. But I think it is important to state that because that is certainly an important element of reform in this space.

I should also note, when we are looking at what VIFM has to have regard to in terms of guiding principles, that they include a requirement that the diverse needs of Aboriginal people should be recognised, as should the importance of their connection to culture, family, community and country and the importance of self-determination to Aboriginal people. For example, this may include giving consideration to culturally sensitive ways of engaging with the families of deceased Aboriginal people. There are many more aspects to this legislation, but I am just pointing out the very nuanced, important and timely elements when we are looking at that issue of meeting community expectations – evolving community expectations, can we say. Hence I proffer that the governance and guiding principles amendments in this bill are important and are significant, and the significance of those elements should not be diminished for the point of trying to pick and find elements of the bill for the sake of debate. I think it is important that we do adhere to what are well-grounded and well-founded elements of the reforms being brought about.

The principles also require any person performing a functional power of VIFM to have regard to, as far as possible, meeting professional standards relating to scientific integrity and ethics; pursuing benefits to the community and the justice system; recognising the significant nature of the events to which the institute’s services relate and the need to be sensitive and responsive to persons affected by those events; promoting public health and safety; promoting the administration of justice; respecting the cultural beliefs – and I have already spoken to some of those specifically in regard to our Aboriginal community – of persons affected by the events to which the institute’s services relate; and as I was saying before, recognising the diverse needs of Aboriginal communities and so forth. So we can see that when we are talking about making a much more contemporary and responsive grouping of principles that underpin the organisation, I think it makes good sense when we read through them and see why these changes are being brought about today.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (15:41): Let me follow on from the comments made by the member for Malvern. I want to commend him for his in-depth, thorough and full understanding and description of the bill for us. It certainly lays the foundation for us as those on this side speak on this bill. As we know, it is the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, and it will replace the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985. As the member for Malvern alluded to, this Labor government does not always get it right first time round, and that is why he has suggested a reasoned amendment. That reasoned amendment is that:

… this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government:

(a) properly consults with the medical profession in Victoria on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine;

(b) ensures that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services; and

(c) improves safeguards for the use and sharing of personal information held by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine.

I do hope that the government considers this reasoned amendment as we push through this week. It is important that we get these things right rather than coming back and fixing them up one or two years down the track.

In terms of the substance of the bill, as I said, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine has been around since 1985, and it provides forensic, medical and scientific advice and expertise to the justice system, which is very important. In 2023, as the member for Malvern suggested, the government conducted a review into the VIFM act to determine if it is still fit for purpose. The review has taken place, but it was not released – and not surprisingly, with the secrecy that surrounds this government. Quite often we see with this government that these reviews that are conducted are not released, and how can we tell? When we talk through these changes, hopefully improvements, how do we know if we are getting it right in this legislation? Without seeing this review, it does make things difficult, so I urge the government to try and be more transparent. If you want us to support legislation, you must be more transparent to help us understand what these reviews say so we can stand here hand on heart and speak with you, with the government, rather than moving a reasoned amendment because we do not know what is in that review.

In 2021 the Victorian Law Reform Commission handed down Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences. In that there were a couple of recommendations:

to extend access to forensic medical examinations across Victoria, including by the increased use of forensic nurses

to give victim survivors the option of a forensic medical examination, without requiring a report to the police.

So again there are more recommendations, and let us hope that they will get implemented through this bill. The government has said that it has provided $19.5 million in the 2023–24 budget to support VIFM’s transition, and let us hope that comes to fruition.

I would like to focus on clause 8 and highlight a couple of the objects. The bill will provide or assist in the provision of forensic services and human tissue services, as far as practicable oversee and coordinate the provision of forensic services in Victoria and assist the Coroners Court with its functions under the Coroners Act 2008. Of course it will also contribute to reducing the number of preventable deaths and, finally, contribute to the development of knowledge in regard to forensic research and assist in the provision of teaching and training. I am pleased to see the government supporting the institute in terms of reducing the number of preventable deaths, because as we know, our streets at the moment in Melbourne are not very safe, and we want to do all we can to reduce these preventable deaths. We certainly see it in the youth crime sector at this stage, and it is quite frustrating for both VicPol and communities. Anywhere we can look at preventable deaths it is certainly a positive way to go.

I also want to look at clause 9. There are various functions of the institute, and they include to conduct medical examinations at the direction of a coroner and to conduct forensic medical examinations in respect of deaths, other than reportable deaths, for purposes consistent with the objects of the institute. It will also receive reports of reportable and reviewable deaths that are referred to the coroner, and it will receive requests for investigations into fires and refer those to a coroner. There is a whole list of these functions through clause 9 that are quite sensible and practical. It will also provide clinical forensic medicine services to Victoria Police, the Coroners Court and other relevant entities and carry out actions in relation to human tissue. They are just some of the parts of clause 9 that I wanted to highlight to ensure that they will make it into the act, and as I say, they will certainly help as we move forward.

Clause 11 is around board appointments, and the member for Malvern talked about that, with general governance.

Clause 34 is around the disclosure of information and notifying the coroner. I note that the Law Institute of Victoria expressed concern at the use or disclosure provisions that relate to individuals’ information. In particular the Law Institute of Victoria notes that both clauses fail to introduce any requirements for consent of individuals or next of kin where the individual is deceased. The Law Institute of Victoria also notes concern around failure by the Chief Commissioner of Police or the State Coroner to respond within the 21-day period. Does that mean consent is given or not given, if that 21-day time lapses? Some clarification or clarity on that would be very useful, and one of the government members might be able to help me with that in their contribution.

That brings me to the reasoned amendment. As I mentioned – and I read that out before – there are three parts to that. Although governance changes are a step in the right direction from the 1985 legislation, there are still concerns that we have, and that is why we have moved this reasoned amendment.

The AMA do have some concerns. As I said, the Law Institute of Victoria has concerns. Hence I encourage the government: do not be arrogant, do not think you know it all. Consider the reasoned amendment and think about what somebody else has to offer on this side of the chamber. Let us face it, if you had done that with the Commonwealth Games you could have saved Victoria $600 million. Sometimes it is about listening to others, not just listening to those in your little room. Again, I commend the member for Malvern on his work. As I said, I hope the government does consider this reasoned amendment and listens to the member for Malvern, because it is quite a practical reasoned amendment, and I do support that reasoned amendment going forward.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (15:49): I am very pleased to make a contribution on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024 and would like to start my contribution by noting that the VIFM is a truly world-class organisation operating here in Victoria. This legislation is designed to enhance its capabilities and the quality of service that it provides. Its ability to accurately collect and analyse forensic data is a crucial part of our justice system, and I first encountered its work when I worked for Victoria Police and then during my time with the organ donation service, because of course the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine also manages the tissue bank, which is another vital service provided to Victorians for tissue donation.

As technology has evolved so has the scope of the work undertaken by the VIFM. Changes to the governance structure of the organisation will better reflect changes to the role that the VIFM now plays in our criminal justice and medical systems. Best practice operations in critically important services can only be achieved through best practice governance, and the VIFM has not had any formal changes to its governance structure in several decades. In this time what constitutes best practice governance, particularly within the public service and the public sector, has changed significantly. This bill would see the VIFM governed, like many government organisations, by a board of experts. By replacing the current VIFM board with a technical skills based board, we can ensure that it reflects the current governance standards for public entities, including supporting good service delivery and accountability.

As I mentioned before, one of the great services provided by the VIFM and one that we can be enormously proud of with their expertise is the life-saving work of the tissue bank. The Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria has supplied nearly 20,000 people with tissue transplants and grafts since its inception in 1989, and from everyday operations to assisting victims of bushfires and road accidents the work undertaken by all in this space is critical. I would like to extend my thanks on behalf of my community in Melbourne’s inner west to all of the staff and the team at the tissue bank who do this crucial work for Victorians. These legislative changes will help ensure that the scientists, the surgeons, the pathologists and all of those undertaking the important work of the VIFM are supported to the greatest extent possible.

This bill seeks to exemplify the contemporary standards of public sector governance and service delivery and will help the VIFM maintain its status as a world-leading forensic medical institute. What this bill will do is replace the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 – I was three years old when that act was introduced – as the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine’s enabling legislation. The bill will support the VIFM in maintaining its status as a world-leading forensic medical institute. It will replace the 1985 act and clarify the VIFM’s objects and functions to improve alignment with their current service offering. It will reform the VIFM’s governance structure by replacing the current board with a skills-based board to ensure that it reflects the current governance standards. It clarifies when and how the VIFM may use and disclose information for purposes other than the primary purpose of collection. It clarifies the VIFM’s employment arrangements, including the transfer of Victorian public service staff from those being employed by the Department of Justice and Community Safety to those being employed by the VIFM. It strengthens and clarifies the VIFM’s support role for government, for the coroner and for the justice systems and amends other legislation that will support and complement the reforms.

This work I think continues on the government’s record $100 million-plus investment in the VIFM since the 2021–22 state budget to enable the VIFM to build its capability and essential service delivery, including through the addition of MRI capability and infrastructure improvements and a new case management system. The boost in funding has also enabled the VIFM to continue its transition to a new clinical forensic medicine service delivery model across metro and regional Victoria, guaranteeing forensic medical examinations can be available to victim-survivors of sexual assault on their terms 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that is incredibly important work and a very important addition to their capability.

I would also like to just note why these reforms are needed now. As I mentioned, the enabling legislation has not changed in over 30 years despite the expansion of its services and changes to governance best practice. Furthermore, the VIFM’s statutory objects and functions have been updated in an ad hoc fashion over time to reflect its service expansion, and that could potentially lead to some confusion around roles, responsibilities and priorities. The current act does not provide guidance on how the VIFM can use or disclose data or information for purposes other than the primary purpose of collection, and this limits its ability to use data it collects to support important public health policy and research such as tissue donation.

I would also like to mention with the time I have available and again commend the work of the Legal and Social Issues Committee in their recent inquiry, led very ably by the member for Lara, on organ and tissue donation. I think it is one of those areas in Australia we do not often like to talk about, because obviously it is a fairly confronting thing to talk about organ and tissue donation, but that inquiry, I think, as well as this reform just emphasise the Victorian government’s commitment to supporting this important sector and supporting the clinicians who work in it and of course the donor families, because often when someone cannot be an organ donor they can still be a tissue donor. Tissue donation is an absolutely crucial part of the system, and I would also like to acknowledge the families of tissue donors who have generously consented to donating their loved ones’ tissue for life-saving and life-changing support of other Victorians. That of course is all enabled by the tissue bank’s work, and it is quite a remarkable institution we have here in Victoria and one that should be celebrated and provided every support possible by the Victorian government to do that crucial work. So again I would like to acknowledge and thank everyone at the VIFM and everyone at the organ donation service for the work that they do with the tissue bank, and I commend this bill to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (15:59): I rise to make a contribution on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024 and note that this is another bill that the coalition are putting forward a reasoned amendment for, which was put forward by the member for Malvern, because again the government have failed to do all of the work that is required to satisfy not just us but the stakeholders that they have uncovered every stone and they have done all that they can to make this bill the best bill that it can be. The bill that we have before us repeals the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act ‍1985 and establishes the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine; it sounds a little bit confusing, but that is what it does. It has not had much of an overhaul, really, since 1985. A number of the issues and things that have reared their heads over that time are being addressed, but certainly not all. I draw your attention to the second-reading speech, in which the minister at the time said:

Government also conducted a review of the VIFM Act to ensure it remains well positioned to continue to provide best-practice forensic services.

That is all well and good. He is telling us that, but we have not seen that evidence. We have not seen a copy of that review. I am unclear as to why that is the case, because if you understand from the review point of view what has happened, what has been uncovered, the sorts of things that were looked at and what was not looked out, it helps you form your view about whether or not this bill is in fact the best that it can be. He went on to say:

The Bill implements key findings from the review and is the final plank of reform for this vital service.

Given those comments, you would think that the opposition would have nothing to be concerned about, nor would the stakeholders, but it appears that a number of stakeholders do have concerns, whether that is the medical or the legal profession. There have been a few issues down at the institute. They have got some great workers, but unless it is adequately funded, these issues will not be addressed. The second-reading speech also mentions that:

The Bill will support VIFM to maintain its status as a world-leading forensic medical institution.

There have been a couple of failures there, which I will talk about a little bit later, that show that at the moment, because of that lack of funding, it is not as good as it can be, and I am not sure that the minister who introduced the bill was aware of all of that.

The key features of the bill include the introduction of principles to guide the institute’s work. There is a new governance structure, and it outlines a number of those factors. There are the guiding principles. There is the establishment of a stakeholder advisory group in clause 20. It seems to be a little bit of a theme in a lot of bills that there have been these stakeholder advisory groups – I see that there is one at Puffing Billy, there is one at alpine resorts and we have got one here. But it does not really give us a lot of the detail about what that stakeholder advisory group is to do. Clauses 8 and 9 clarify some of the objects and functions. There is information about transitional arrangements for staff going from the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) to the VIFM and an information-sharing framework.

I just want to outline a little about what sort of work is conducted there. We have clinical forensic medicine, which is a sexual assault examination – this is made at the request of Victoria Police – and it is supposedly done in a timely manner in a safe environment. These are exceptionally traumatic times for anyone who is undergoing or who has had a sexual assault, particularly rape victims. They have crisis care units in hospitals and in multidisciplinary centres, and it is so important that the collection technique is right, that cut-off times are right and that cross-contamination is reduced. Also, not just sexual assault but physical assault victims are dealt with here – family violence victims, sometimes the alleged perpetrators – and this is around documenting injuries and collecting evidence, which could include blood and urine samples. Other services include forensic pathology or radiology, and these are what we often know around the medico-legal aspect of looking at unexplained or unexpected deaths – the investigations and examinations. I think a lot of people have seen the TV shows and have a bit of an understanding about what that looks like. There are times that there are very unexpected deaths, sudden deaths and deaths from external causes. This sort of work takes up a little bit of the time, but there is also a lot of work that is done on prevention of death and injury to help prevention in the community. Both of those areas – the forensic pathology and the clinical forensic medicine – help provide that independent forensic medical and scientific expertise to the justice system.

I have not mentioned that this sits under the Department of Justice and Community Safety, and I think it is important to just remember that at the moment. I have outlined some of the work done in the donor tissue bank, so you will understand why it is important to know where this sits and the shortcomings of that. We have mentioned that the act was first established in 1985. The donor tissue bank was established in 1989. I was a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee that looked into increasing the number of registered organ and tissue donors, and there is a lot of information that is not known about tissue donation – what can be done and how many lives can be improved through tissue donation. We have tendons, ligaments, skin and heart valves, and skin donations are so important for burns victims. When we have major events like Black Saturday, where there were many, many people who were burnt, or even the New Zealand earthquakes, there is not enough skin in the tissue bank in Victoria, so they have to import it from overseas. You would not think that. We visited the tissue bank as part of our inquiry, and it was particularly enlightening. Equally, the Lions Eye Donation Service actually facilitates the retrieval of corneas for life-saving eye surgeries.

Whilst we have this established, there are a number of failures. Firstly, the donor tissue bank, as I have said, sits in the department of justice, and the connections between the department of justice and the Department of Health are not as good as they could be. They were very critical of where they are established. In fact we made two recommendations around this: that DJCS and the Victorian health department better support DonateLife by increasing the understanding about tissue donation in the medical community and publicly report on progress. This is because it is under the department of justice, and they are missing some of the key elements out of the Department of Health. When you look at the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Malvern, one of the points is that it properly consults with the medical profession on the VIFM, and that is so important, because we have heard of the failures. Recommendation 37 was also about facilitating better sharing of hospital medical records and patient information with the tissue bank because you might get better relationships and you might get better outcomes. The bill before us fails to look at that very unique interaction between justice and health, and I think that there could have been work done in that space.

Also we have had failure in the clinical forensic medicine space. A couple of years ago there was an extensive report done by the ABC and Richard Willingham, who is known to most of us, on some of the issues of sexual assault victims. It talked about Grace Stewart. Grace had been raped in January of that year, and it took her hours and hours to think about whether or not she would do something about it. She sat in her soiled clothing, then she thought, ‘I’m going to go and do it.’ She went ahead and then had to wait another 15 hours to be seen. When we have got the minister talking about this being world-leading forensics, we can do better in this space. The governance arrangements need to make sure we have these strong links between the health system and the justice system and that people like Grace do not have to wait for 30 hours in total between when the incident has happened and when she was examined. If there is a problem with the workforce, if there are not enough workers and doctors available, this is indicative of a lack of funding. I do not see that governance arrangements are really going to fix this. I would like to see where we do not have those that have suffered from violent sexual assaults having to wait too long. It is a very big deal for somebody to come forward. It is very difficult for people to come forward. We need better access to forensic examinations to support those women who have been assaulted violently.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (16:09): I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to contribute to debate on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. Before I go to some of the changes that are contained within this bill before the house, the VIFM bill, I do think it is an important opportunity to put on record this government’s determination and commitment to community safety. Striking the balance between community safety and fairness and opportunity right across our state and right across our community is of course something that we on this side of the house will continue to work very hard to deliver. We will of course, as we have done consistently, take the advice of experts, of agencies and of all of those people that I have heard others mention in their contributions this afternoon who do what is a very important job for our state and for the community and who work right across our justice system – Victoria Police and its agencies as well – when it comes to dealing with what are complex matters within our state.

I am certainly not going to spend any longer making comments about some of those opposite than I need to other than to say what we have seen both today and consistently, time and time again, whether it be in question time, whether it be in other opportunities throughout debate, is those opposite playing politics instead of putting people and community safety first.

Steve McGhie interjected.

Josh BULL: We have seen that, sadly, for the Victorian community time and time again – not just this week, member for Melton, not just this year, but for a very long period of time. What the people of Victoria deserve is of course a sensible government that makes practical decisions, a balance between justice and opportunity and a team that will, as I mentioned earlier, work with our outstanding agencies that do some amazingly important work that is indeed very challenging each and every day within our local communities, not being driven by blind ideology or making a whole series of illogical decisions but actually working with those that work in justice, those that work with Victoria Police, each and every day to make sure that people within our community are supported. We of course are determined to strike that critical balance.

What this piece of legislation is doing – and others have taken the opportunity this afternoon to go to a range of these matters – is of course bringing into line a series of changes to the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, the VIFM, to effectively bring in a range of governance arrangements that are going to help their work in a whole range of different ways, which others have mentioned as well. Making sure that we are providing the tools and the resources to this agency is something that is very important.

The previous piece of legislation that governed the arrangements of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine was – and others have mentioned this in their contributions – brought into the Parliament in 1985. The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine is – and this is quoted, I should say, directly from their website:

… an institution focused on forensic medicine, serving the community and the justice system. Our statutory responsibilities are to provide independent forensic medical and scientific expertise to the justice system, tissue for transplantation, and to both teach and undertake research that will benefit the community.

What I think we have sought to do with in this bill is support the VIFM in exemplifying contemporary standards of public sector governance, which we have done with other agencies as well, and service delivery, maintaining of course what is a world-leading forensic medical institute. The bill will replace, as I mentioned earlier, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 as the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine’s enabling legislation. The bill goes on to support, as I mentioned, the world-leading forensic medical institute in making sure that those governance arrangements do enable the important work to be done each and every day.

What we are seeking to do is change legislation that has been on the books – those governance arrangements – for over 30 years, making sure that the service, the changes and the arrangements that are in place support that critical work not just within the agency but also in the way that the agency relates, of course, to the justice system. It is an incredibly important piece of work.

There are a number of changes in the bill, and I will rattle those off in the relatively short time that I have: to replace the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985, which I mentioned; to clarify the VIFM’s objects and functions to improve the alignment with the current service offering; to reform the governance structure, which I also mentioned, by replacing the current board with a skills-based board to ensure the reflection of current governance standards for public entities, including supporting good service delivery and accountability and including the establishment of a new CEO role; to clarify when and how the VIFM may use and disclose information for purposes other than the primary purpose of collection; to clarify the employment arrangements, and that includes the transferring of Victorian public service staff from being employed by the Department of Justice and Community Safety to being employed by the agency; to strengthen, clarify and support the role for government; and of course to amend other legislation to support and complement those reforms.

As I mentioned earlier – and other members have gone to some of these points in their contributions ‍– we will be a team that will continue to engage with all of those agencies doing important work within this space and of course all of the others right across all of our portfolios. For this specific piece of legislation, we indeed worked closely with a number of key stakeholders – the Coroners Court of Victoria, Victoria Police, the Aboriginal Justice Caucus and other government departments – to make sure that much of that homework, much of that listening if you like, was done to ensure that these arrangements, as I mentioned earlier, which have been on the books for some time, continue to support the science, the research and the investment so that we have a body that can function in the very best way in what are in so many instances the most important of matters and that is able to get this right. There should not be – there may be, but there should not be – any debate about the importance of the work that is done and how important it is within these matters to ensure that the great work that is being done by all of the staff is to be commended and supported.

What we know is that these matters often, in so many ways, affect lives and go to the heart of community safety and issues within our community. We will continue to be a team that will deliver all of that support in each and every way that we can. I am really pleased to say that at each and every opportunity that we have occupied the government benches we have always strongly consulted with and listened to those that are close to science, those that work in science and the people that provide all of the research to government, to ensure that we are bringing what is important legislation to the house – and not just legislation but decisions, initiatives, programs and projects that make our Victorian community better and stronger and fairer. That is the team that we will continue to be.

I want to acknowledge, in the final 20-odd seconds that I have left, all of the work that has been done to bring this bill before the house. That work is really important. It is something that I know is valued. It is something that is valued within all of our communities, and I certainly take the opportunity this afternoon to commend this very important bill to the house.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (16:19): I rise to speak in support of the reasoned amendment put by the member for Malvern on the bill we are debating today, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. A particular element of the member for Malvern’s amendment really goes to the fact that we need to consult with the medical profession when it comes to devising what the future of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine or another alternative authority might look like. This is so important because it is actually based on the findings of a government report, Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences, undertaken by the Victorian Law Reform Commission back in September 2021. It shows that there are many, many elements that are lacking when it comes to, particularly, responses to those who have been subjected to sexual assault and rape and how they are dealt with by the health system. Even reading through some of the notes that were provided to us to brief us around the reasoning behind this legislation, you cannot help but feel sick to your stomach at how women are still being treated in this state, how unresponsive our system is when it comes to rape and sexual assault and how it is still the victims who are the ones who are treated horrifically. It is the victims who are often forgotten, and it should never, ever be government systems that are further perpetrating any trauma or grief or an extension of any assault which has taken place.

It is disgraceful to read through an ABC news report from back in 2021 and to read the quotes and the commentary from a woman who was made to sit and stay in her soiled underwear and to keep her same clothes on for the purposes of collecting evidence but unable to access a forensic doctor or a forensic nurse for an examination for 30 hours. There will be some people within this chamber, there will be some people who review this who might be in the gallery today, there will be some people watching from home and there will be some who perhaps catch up on this at a later stage, but for anyone who has been sexually assaulted – from the women that I have spoken to and from my own experiences – I can tell you the first thing they are going to feel like is having a shower. The first thing you want to do is completely wash off any feeling of association with the grub who sexually assaulted you or raped you. To read a quote:

It made me feel icky. It was definitely gross, because you want to try and get the experience off you.

This is not a unique situation or scenario for women in the state of Victoria, and yet the legislation we have got before us today does not deal with this issue; it does not deal with the horrific statistics of the number of women who are raped and sexually assaulted in the state of Victoria and yet cannot access a forensic doctor or a forensic nurse in the right place at the right time and are being forced to wait. As a result, so many times victims of rape and of sexual assault would prefer to have a shower and start dealing with their own recovery in their own way rather than hold their perpetrator to account – to wait for 30 hours feeling gross but knowing that they have to put up with that for the off chance that they will get evidence collected that would enable police to press charges and then have a jury decide that it was actually rape or it was actually a sexual assault. The hurdle is too high. The hurdle is far too high in Victoria.

I will refer to statistics from 2021. These statistics were reported in that same ABC report I referred to earlier, which is entitled ‘Victims of violent crime forced to wait for forensic examinations in Victoria due to “dire” shortage of doctors’. In 2021 according to the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency there were 4431 rape cases in Victoria. There were 5919 cases of sexual assault. There were only 404 ‍women who had an examination following sexual assault. There were only 119 women who had a physical examination. This is disgraceful, and this is why I completely support the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment.

It is essential, to properly deal with this critical issue that we have got in the state of Victoria, that the health sector be consulted. They must be consulted to understand how we can have more doctors and nurses trained in the forensic examinations that they need to be able to offer so we have much, much higher rates of appropriate and timely examinations following sexual assault and rape. There must be more input from the health sector around ensuring that those trained forensic doctors and nurses are in the right place at the right time, because at the end of the day we have got doctors and nurses who know they can do better. We have got a police system which knows that there are women who are not able to access appropriate supports, are not able to have evidence collected, because there is simply no-one available.

This is highlighted as being bad in Melbourne. It is a dire situation the further away from Melbourne that you get, and for my electorate of Lowan, which is in some areas 5 hours from Melbourne, it simply is not an option as to whether you have evidence collected or not. There are enough barriers in place for women to come forward following sexual assault and rape in a small country community where you know everybody, you know the police, you know the perpetrator and you know the people within your community who cross over different community groups and who may be even in your workplace who know about this. It is hard enough to come forward and say, ‘This has happened to me. This is my story. I want to press charges.’ But when you have got an additional barrier in there in knowing you have to travel sometimes 100 kilometres or more for a physical examination, it is simply too much, and as a result perpetrators are not held to account. Victims never get a sense of justice. They never get to tell their story. So many women do not tell their story ever, because they feel that they are not going to be believed or the justice system will let them down – or, in this instance, the state system will let them down because it has not got enough doctors and nurses trained up to take the simple evidence that will enable a prosecution and a charge to go ahead.

While I understand this bill is taking on board some of the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s report, it does not go far enough. It is a disgraceful situation that we have got so many rapes and sexual assaults being reported in the first instance, but the second point is that we have got so, so few women, less than 1 per cent of women – I think it was actually 0.05 per cent of women – who are actually able to access a forensic doctor or a forensic nurse following rape or sexual assault. That is not good enough. The state government is failing far too many women.

The government had an opportunity to do better with this legislation to support women victims of family violence, of rape and of sexual assault, and they have not met that high bar. I do not even think it is that high a bar; I think it is quite a low bar. Victim-survivors should come first. This legislation has not met that. I urge the government to consider the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Malvern and to understand that there are people within the health sector who feel very, very strongly about this. They know that they can do better. We can all work together to make sure that victim-survivors are extraordinarily well supported in their time of need immediately following the assault but, furthermore, that we support the police, we support our health sector and we make sure that this scenario is stopped for victim-survivors of sexual assault and rape so that it either does not occur or, when it does, we make sure that the appropriate supports are there for them.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (16:29): I too rise to make a contribution on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. As we have heard from other speakers in this place, the bill aims to support the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine in continuing a high standard of forensic delivery while modernising the role it plays in supporting our government and the coronial and justice systems whilst also ensuring it is fit for purpose.

I might just say at this point it was a great pleasure to be sitting on the Legal and Social Issues Committee last year when the bulk of work was done into the inquiry into increasing the number of registered organ and tissue donors. I did subsequently leave that committee just before the report was handed down, but it was tabled in March of this year. What being on that committee did highlight for me was the incredible work that is taking place in Victoria, specifically in relation to organ and tissue donation. It was really quite insightful to be going down to the tissue bank, which is out in the dark back streets of Southbank, to see the incredible work – the very fast and often quite emotionally taxing work – that is taking place over there to ensure that the loved ones of families are looked after and not further traumatised but also that the life-giving gift is given as a result of all that difficult work that comes through there. It was a really insightful thing to not only go there but also be on that committee and see the fantastic work that is being done in forensics in this state.

The bill also ensures that the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine remains a world-leading and best practice service and keeps up to date with fast-changing technological development. It establishes the VIFM as a public sector entity that continues to provide forensic and human tissue services, teaching, training and research. The VIFM undertakes important work, providing services and research that benefit public health and safety and help ensure our Victorian legal system is just too. It may not be the type of service that we see in our everyday lives, and it might not be as glamorous as it is on CSI. Just as an aside, speak to any schoolteacher these days and they will tell you that kids want to get into forensics. They want to join the police force but only for forensics; that is what they want to get onto, such is the impact of that show CSI. But the work is important, and our health, safety and legal systems would not function without it.

Work carried out by the VIFM is often difficult, and it is not for the faint of heart. People in forensic positions may help families and victims understand what happened in a mysterious crime, undertake medical examinations of victim-survivors of sexual assault and provide expert opinions to the court. When there are questions about a crime, the emotional toll on victims can be even more overwhelming. This legislation proposes streamlined and more sensitive processes to ensure victims and their families receive the necessary support during a potentially traumatising time. The VIFM also assist the Victorian Coroners Court and Victoria Police, and they also undertake necessary research. All those key stakeholder groups have been consulted. Recent research by the VIFM investigated the increasingly high prevalence of technology-facilitated sexual assault. This provided anecdotal observation of the caseload for this new offence, and they were able to modify their practice in response and look into further research.

Our government incidentally has a very strong track record of investment in the VIFM, with more than $100 million invested in the institute since the 2021–22 state budget. In 2021, $93.1 million was provided to enable the service to include the delivery of MRIs, infrastructure improvements and a new case management system. In 2023 a further $19.47 million was allocated to enable the service to deliver its clinical forensic medical service across metro and regional Victoria, with guaranteed forensic medical examinations available to victim-survivors of sexual assault on their terms, 24/7. The government understands the work of the VIFM has a significant impact on public health and safety.

The bill itself replaces the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985, or the VIFM act, as the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine’s enabling legislation. It supports the VIFM in maintaining its status as a world-leading forensic medical institute through updated and modern standards of public sector governance and a people-first approach to service delivery. This includes establishing a new CEO role and clarifying when and how the VIFM can use or disclose information for purposes other than primary collection. The bill allows VIFM to use information for the purpose of conducting research or in policy development that establishes clear safeguards to ensure the sharing of information is tightly controlled. These safeguards include that the VIFM must notify the State Coroner or Chief Commissioner of Police, depending on a proceeding or investigation, to ensure use of information and that that will not cause prejudice.

It also strengthens and clarifies VIFM’s support role for government and the coronial and justice systems. The bill introduces guiding principles that ensure VIFM exercises its power and function not only with sensitivity but with due consideration as well. It does that in a couple of ways: through ensuring anyone performing a power under the VIFM act has regard for professional standards and scientific integrity to promote a just legal system and public health and safety; and secondly, it requires the respect of cultural beliefs and of religion, including that of First Nations communities and their connection to culture, country and family as well.

So why are these reforms needed then? The reforms provide a much-needed update to legislation that really has not changed much in over 30 years, despite the state’s significant growth and scientific progress that has been made in forensic medicine. It will streamline the VIFM’s responsibilities and its priorities. The way that the current act sits, it does not provide guidance on how the VIFM can use or disclose data, limiting the ability to use it for crucial public health policy and research as well. The bill comes after a review of the VIFM act, which was conducted in 2023 by the Department of Justice and Community Safety, with key findings being implemented.

In conclusion I will say that the Allan Labor government understands the need to modernise the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and bring it up to the contemporary standards that all Victorians expect. We recognise the crucial work that the VIFM undertakes in supporting the whole Victorian community through not only its services and its delivery of those services but its reporting mechanisms as well. And finally, the government recognises the research that they undertake not only impacts our state but also contributes to the global understanding of forensics in public health and criminology. I commend the bill to the house.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (16:39): I also stand to address the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. In doing so I commend the contribution of my colleague the Shadow Attorney-General and member for Malvern, who undertook a comprehensive analysis of the opposition’s perspective on this particular bill. I thank my colleagues the member for Ovens Valley, the member for Eildon and the member for Lowan as well. The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine was established via the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act and has been operating since 1985. The institute is principally responsible for providing independent forensic, medical and scientific expertise to the justice system and for both teaching and undertaking research for the benefit of the community. In 2023 the government conducted a review of the VIFM act to determine whether the act was fit for purpose, the findings of which this bill seeks to implement. It is noteworthy, however, that the government to date has refused to provide or make public a copy of that review, so the bill before us today is taken more or less at face value and in good faith that the government in formulating this bill has remained faithful to the recommendations that came from that review.

The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 was originally introduced as the Coroners Bill (No. 2) by then Labor MP Jim Kennan in 1985. It was renamed after the ascent of the Coroners Act in 2008. In September 2021 the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) handed down its report Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences. Recommendations relevant to forensic medicine include that:

The Victorian Government should, as part of the Sexual Assault Strategy, develop measures:

a. to extend access to forensic medical examinations across Victoria, including by the increased use of forensic nurses

b. to give victim survivors the option of a forensic medical examination, without requiring a report to the police.

Notwithstanding these recommendations, in September 2022 the ABC reported that the forensic examination system in Victoria is failing victims. One victim-survivor of sexual assault was forced to remain in her soiled clothing for 30 hours due to the unavailability of a forensic doctor to see her after reporting her sexual assault to police. The report also noted that doctors at the VIFM had lodged complaints with WorkSafe about dangerous working hours. That ABC report, in my view, should be a watershed moment for every Victorian concerned with these matters. In 2022, the ABC report stated that forensic doctors undertook 404 sexual assault exams and 119 physical assault exams. But in that same year crime statistics tell us that in Victoria there were 4431 rapes and 5919 indecent assaults, so of the 4431 rapes in Victoria in that year there were only 404 sexual assault exams undertaken. Of the 5919 indecent assaults in 2022 there were only 119 physical assault examinations undertaken by forensic doctors. I think this speaks to something much more important perhaps than what we are considering here at the minute, and that is the availability of such services for Victorians when they need them. Perhaps there is a question here about not just the availability of but the resourcing for such services that Victorians rely upon. It should be to our great shame that these statistics are before us today. All credit to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for bringing these very, very damning statistics to the fore.

The government claimed that it provided almost $19.5 million in the 2023–24 budget, including some $7.5 million in ongoing funding, to support the VIFM transitioning to a new clinical forensic medicine model. I guess the question I have in relation to that is: what is the guarantee that the government can give Victorians who are victims of sexual assault and physical assault that this government funding will indeed deliver for them the security, the safety and the certainty that they require at the time at which they require it?

There are a number of clauses in this bill which aim to strengthen the act, and I commend those. Clause ‍4 outlines that persons should have regard to principles relating to professional standards, clause 8 outlines the objectives of the institute, clause 9 sets out the functions of the institute and clause ‍10 sets out the powers of the institute and so on and so forth. But again, given that watershed moment of that 2022 ABC report, given that in the member for Malvern’s analysis and inquiry in relation to the opposition’s positioning on this bill he spoke to the Australian Medical Association and he spoke to the Law Institute of Victoria, both of whom raised what we see as legitimate concerns relating to this bill, I wholeheartedly support the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment.

The Australian Medical Association outlined to us that their main concern arises from them not being adequately consulted on this bill, that they believe the bill should have a greater health focus and that it is in fact drafted as a justice bill instead of having a specific health focus. The Law Institute of Victoria had concerns regarding use and disclosure of information pertaining to individuals. They do not believe that legislative safeguards are sufficient et cetera. That is why I wholeheartedly support the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment, which seeks to refuse that this bill be read a second time:

… until the government:

(a) properly consults with the medical profession in Victoria on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine;

(b) ensures that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services; and

(c) improves safeguards for the use and sharing of personal information held by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine.’

I believe that the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment is entirely sensible and entirely pragmatic. I would commend it most wholeheartedly for the government’s consideration. This issue, this matter, before the chamber today is far too important to get wrong, and it is far too important for us to not do the very best we can certainly by those victim-survivors of sexual assault and those victim-survivors of physical assault living within our Victorian community, so I wholeheartedly support the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment.

While the governance changes set out in this bill undoubtedly are a step forward from the 1985 legislation, there remain legitimate concerns that the VIFM is a troubled organisation. These changes will not resolve the cultural and other problems that have beset the organisation. The processes around the use and disclosure of individual information are not as tight as they could be, and this bill, in our view, will not fix the problems with the VIFM that were identified by the VLRC and highlighted in the ABC’s 2022 report. Again, I commend the member for Malvern for his work on this bill and for the reasoned amendment which he has brought before this chamber, and I encourage the government in good faith, given the serious nature of the matter before the house, to consider the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment, to take it on board and to do the right thing by not only those stakeholders but also victim-survivors.

Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD (Broadmeadows) (16:50): I rise to support the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 2024, or VIFM, which will replace the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 as the enabling legislation. The act will support the VIFM to maintain its service as a world-leading forensic medical institution and will ensure it can continue to surpass modern standards of public sector governance and service delivery.

VIFM was established in 1985 as part of the Coroners Act of the same year to provide forensic pathology and scientific services to the State Coroner and the Victorian justice system. Since then it has evolved to establish the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria, and in 1995 it incorporated clinical forensic medicine to examine victims of crime under an agreement with Victoria Police. The forensic services division currently produces over 40,000 forensic reports every year, and the workload is increasing with the growing Victorian population. Key features of the bill include the introduction of principles to guide VIFM’s important work, a new governance structure, clarification of VIFM’s objectives and functions and an information-sharing framework. The bill implements key findings from a 2023 Department of Justice and Community Safety review of the VIFM act and follows on from over $100 million in government investment since 2021. The VIFM was provided with $93.1 million in 2021 to build capacity and service delivery, invest in lab equipment and infrastructure, improve MRI capability and undertake technology updates. In 2023 a further $19.47 million was invested to move to a model that meets victim-survivor needs and to ensure a sustainable and efficient service.

The expansion of their services over the last 30 years has been significant, and this bill establishes clear functions to clarify the coverage of services provided by VIFM. It will ensure that it remains in a position to support the Coroners Court, Victoria Police and other public entities through its services. This bill will also clarify VIFM’s role in conducting research, teaching and training other entities.

When I think of forensic medicine my mind goes immediately to TV shows like Bones and CSI, finding clues to help the police catch the bad guys in relation to homicide investigations. The reality is though that only around 1 per cent of the work that VIFM’s forensic pathology does is from homicide. The VIFM provides the justice system with crucial evidence that underpins safe convictions and appropriate acquittals and physical assault examinations, including victims of family violence who are patients of the VIFM’s clinical and forensic medical team. The team are crucial in sensitively obtaining information about the incident from the patient, collecting forensic evidence if relevant and documenting any inquiries. The clinical forensic medicine staff also undertake medical examinations of adult sexual assault victims across the state of Victoria at the request of Victoria Police. This information can assist in determining the cause of injuries and forms the basis of expert medical evidence that clinical staff can provide to the courts. This information is the only independent evidence to support the victim’s statement regarding the nature of the assault they suffered and most importantly helps with gaining convictions and gaining justice.

I am proud of the Allan Labor government’s budget investment of an additional $269 million to prevent family violence and to support women’s safety through initiatives for prevention, support, early education and information sharing between authorities. The City of Hume in the Broadmeadows electorate consistently records some of the highest rates of violence against women in metro Melbourne compared to other local government areas; in 2020, unfortunately, it ranked second. My recent visit with the Minister for Victim Support Minister Erdogan in my Broadmeadows electorate with members of some organisations who work together as providers for the victims legal service highlighted the important work they do in support for victims of violence. VLS provides free legal advice and support for victims of crime who need help to get financial assistance or compensation and provides counselling and health information and reports for the police.

The visit brought together representatives from Victoria Legal Aid, Northern Community Legal Centre, Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Djirra and civil justice, and all of those organisations do incredible work in Victoria. It was a great discussion, and it is always great to catch up with Jenni Smith, CEO for Northern CLC, who is also on the Broadmeadows revitalisation board and the Broadmeadows station working group with me. The Northern CLC do incredible work in my electorate and provide legal services, community legal education and law reform advocacy to meet the needs of people across the north-west, and I think they are opening a new office in Wallan soon, which will be helpful for your constituents, Acting Speaker Kathage. They are able to advocate for those at a time when they need it most, assist victims in recovery and provide a sympathetic and compassionate approach.

Another important role of the VIFM is their role in toxicology services for Victoria Police. Scientific research conducted at the institute over many years has shown that certain drugs increase the risk of having a collision on our roads. Work conducted in the lab led to the initiation of the world’s first random drug-testing program in Victoria in 2004. VIFM continues to collaborate with Victoria Police to identify the range and extent to which drugs and alcohol contribute to road trauma. Their data is vital to the work to increase road safety across our state. The government’s Victorian Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030 seeks to halve road deaths by 2030. The strategy’s objectives are to ensure all Victorians are safe and feel safe on and around our roads and to embed a culture of road safety within the Victorian community. The strategy aims to deliver a suite of initiatives that are achievable and have an impact in the short term but also prepare the state for the future. The Labor Victorian budget 2021–22 invested $385.8 million over four years to deliver a road safety plan tackling the root causes of road trauma and holding repeat offenders to account, with VIFM data being a vital component.

This bill will streamline VIFM’s functions and powers to reflect its growth in service and to allow flexibility to evolve over time. The functions I have already detailed are only the tip of the iceberg. It is worth a trip to their website to read the incredible work they do, including assisting families through difficult times through the coronial admissions and inquiries office; the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria, which collects human tissue grafts for surgical transportation; familial DNA sample collection to try and connect missing persons; human identification services; teaching, training and research; and expert consultancy, to name a few.

Due to the sensitivity of the majority of VIFM’s functions, the bill introduces principles that will guide VIFM in exercising its powers and functions. They reflect a people-centred approach to service delivery. These are meeting professional standards relating to scientific integrity and efforts; pursuing benefits to the community and to the justice system; recognising the significant nature of the events to which the institute’s services relate and the need to be sensitive and responsive to persons affected by those events; promoting public health and safety, which as you know is a passion of mine; promoting the administration of justice; respecting the cultural beliefs of persons affected by the events to which the institute’s services relate; and, importantly, requiring that the diverse needs of Aboriginal people, the importance of their connection to culture, family, community and country and the importance of self-determination to Aboriginal people should be recognised.

The bill also introduces a new governance structure, replacing the current VIFM council with a skills-based board and introducing a new chief executive officer role. The CEO will manage alongside the director of forensic medicine role that already exists under the current act. New board members will be appointed based on knowledge, skills and experience in matters relevant to VIFM’s operations, including expertise in the field of forensic medicine or a relevant field of science; commercial, operational, legal or financial matters; clinical governance; the criminal justice system; and any other field relevant to the functions of the board. This will ensure the board has a broad skill set to govern VIFM effectively, and it will be accountable to the Attorney-General.

Finally, the bill introduces an information-sharing framework and sets out clear processes for how information may be used and shared. VIFM collects and creates vital information through its support of the coronial process as directed by the Coroners Court, police investigations and requests by Victoria Police and through carrying out other training and research functions. The current act does not clearly allow for VIFM to use or disclose data and information other than what it was originally intended for: coronial or police use. This limits VIFM’s ability to use this data to support public health policy and research, and I think there are real opportunities here with this data; it is very important. The new information-sharing framework will ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in place whilst still allowing VIFM to expand access to information that is of high value to medical and scientific research, public health policy and teaching.

The department of forensic medicine is a world-leading teaching institution and has made major contributions to the international fields of forensic medicine, science and law. The revised safety of the information-sharing framework will allow the VIFM to conduct research and include the ability to communicate their research findings. The results of investigations will benefit the community as well as the justice system. Previous research and development conducted by the VIFM academic programs has significantly contributed to death and injury prevention both within Australia and internationally. I commend the bill to the house.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (17:00): I too rise to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. From the outset can I commend the member for Malvern for the mountain of work he has put into this bill and for the detailed reasoned amendment he has put forward in the chamber today, and I look forward to speaking on that further shortly. The purpose of the bill is to establish the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and repeal the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act ‍1985, to introduce guiding principles for the VIFM and a new governance structure, to clarify the VIFM’s objects and functions and to establish an information-sharing framework.

We know that in 2023 the government conducted a review into the VIFM act to determine whether it is fit for purpose. Unfortunately, while the findings of that review form the contents of this bill – this bill seeks to implement those findings – not dissimilar to many other reviews and reports under this government, it has refused to release a copy of that review so that there can be greater transparency around the findings and assurances to the Victorian people that all of the recommendations of that review are being implemented through this piece of legislation. It is disappointing that we do not have greater detail as to what the contents of that review and what the raft of findings and recommendations were, and unfortunately we have to take the government on its word that it has implemented through this piece of legislation the key findings.

The VIFM plays an important role in providing independent forensic medical and scientific expertise to the justice system, and it also has a critical role in the system around teaching and undertaking research. VIFM doctors, nurses and scientists investigate deaths reported to the coroner, examine alleged offenders and medically assess and support victims of crime. It has an incredibly important role within our judicial system and within our justice system to provide that very deep support for victims of crime, particularly victims of some of the most serious offences. It provides crucial evidence that often underpins convictions and appropriate acquittals, and so it is very much a vital element and a very important part of our justice system here in Victoria.

In September 2021 the Victorian Law Reform Commission handed down its report Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences. Within that report there were recommendations relating to forensic medicine that included:

The Victorian Government should, as part of the Sexual Assault Strategy, develop measures:

to extend access to forensic medical examinations across Victoria …

to give victim survivors the option of a forensic medical examination, without requiring a report to the police.

Unfortunately, since that report was handed down the VIFM has failed in its responsibility to promptly provide a forensic examination to at least one victim-survivor of sexual assault. I will come back to this experience shortly, but the experience of that victim-survivor, the experience of Grace Stewart, is incredibly concerning, and unfortunately the bill before us today does nothing to address the myriad concerns that were identified in that case. Since that report was handed down the requirement and the responsibility to provide a prompt forensic examination to victim-survivors of sexual assault has been questionable. It is clear on that basis alone that the VIFM is in need of significant reform so it can be more capable of servicing the needs of the justice system in a timely and effective manner and it can also ensure that it is treating victim-survivors with the dignity and the respect they deserve and need.

While the changes outlined in this bill to the VIFM are important, particularly some of those governance changes that are outlined in the bill, unfortunately it does not alleviate the concerns we have with the cultural problems that have beset the organisation for some time.

We have serious concerns on this side of the house about the lack of consultation with key stakeholders, especially regarding the processes for the use and disclosure of individual information, and also around the lack of consultation with the medical community, given the concerns that victim-survivors have outlined and their own experiences. This bill importantly will not fix the problems with the VIFM that were identified by the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2021 report, Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences, as I have outlined.

The story of Grace Stewart is one that should concern every single Victorian. Grace was forced to endure the consequences of a shortage of forensic doctors in response to the alleged sexual assault that she experienced. She was left and had to wait hours in what she described as bloodied and soiled clothes. For more than 30 hours in total she was forced to remain in that clothing, because there was no doctor available to examine her. Unfortunately, we see that this legislation does nothing to address these concerns. It does nothing to ensure that there is appropriate resourcing and appropriate funding so that there are forensic doctors and forensic medical staff available.

We know from this experience and from this story that forensic doctors completed 404 sexual assault exams and 119 physical assault exams, but at the same time, Victoria’s Crime Statistics Agency data shows that in the same year there were actually 4431 rapes recorded in Victoria and another 5919 ‍indecent assaults. So you can see the disparity there between the number of offences recorded, the number of alleged incidents recorded and the number of forensic examinations that were actually taking place, and this comes back to the severe shortage of forensic doctors and medical staff available to victims of crime and victim-survivors of sexual assault in particular.

That takes me to the stakeholder concerns with this piece of legislation. In particular the AMA have spoken to the fact that they were not adequately consulted and have said that they believe the bill should have a greater health focus, when it is in fact drafted as a justice bill. We need to make sure that the health concerns are brought into this piece of legislation, because at the end of the day it is an organisation, an institute, that deals with victim-survivors of sexual assault and tries to provide that support to victims of crime. But unfortunately, we have seen from stories and we have seen from the review previously from the law reform commission that there is not appropriate resourcing when it comes to providing that much-needed support for victims of crime, and providing that health lens over this piece of legislation should have been the approach taken by the government.

The Law Institute of Victoria has also raised significant concerns regarding the use and disclosure of information pertaining to individuals. They do not believe that the legislative safeguards as drafted in this bill are sufficient, and the fact is that the VIFM must consult with coroners and the Chief Commissioner of Police but not actually have the consent of individuals or the next of kin if an individual is deceased. That is why I strongly commend the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment, which calls on the government to better consult with the medical profession. I note that the AMA, as I said, have significant concerns here about that lack of consultation to ensure that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services and to improve safeguards for the use and sharing of personal information held by the VIFM. It is very important that we make the VIFM the best possible institution and maintain its status as a world-class provider of forensic services, teaching, training and research. I call on the government to consider the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment to ensure that it does do that and that this piece of legislation goes that far.

John MULLAHY (Glen Waverley) (17:10): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. From the outset I would like to thank the Attorney-General in the other place. Her team has put tremendous work into this piece of legislation, and I trust that it will make a positive impact on Victorians.

In debating this bill, it would be remiss of me not to mention the significant investments of this Allan Labor government into both our health and our policing sectors. The importance of supporting our police in their duties and looking after Victorians is not lost on us, and we have invested some $4.5 billion into Victoria Police. This makes a practical difference on the ground, with more than 3600 ‍new police officers sworn in and protecting our communities. These officers graduate at the incredible Victoria Police Academy. This magnificent facility is located in the heart of my electorate along View Mount Road in Glen Waverley. I recently had the pleasure of joining the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and the Attorney-General in the other place at the academy last week to look at the centre for family violence to learn about the incredible work that goes on there. I thank the ministers for their generous time and look forward to continuing to work together in ensuring that the Glen Waverley district is a safe and vibrant community.

Much is said about crime and youth justice, and I want to make a specific point about this topic. The vast majority of young people who commit crimes are suffering from mental health illness, come from an unstable upbringing or are in financial distress. The way in which we deal with these individuals should always ensure that whilst appropriate punishments are handed out, we make every effort to ensure that they do not live a life of crime. We must do everything in our power to give every child, no matter their background, a hope that tomorrow will be a better day, and we must give them hope that they can get an education, that they can get a good job and that they can live a successful and fulfilling life away from crime. The Premier and many members have on multiple occasions stressed this point, and I also wish to add my voice to this in relation to this bill, as it seeks to improve our justice system.

It is imperative that we work closely with the doctors, teachers, carers, support workers and everyone on the ground to guide our young people onto a path where their sense of belonging is with responsible role models and not criminal gangs. I cannot accept that we should put a blanket label on children who have committed a crime, some still in primary school. They deserve a chance to turn their life around and learn right from wrong and create a better future for themselves. I would ask members opposite to think about the long-term benefits for our state. Instead of a lifetime of jumping from prisons to correctional facilities, these kids could live a life contributing to society. To show empathy in working with our youth who are troubled and unwell is not an endorsement or a condoning of their crimes; criminal behaviour is completely unacceptable, and it must be dealt with accordingly. It is, rather, the opposite. As wrong behaviour is reprimanded, they are encouraged to go down a different route. I strongly believe that good governments can both condemn bad behaviour and find positive pathways for troubled children to follow.

The other component of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024 concerns how the VIFM can improve its service delivery in regard to our medical and health sectors. This government’s record of strengthening our hospitals and healthcare system cannot be understated, specifically in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The most recent budget entailed an overall package of $572.5 million for the Monash Medical Centre at Clayton. These major works will include an expansion of the emergency department, a new intensive care unit, birthing suites and operating rooms, and this will provide an additional capacity of 7500 more surgeries and 2400 more births annually. This is especially important for residents in the Glen Waverley electorate, as they directly benefit from having such a world-class medical facility nearby. Further evidence of this government’s commitment in backing our hospital system is the fact that since we have come into government we have recruited more than 5000 additional doctors and 13,000 additional nurses.

I must also mention the Allan Labor government’s funding of the priority primary care centre clinics in filling the complete void left by the federal Liberal government. This Labor government stepped in to once again look after the wellbeing of Victorians – and a special shout-out to the incredible team at the Glen Waverley Priority Primary Care Centre. It is a privilege that we have a free, high-quality medical care facility in our community.

In specifically referring to the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, I make a special mention of this government’s investing in a local mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility down there in Clayton. Victorians did it tough during COVID’s one-in-100-year pandemic. We all felt the brunt of strict but necessary measures to keep everyone safe. I distinctly remember we were promised in Victoria that our pathway out of the lockdown was to reach a vaccination threshold, and yet the Morrison government stole our share of vaccines and gave them to New South Wales.

Of course the purpose of this project is not to protect ourselves from terrible governments in Canberra; it is a significant investment to have sovereign vaccine manufacturing capacity in our state. This creates Victorian jobs, boosts the economy, improves research and provides an incredible training opportunity for the next generation of scientists and healthcare professionals. Residents of the Glen Waverley district know that we are building a locally based world-class facility which will change lives for decades to come. Whilst I do not have time to go over every single investment in our healthcare and justice systems, they go to the crux of what this bill is about: replacing the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 as the VIFM’s enabling legislation.

To understand this bill it is necessary to explore what the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine does. The VIFM provides independent forensic medical and scientific services to support the justice system. It is an incredibly important service as it assists victims, families, police and other judicial agencies, and through the changes made in this bill this government is continuing to support the VIFM in its endeavours to maintain its quality and expertise. Since its inception in 1985 the VIFM has consistently provided world-class forensic pathology and medical breakthroughs which have transformed the way it serves the community. This reputation has exceeded Victoria’s borders as it has expanded its knowledge nationwide and internationally by building partnerships in nations such as Bhutan, Ukraine, Lebanon and Armenia. The VIFM represents the best of Victoria’s innovation and research, and in keeping with this government’s proud record of investing in our healthcare and justice systems $93.1 million was provided in 2021 to expand capacity and improve its infrastructure and in 2023, $19.47 million was granted to transition to a new service delivery model. From investigating head injuries in sport to researching technology-facilitated sexual assault, this vital program must have the necessary legislative guidelines to ensure that we as a state can maximise its benefits.

This bill clarifies the VIFM’s objectives and goals to better align with its current role, as well as modernising its governance structure to ensure that it is fit for purpose and accountable. It also clarifies when the VIFM may or may not use or disclose personal information, and it adjusts the employment arrangements of staff working at the VIFM.

I want to stress the importance of ensuring that when significant pieces of legislation such as these are drafted, extensive consultation must occur, and I am happy to mention that the government worked closely with stakeholders in the development of this bill. The VIFM, the Coroners Court of Victoria, Victoria Police, government departments and the Aboriginal Justice Caucus were all consulted in the collaborative process which occurred.

Victorians deserve and rightly expect the government to invest in innovative methods and to build our sovereign research facilities as well as to expand capacity in both our judicial and healthcare sectors, and that is why I am proud to be part of the Allan Labor government, which does just that. I again thank the minister and her team for their efforts in preparing this important piece of legislation, and I commend this bill to the house.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (17:18): I would like to say it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, but again it is one of those topics that I have intimate knowledge of, so I am pleased that I can rise in this place to give a point of view from ground level today. As we have heard from speakers this afternoon, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine was established in 1985, and in 2023 there was a review into the VIFM to determine if the act was in fact fit for purpose. In September 2021 the Victorian Law Reform Commission handed down the report Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences, and the recommendations relevant to forensic medicine included that:

The Victorian Government should, as part of the Sexual Assault Strategy, develop measures:

a. to extend access to forensic medical examinations across Victoria, including by the increased use of forensic nurses

b. to give victim survivors the option of a forensic medical examination, without requiring a report to the police.

The key point that I take out of point (a) is ‘across Victoria’ – not just in the city. This stuff is not just city based. The member for Kew raised the point earlier that victim-survivors need to be put at the forefront of policymaking in this space, and that includes out in the regions, where it is hard to find doctors. We have an incredible shortage of medical professionals, including forensic nurses and forensic doctors.

I do want to take a moment though to thank those that work at the Mallee Sexual Assault Unit. Again, this is one of those services in Mildura that we are very, very fortunate to have. The Mallee Sexual Assault Unit and the Mallee Domestic Violence Services do an incredible job, but they are so overwhelmed with cases. They have been and I have been discussing the urgent need – it was urgent five years ago; it was urgent probably 10 years ago – for a new multidisciplinary centre. We know what an MDC is, but in isolated communities like Mildura, having the sexual offences and child abuse investigation team, the sexual assault unit and the family violence unit all in one place next to the legal precinct, if you will, is vitally important. I thank the Minister for Police, who came to Mildura a few weeks ago to meet with members of Victoria Police and have a look at the site that has been purchased. There are a few planning issues with that site that need to be addressed, but it is a step in the right direction. The staff at the Mallee Sexual Assault Unit, even though there has been a changeover recently, do work that is vitally important, and I thank them for that.

Back to the review: the findings of the review are what the bill seeks to implement, but as we have heard today it falls terribly short. This bill will not help those that have been assaulted get an examination quicker. It will not guarantee the adequacy of funding needed to put more forensic nurses and doctors on the ground, and again this is probably because there has been a very real lack of adequate consultation with those at the coalface. We have heard from those key stakeholders. That concern has been expressed by key stakeholders, which I will get to shortly.

There is a reason that I wholeheartedly support the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment, which I will read to you, because I have got 5½ minutes left:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government:

(a) properly consults with the medical profession in Victoria on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine;

(b) ensures that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services; and

(c) improves safeguards for the use and sharing of personal information held by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine.’

Again, point (b) is ensuring that a victim-survivor of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medicine. There have been many members in this place today refer to the 2022 ABC report that reported that the forensic examination system was failing victims in Victoria. One victim-survivor of sexual assault was forced to remain in her soiled clothing for 30 hours due to the unavailability of a forensic doctor. That to me is so awful, from intimate knowledge in the space, and I heard the member for Lowan earlier during her contribution say that after a rape or sexual assault, regardless of who the perpetrator is, the first thing you want to do is get clean. Now, I cannot speak for other victim-survivors, but the first thing you want to do, as the member for Lowan said, is wash it off and get as far away from it as possible. Having to wait around for 30 hours – a day and a half – in your soiled underwear and clothing is not only ‘icky’ and ‘gross’, as was quoted in the report; it is demeaning. It voids you of any dignity that you have got left by that stage – and that is not much – and it just gives you so much time to sit with your thoughts and ponder what has just happened.

Imagine what that does to your psyche. Not only have you been through this traumatic physical event, but then there are mental health flow-on effects after that. This bill does not do much to address that. You cannot really understand or imagine what that does to your psyche unless you have lived it. Those victim-survivors are the ones that should be at the centre of this bill, and there are concerns that they are not. Like the member for Kew said earlier, it is crucial that victims of crime are deeply supported, especially in crimes like this.

There have also been concerns – and many members have raised them today – from several different key stakeholders. Those of course are coming from the Australian Medical Association and the Law Institute of Victoria. The main concerns of the AMA arise from them not having been adequately consulted, as I mentioned earlier. They believe this bill should have a greater health focus, as the member for Kew said earlier, when in fact it is drafted as a justice bill, and they have concerns about a few other things as well, which could be addressed by supporting the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment. The Law Institute of Victoria has a concern regarding the use and disclosure of information pertaining to individuals. They do not believe the legislative safeguards are sufficient. The VIFM must consult with coroners and the Chief Commissioner of Police, but they do not need the consent of the individual or next of kin if the individual is deceased.

Again, these things could be addressed with adequate consultation, which is why I do urge the government to seriously consider supporting the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment and simply to do better in supporting and actually making real change on the ground as far as victim-survivors and changes on the ground go, because that is where it is needed. We can talk about investment and how many dollars have been put into policy, but what are the outcomes, and why aren’t we measuring this stuff by outcomes? There have been statistics talked about in this place. The member for Lowan had a few that were really concerning. That is how we should be addressing policy solutions to make actual change on the ground.

With that in mind, again, I fully support the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment, and I encourage the government to do the same. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it falls critically short of doing what it is intending to do.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (17:28): I am pleased to provide a contribution to this very important bill, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. Lots of previous speakers have acknowledged that the VIFM enabling legislation was the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985. I think that any reasonable person would understand that it is an industry that is so impacted by science and medicine – and we know the extraordinary advances that have happened in those fields in the last few years – and could not argue that it is not time now to amend that legislation. The world is a very different place than it was in 1985. I was still young and having a fine time, and here I am old and in Parliament; 1985 was a long time ago.

It is very important that we look to bring in this enabling legislation. I think, as I said, there have been so many advances. I was reading up before I came in, and there was an article from last year about how the VIFM were looking at non-invasive or virtual autopsies. It was an extraordinary thing to read about. Some people in some cultures find an autopsy a very confronting and invasive thing to go to. So here they are now surging ahead and looking at new ways that they could develop autopsies that are done through scanning procedures and non-invasive procedures. I think that was just one small moment from a year ago that could potentially change the way that we do everything.

It is incredibly important that we bring this enabling legislation forward and really understand what it does. I think probably when I was reading through the bill the thing that really struck me most was around the overarching principles to guide the functions. I am really pleased that the bill introduces principles that aim to guide the VIFM in a people-centred approach to service delivery, and I think that is so important. We have all watched Silent Witness or NCIS, and certainly in those environments it is really important that we retain the humanity and dignity of the people that are being dealt with. For that to be a part of the overarching principles is incredibly important.

I do want to flag some of the extraordinary work the VIFM have done. I think others may have spoken about its work in the space of CTE, which is of course an issue that arises in sports players. They have been doing a lot of research and work around that. There are the obvious things that they do to support the Coroners Court and VicPol, but really there is also this enormous research base out there. When I was reading it through I was struck that they are such an internationally respected body, that their work extends well beyond our borders and that they have recently been directly involved in capability building in death investigation and mortuary services in Bhutan.

I do want to just share with you what was a very painful part of my life, when my brother passed away in 2009. He died in Cambodia. We were advised by DFAT, and I will say they were absolutely extraordinary. I will not have a word said against them; they were amazing. They talked it through with us and they said, ‘Look, there’s no capacity for autopsy in Cambodia, so they can fill the body with preservatives and send it off to somewhere that does have the capacity, but of course that then rules out most of the things that you might be able to find in the body.’ So all we really had to go on was the report of a Cambodian police officer, who thought he might have had a heart attack. He was 48 and he had lived a rigorous life, so it may have been a range of things. But it really struck me at that time that something that we all take for granted is getting answers to those questions at a really difficult time. So when I was reading about all of the work that our wonderful VIFM do, I was really pleased to hear about the fact that they are reaching out to other countries to support them, and I hope that this means that other families might get the answers they need. In the end I went over to Cambodia to cremate him and bring him back for my mother. I spent the first day running around thinking I was going to solve this issue, and then there was a heartbreaking moment when I realised that why he died was irrelevant. The loss of him will sit with me forever, and really I was going there and it was about the loss of him. But when you are trapped in that really horrible situation, you want these answers. So the thought that our institute is reaching out internationally and providing that support to other countries really gives me great heart.

The bill, as many have talked about, also looks at the governance structures and some of their functions. There has been quite a bit of talk today around the information-sharing framework. I can understand that those on the other side are keen to understand what the privacy rulings are around this, but it is important to understand that existing safeguards apply to VIFM’s information use and disclosure under Victoria’s information frameworks. It is bound by Victoria’s privacy and data protection framework, which guides the collection, use and storage of information. It is also subject to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which includes obligations on public authorities, including independent statutory entities providing services on behalf of the Victorian government, to consider charter rights when exercising a discretionary decision to disclose information. The VIFM routinely deidentifies and aggregates data before sharing it, though sometimes in research that is required. I think it is really important to understand that we have a really strong privacy framework in Victoria and that this statutory body will sit under those same frameworks, so the suggestion that we are somehow putting privacy or people’s confidential information at risk is just a fallacy. Those frameworks exist for all of our government statutory bodies and will continue to apply to the VIFM.

They have done some really extraordinary work, and I think it is important that they have the correct governance to work under. It is interesting because in days of old when people said a word like governance I thought, ‘That sounds boring. What’s that about?’, but you start to understand how important it is in a structural sense for organisations to have that really clear governance. I think that it is very important that this bill outlines that governance structure. It is a new governance structure but also it embeds in legislation how that governance should work.

The other elements of the bill of course are around its functions and powers. The bill reflects the fact that we know that there is going to be growth and change, just as there has been in the last – what would it be, 50 years? Is it 50 years since the 1980s? That is frightening. So I think it is important in this bill that within the objects and functions there is an acknowledgement that that may change as well, and it gives room to do that. In the final minutes that I have left I just really want to acknowledge the extraordinary work that this institute does. We should be incredibly proud that we have a world-leading service for Victorians. This bill was formed in consultation with Victoria Police, the Coroners Court and the VIFM, and I think that we come with a bill that really services Victoria, but also we should be very proud of all that they do.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (17:38): I am pleased to rise today on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. I suppose a lot of my contribution today will reflect what has been said by previous speakers, particularly on this side of the chamber, in regard to this bill coming in. The purpose of the bill really is to establish the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and repeal the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985, to introduce guiding principles for the VIFM and a new governance structure and clarify VIFM’s objectives, functions and information-sharing framework. The VIFM was established in 1985. The institute is responsible for providing independent forensic medical and scientific expertise to the justice system and for both teaching and undertaking research for the benefit of the community.

What probably concerns me a little bit about this bill is that in 2023 the government conducted a review into the VIFM act to determine whether the act is fit for purpose, the findings of which this bill seeks to implement. The government has refused to provide a copy of that review. I am not going to pretend to be a rocket scientist – far from it – but I would suggest that if the government put forward a review to look into the VIFM, it did that for good reason. We often see in this place that bills will go through and there will be a review in two years or whatever the case may be. That got me thinking: why would the government want to do the review? My assumption, and I think rightly so, would be that it was to improve the functions of the VIFM. That being said, why wouldn’t the government release the review? That to me is concerning. A bill is going forward today where we on this side of the chamber do not know what was in that review, and we have to trust the government that they are going to do the right thing. I am sure they are, but wouldn’t it have been better, if they want bipartisan support for something, to give forward all the information to both sides so that both sides can agree that, yes, the review has recommended this? If we had the information in front of us we would probably be able to support those findings of the review, but unfortunately, for whatever reason, the government has decided not to release that review. It concerns me that the government does this on occasion, where they will have a review on something but they will never release it. We often hear the comment ‘We’ve sought legal advice, and the legal advice says this,’ but we never get the legal advice. So why is the government so reluctant on this? I think if the government wants full support for a bill – full bipartisan support for a bill – release the information so we on this side of the chamber can have all the information up-front. I do not think that is too much to ask. I do not know why it is so arduous for the government to put that forward.

As speakers before me have done, we have to touch on Grace Stewart and her horrific experience of having to wait 30 hours in soiled clothing. I just cannot for one minute imagine that. We as a Parliament really have to look at the victims, and we have to look at the most vulnerable people. For anyone to spend 30 hours in clothing that I would assume you would just want to get rid of – you want to burn it – is a failure. It is a failure. I am sure the people that work for the VIFM are good people. They do good work, and they probably see some terrible things that we in this chamber will never see. So why do we let them down? We state in this chamber that they are a world-leading organisation, but when we hear these stories I think, ‘Are we doing them justice by not supporting them or by not having enough forensic nurses or forensic doctors?’, because no-one should have to go through that.

We have the reasoned amendment which the member for Malvern put forward, which I support, but I think we are failing. The member for Lowan stated earlier that last year forensic doctors completed 404 sexual assault exams and 119 physical assault exams and that there were 4431 rapes and another 5919 indecent assaults. Not by any stretch of the imagination would I suggest that we would get around all those, but obviously we are not supporting the VIFM in the staff that they need to carry out the work so the victims can move on. I think it is really important that any victim that has been raped or sexually assaulted should have the opportunity – not the opportunity; that is the wrong word. We should be able to support them as quick as we possibly can so they can start the healing process, which takes years – decades in some cases. But you do not want to have to prolong the agony for any victim. This is where I think we are failing, we really are. The bill and the reasoned amendment are one thing, but what we are doing for the victims is not enough. It is really that simple. You can call me pessimistic, you can call me a lot of things, but I can see this by the statistics we have here. We have heard the member for Mildura speak today – she has lived through it. We all know people who have lived through it. We are failing desperately, and I feel sorry for the people that work at the VIFM that they are not supported as much as they should be, because they are the front line to that victim’s first step. They are the ones that have got to deal with that victim in those first instances, and we should be supporting them more.

The bill is the bill, and the reasoned amendment that the member for Malvern put forward is a good reasoned amendment. I have lost it, so that is handy, but it has been read out 10 times today; I do not need to go into it. I suppose it comes to point (b) of the reasoned amendment, which ensures that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services, and that to me is the most important part of the reasoned amendment, and I am glad the member for Malvern put it forward, because it is common sense. The bill is a bill, but the reasoned amendment on this part is the most important part of this, and the government should really consider that, because from the statistics I am reading today, when I read those victims’ stories, we are failing.

Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (17:48): I would like to acknowledge the contribution by the member for Narracan. He is such an empathetic and compassionate person. So thank you very much for what you bring to the Parliament, member for Narracan. We need more people like you here.

I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, following on from solid contributions from my friend the member for Albert Park – let us see if she looks up; yes, she does – and also the member for Broadmeadows and the member for Eureka. Significantly, this bill will replace the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985, so it is actually a new act. We are not amending one, we are actually introducing a new act, which is exciting ‍– not just an amendment – which will better reflect and support the work done by the VIFM. The Attorney-General is doing a lot of hard work at the moment and this is another example of it, so I would really like to thank the AG and the ministerial office and the department for the work they have done to bring this bill to the house. I would also like to acknowledge the stakeholder consultation which has occurred and thank the Coroners Court, Victoria Police and the VIFM themselves for their involvement in the development of this legislation.

This bill addresses the legislative underpinnings of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. It was established almost 40 years ago to provide scientific services to the coroner and the justice system. Their remit has expanded as forensic science has advanced in the decades since. Currently their world-class work includes involvement in death investigations, including autopsies and forensic radiology; clinical forensic medicine, such as assault examinations; drug-testing services, such as road traffic toxicology; operation of the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria, which facilitates life-saving surgical grafts; academic research in critical areas like injury prevention and aged care; and engaging with forensic services worldwide through their international program, which I know the member for Cranbourne has a real interest in. She is going to talk about that international program in her contribution.

In terms of context for the legislation that is before us, I am proud that our government has made a record investment in the VIFM in recent years, with over $100 million since the 2021–22 budget. This includes $93 million in 2021 towards capability and service delivery to provide infrastructure improvements, MRI capability, lab equipment and a new case management system. In 2023 more than $19 million was allocated to support the continued transition to the new service delivery model for clinical forensic medicine across Victoria. What is important is that this model will ensure that forensic medical examinations are available 24/7 to victim-survivors of sexual assault and that these examinations are available on their terms, which is so important.

However, the current scope of the VIFM’s work is not sufficiently reflected in or supported by its enabling legislation. The current almost 40-year-old act has been amended a number of times, and as a result is now unnecessarily confusing and disjointed. As such, this bill seeks to repeal the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 and to replace it with a more cohesive and suitable act. Improvements will include principles to guide service delivery, more representative objects and functions, a reformed structure of governance and a clear framework for information disclosure. In light of the replacement of the 1985 act, this bill also includes consequential amendments to 10 other acts.

Amongst the essential introductions in this new act are several guiding principles which will be applicable across VIFM’s functions and powers. These principles direct those working for VIFM to have regard for the importance of scientific integrity and ethics; benefits to the community and the justice system; the significant nature of their work and the need for sensitivity and responsiveness; public health and safety; the administration of justice; cultural beliefs; and the diverse needs of Aboriginal communities, including the importance of self-determination, connection to culture, family, community and of course connection to country.

In terms of the objects and functions, the new act will overhaul the legislative objects and functions of the institute so they further align with their work in practice. These objects and functions have been specifically drafted to allow for flexibility in light of potential future needs and future service offerings. The new objects will clearly outline the institute’s remit in forensic and human tissue services, in coordination of forensic services, in assisting the functions of the Coroners Court, in public health and safety and the administration of justice, in reducing preventable deaths and in supporting and contributing to innovations in the field. Under the changes their important role in policy development, teaching, training and research will also be formally recognised.

We know the importance of good governance, and reforms in the new act will additionally reform the institute’s governance structure. The VIFM’s council currently includes a number of members explicitly representing other agencies, leading to both perceived and actual conflicts of interest. Continuing with a representative council would also run the risk of a future council not including the necessary experience to oversee operations. Instead, going forward the VIFM will be governed by a skills-based board appointed on merit as determined by relevant areas of expertise.

These include relevant scientific expertise; experience in commercial, operational or legal matters; or a background in clinical governance or the justice system. Importantly, at least one board member’s expertise must be in finance, in keeping with obligations under the Financial Management Act 1994. The board will be accountable to the Attorney-General and must regularly report to the AG on a number of matters. The board must also establish a stakeholder advisory group to ensure that stakeholders can continue to provide meaningful input on operational matters. These may include stakeholders relevant to the VIFM’s objectives and functions – for example, the Coroners Court – as well as stakeholders relevant to their principles, such as those with lived experience and knowledge of the needs of victim-survivors.

There will also be role changes with regard to the VIFM director. The current role of the VIFM director will be split, which will allow for the chief executive officer to be appointed separately to the role of director of forensic medicine if the board so decides. Public service staff at the institute who are currently employed under the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety will now more appropriately be employed directly by the VIFM.

Another important addition to the proposed act is the clarification of information handling and disclosure procedures. Currently the VIFM is not afforded the power to use data outside of the primary purpose of its collection. This creates a degree of ambiguity in their work with Victoria Police and with the Coroners Court, as well as limiting their ability to support policy and research in public health. The proposed act includes a clear framework for VIFM’s own use of information as well as their disclosure of information to other entities in line with their objects. Of note here is that the information used and disclosed by the VIFM is primary, de-identified and aggregated in form. It must also comply with Victoria’s legislated privacy and data protection framework. The new act will require that written notification is sent in advance to either the State Coroner or the Chief Commissioner of Police, as applicable, and allow time for their advice to be received and considered. Written agreements will also restrict the use of any information to the agreed-upon purposes.

This bill proposes consequential amendments to several other acts, including those which refer to the soon-to-be-defunct 1985 act. The provisions in this bill, including the introduction of the new act, will commence on 1 July 2025, if not prior. This will allow the time necessary to implement the new governance arrangements, amongst other changes. I applaud the introduction of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, and I commend this bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (17:58): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, and I would like to start by thanking the member for Malvern for his lead on this and for explaining to us what the bill is about. In 1985 the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine was established by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985, which has been operating since that time. The institute is responsible for providing independent forensic medical and scientific expertise to the justice system and for both teaching and undertaking research for the benefit of the community.

In 2023 the government conducted a review into the VIFM act to determine whether the act is fit for purpose, the findings of which this bill seeks to implement. Unfortunately, the government has refused to provide a copy of this review to the opposition so we can work through it. As many members have spoken about today, it would have been really nice to have been able to see what that review entails so that we could make our decisions on facts and using that review, which the government has as well. We take it on face value that what the government is trying to do here is in conjunction with making this new Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill work better.

The purpose of the bill is to establish the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine; to repeal the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985, which is from a few years ago now; and to introduce guiding principles for the VIFM, a new governance structure, clarity of VIFM’s objectives and functions and an information-sharing framework. Of course forensic medicine has moved on so far; it moves on, I would think, almost daily, with new ways and new instruments that they have to use for catching perpetrators that have committed horrendous crimes on individuals. I think that we need to move with the times. To be able to do what the government wants to do is a good thing, but not letting us get our eyes on that review makes it very difficult. There are also consequential amendments in there.

The member for Malvern has put forward I think a very sensible reasoned amendment to call on the government to make sure it:

(a) properly consults with the medical profession in Victoria on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine;

(b) ensures that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services; and

(c) improves safeguards for the use and sharing of personal information held by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine.’

Obviously they collect data from these victims, and we need to make sure that data is held safely. In September 2021 the Victorian Law Reform Commission handed down its report Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences. Recommendations relevant to forensic medicine include that:

The Victorian Government should, as part of the Sexual Assault Strategy, develop measures:

a. to extend access to forensic medical examinations across Victoria, including by the increased use of forensic nurses

b. to give victim survivors the option of a forensic medical examination, without requiring a report to the police.

Notwithstanding these recommendations, in September 2022 the ABC reported – and we have heard a lot about this – that the examination system is failing victims in Victoria. One victim-survivor of sexual assault was forced to remain with her soiled clothing on for 30 hours due to the unavailability of a forensic doctor to see her after reporting her assault to police. I think everybody in this chamber would agree that that is not good enough; that is a failure of all levels of government – for someone that has reported to the police to have to wait for that long. We have heard from the members for Lowan and Mildura, and they perfectly explained, as a victim, what that victim would be thinking and what they would be going through. It is mind blowing and mind numbing to me as a member that this is actually something that can still happen in this day and age. We need to make sure that we do get that right, and I think what everyone on this side of the chamber is referring to is that this bill does not actually address that as such. I think the reasoned amendment from the member for Malvern brings that into play. If we are addressing and changing the bill and making a new bill, we should be bringing those in as well.

The report also noted that doctors at the VIFM had lodged complaints with WorkSafe about dangerous working hours, hence why someone had to wait those 30 hours. Also, with the nursing staff and doctors that are treating that victim, we want to make sure that they are doing the best job that they can, and if they are fatigued and are having to constantly work long hours, we need to make sure that we can put supports around them so that everything is being ticked off on that area. The government has claimed that it has provided over $19 million in the 2023–24 budget, including just under $7.5 million in ongoing funding to support the VIFM’s transition to a new clinical forensic medical model.

But what are those outcomes? What are we achieving with these outcomes if we are failing to make sure that we have measures in place for victims at the ground level when they need our support and that when they need us we are providing those measures? If we are putting the money in and we are actually failing to meet those measures, we need to have a look and strengthen them. As the member for Malvern said, we have not seen a lot of the detail as an opposition, and this concern is not only for us but also for the stakeholders who have been engaged for comment. As I have said before, it has been 30-plus years since any reform, so it is needed. It is undoubtedly clear that the reform is needed, as forensic medicine, as I said before, has certainly advanced in leaps and bounds in those situations.

Also, a local person whose parents I talk with regularly is Dr Ash Gordon, who was mentioned in the chamber earlier today. I am sure that the forensic team had to go out once Ash’s life was tragically taken and that they would have had to do their due diligence for the court hearings that are happening at the moment. So we need to make sure that with the forensic arm and the bill that we are talking about we are covering off all levels and taking all strides that need to be taken in making sure that if an issue happens, whether it be a sexual assault issue or whether it be someone being murdered on the street, the forensic team and doctors can get out there and do their job properly, because it does make a huge difference moving through the court system.

The Australian Medical Association’s main concerns arise from them not being adequately consulted. They believe that the bill should have a greater health focus – and I think we have listened to members on both sides now saying we should have a greater health focus, because they are the outcomes that we are looking for – when in fact it was drafted as a justice bill. They also have concerns about the leadership in the VIFM, reflecting concerns of the doctors working there about the hours and everything that they are working.

The Law Institute of Victoria has concerns regarding the use and disclosure of information pertaining to individuals, which we spoke about before. They do not believe that the legislative safeguards are sufficient. VIFM must consult with coroners and the Chief Commissioner of Police, but not without the consent of the individual or next of kin if the individual is deceased.

There is some grey area in there; there is some room for movement. I do think that it is important for the government to take on board the very sensible reasoned amendment the member for Malvern moved, as it will tick off and cover a lot of those issues that we are speaking about today, so I support the reasoned amendment by the member for Malvern.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (18:08): I too rise to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. At the outset I acknowledge the other contributions that I have been listening to in the course of this debate and some deeply empathetic and considered contributions from members across the house. I have to confess that before this bill had its first reading I was not that familiar with the work of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, but my research in preparing for the second-reading debate today and listening to the very considered contributions of those from across the house emphasised the incredible importance of the work that the very skilled pathologists and other specialists at the VIFM do every single day and the profound importance that has for Victorians, regardless of whether they are in city or regional areas. But I do note the particular importance of some of the changes that the government has recently made, some of the additional investment that the government has recently made, to ensure that victim-survivors of sexual assault have access to that 24/7 specialised support. There have been members who have spoken very powerfully about just how harrowing an experience that is for those victims. Having spent time in regional centres with doctors in those areas, it is a deeply harrowing thing for clinicians as well, so the investment is really worthwhile. I thank all members who have spoken on the bill so far and particularly have referenced that dimension of it.

We have heard that the bill will replace the original enabling legislation for the VIFM, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985, as the legislation that underpins the incredibly important work of the VIFM. But the new provisions in the new bill will enable the VIFM to maintain its status as a truly world-leading forensic medical institute and also update the regulatory and statutory basis upon which the VIFM conducts its work, which has changed significantly in the nearly 40 years since it was initially brought in by the Cain government.

I do want to just talk a little bit about what initially prompted the Cain government in its considerable wisdom to introduce the initial VIFM act in 1985. Principally it was a response to the, I think, egregious miscarriage of justice that led to the wrongful conviction of Lindy Chamberlain for the murder of her own child. The complete failure of forensic evidence in that instance prompted the Victorian government to review the settings and the capacity of Victoria in relation to forensic medicine. Originally the VIFM was called the Victorian Institute of Forensic Pathology, which I think points to what its original purpose was. It has since significantly grown, which is why today’s bill and the provisions within it are so important.

Premier John Cain in 1985 envisaged the VIFM as providing essential high-quality services to the coroner, the courts and the broader community. He said:

The Institute of Forensic Pathology is an investment in public health. Through its association with the faculties of medicine at Monash and Melbourne universities, it is also an investment in research and development.

We have heard from members who have contributed previously in the debate how that research and development does not just stop at the borders of Victoria. It has contributed to the growth, the improvement and the development of these really important forensic capabilities at an international level in responses to heinous crimes, such as the downing of a Malaysia Airlines flight a decade ago over Ukraine and similar international catastrophes. It has also enabled a sharing of information and a best-practice approach more broadly and internationally that draws upon what began in Victoria. I think it is a really great legacy of John Cain and the Cain government but also of successive directors at the VIFM and the incredibly skilled staff.

I also note, Acting Speaker Mercurio, in the context of our jobs – I think you may attest to this as well ‍– we read quite a lot of annual reports and reviews, many of which are important. They detail what happens on a day-to-day basis across the state through government agencies, through departments and through organisations which are funded by the Victorian government on behalf of the Victorian people. Generally, however, they can be a touch dry and perhaps do not have some of the language which may necessarily render them gripping accounts, but the annual reviews and annual reports of the VIFM are an exception to that rule. Reading recent annual reports I was really taken by the use of language by the Honourable John Coldrey AM, the long-time chair of the VIFM since his retirement from the Victorian Supreme Court in 2008. Mr Coldrey talks in his report about the significance of the work that the VIFM does. He uses quite poetic language, including the famous poem of John Donne which concludes that the bell tolls for thee but also reflects that death does not discriminate. Death is not a respecter of persons; it will come to us all. It is as immutable as taxes, as they say, and that is why the work of the VIFM is so important. We do not know who among us, which of our families, which of our loved ones, may require its posthumous forensic services.

Seven thousand bodies a year pass through the VIFM. They may be rich Victorians; they may be poor Victorians. They may be from the city; they may be from the country. They could be from all walks of life. But what unites them is that all will have died unexpectedly or suddenly and all of them have family and friends grieving their loss. All of them will have family and friends searching for answers and wanting answers regarding the causes and mechanisms of death. In addition to some of the work supporting police in relation to sexual assault, I think this really emphasises how important this bill is, how important the work that the VIFM does is in ensuring that it delivers its services with a profound sensitivity for those who are deceased and their families also. Again, touching upon the words of John Coldrey AM QC, he says that:

The paramount aim of the VIFM may be summarised as ensuring that the members of this community live in a safe, healthy and humane society, functioning within the matrix of the rule of law …

I think that is pretty profound. It points to the overwhelmingly significant services that the VIFM provides, and it is why we need to make sure as a Parliament that the statutory basis for its functions and the way in which it has grown in the near four decades since it was established remains fit for purpose. I thank the Attorney-General and her team for the extensive consultation that has taken place with VIFM directors and staff but more broadly through the justice system and the academic realm – all those dimensions that the VIFM touches through its work on a daily basis.

In concluding my remarks, there is one dimension that relates to the recent very significant increase in funding that the Victorian government has provided to the VIFM and that relates to the significantly uplifted MRI capacity that the VIFM now has. That might seem like quite an anodyne aspect of its work, but what it has significantly enabled the VIFM to do is to minimise wherever possible its often quite invasive posthumous procedures, which for many Victorians from multicultural backgrounds, including many in my own community, is a profoundly distressing thing. I suspect many of the things which happen would be distressing for any family but particularly those who have faith or other customs and norms which ideally would preclude that kind of posthumous invasive procedure on a body. Having that MRI capacity minimises those procedures to the greatest extent possible. As the member for Narre Warren South can perhaps attest, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has often dealt with the rights of families and rights of people, not just while they are alive but the families of those who have deceased. I thank the Attorney and all of her team for bringing this to Parliament, and I wish it a speedy passage.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (18:18): I am pleased to rise today and speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. This piece of legislation is set to repeal the existing Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985 and in doing so will reinstate the VIFM’s legislative footing. This is something that should be beneficial due to the nearly 40 years since the previous legislation was introduced, provided this legislation is effective. The updates put forward in this bill are set to update the VIFM’s governance structure, introduce some guiding principles for the institute and clarify their objectives and functions. This is achieved through some necessary provisions outlined in this legislation.

Clause 4 outlines guiding principles of the VIFM relating to professional standards, community benefit, sensitive conduct, the promotion of public health, the administration of justice, respect for cultural beliefs and recognising the diverse needs of Aboriginal communities. Clause 8 outlines the objectives of the institute, which include providing or assisting in the provision of forensic services and human tissue services, as far as is practicable overseeing and coordinating the provision of forensic services in Victoria, assisting the Coroners Court with its functions under the Coroners Act 2008, contributing to public health and safety and the administration of justice, contributing to reducing the number of preventable deaths, contributing to the development of knowledge in regard to forensic research and assisting in the provision of teaching and training.

Clause 9 sets out the functions of the institute. Clause 10 sets out the powers of the institute to do all things necessary or convenient for the performance of its functions. Clause 20 provides that the board must establish a stakeholder advisory group to assist the board in its decision-making and the performance of its functions. Clause 24 sets out the appointment of a chief executive officer, and clause ‍26 sets out the role of director of forensic medicine. There are several other clauses, and I could go on all day listing them, but I think it is important to look at the VIFM itself and the reason why it is important to get this piece of legislation right. The VIFM plays –

I am so sorry. Oh, my golly!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Member for Euroa, you can speak from your seat if you would like to.

Annabelle CLEELAND: Well, I wrote it so I would not be standing for very long. That is forewarning for the next speaker.

A member: This is in Hansard.

Annabelle CLEELAND: Thank you to my whip for making an eight-months-pregnant woman speak at 6:30 at night. Now that is in Hansard.

The VIFM plays an important role across the justice system, our health system and policing in this state, and therefore it is crucial to ensure it is operating effectively. However, the success and effectiveness of the VIFM has been called into question before. A review was conducted by the government last year; however, this has not been made available. While this report has not been made public for us to see, there have been other reviews that reference the effectiveness of the VIFM, including a report into the justice system response to sexual offences from 2021. This report from the Victorian Law Reform Commission references the VIFM 27 times, with many aspects of the existing system called into question, which we have heard so much of this evening. One major point mentioned is the need for partnerships between agencies and organisations like the VIFM. This includes cooperation between the VIFM, Victoria Police and the child protection and sexual assault services in Victoria. Because the VIFM has operated mostly of its own accord, certain decisions it has made have failed to incorporate the suggestions of other relevant groups that respond to serious causes, such as sexual violence. This includes having forensic medical examinations limited to just three metro locations following COVID – something that was said to have created additional barriers and unwarranted stress for victim-survivors.

The report goes on to list several more considerations – everything from the science behind forensic testing to the security of the facilities. The key recommendations of this report are clear. This government should develop measures, as part of their sexual assault strategy, including extending access to forensic medical examinations across Victoria, including by the increased use of forensic nurses, and giving victim-survivors the option of a forensic medical examination without requiring a report to police.

Also in this report are several areas of concern when it comes to how forensic examination systems have been failing Victorian victims. We heard this earlier and throughout this evening’s debate from the member for Malvern as well as my colleagues who referenced the story of a victim-survivor that was forced to remain in her soiled clothing for 30 hours due to the unavailability of a forensic doctor when they reported their assault to police. With stories like this it is clear that changes have been necessary, and I hope this legislation can bring forward positive change in this space.

I believe the reasoned amendment proposed for this legislation offers the most suitable way of improving this bill. The amendment calls for the government to (a) better consult with the medical profession in Victoria on the VIFM, (b) ensure that victim-survivors of sexual assault can obtain timely forensic medical services and (c) improve safeguards for the use and sharing of personal information held by the VIFM.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (18:24): I too rise to speak on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. As previous speakers have said, this bill deals with a number of changes relating to the governance of the VIFM and its role in servicing our great community here in Victoria. From the get-go this bill is not an amendment or update to the existing legislation. It is actually a brand new bill to replace the old act, which was first introduced back in 1985. As someone who was born in 1981, that is indeed some decades ago.

This was when the institute was first established as part of the Coroners Act, which outlined its purpose ‍– to provide forensic pathology and scientific services to the Victorian Coroners Court. It is a duty that it still performs today; however, today it does so much more than that, and the importance of the VIFM has only increased.

In 1989 the institute set up the Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria. It was the first multi-tissue bank in the entire Australasia region, providing life-saving health care and skin grafts. In 1995 it began partnering with Victoria Police through the incorporation of clinical forensic medicine, allowing victims of crime, importantly, to be examined. I can only imagine the impact this has had on our ability to fight crime by examining victims’ bodies and their work with our coroners. It also provides vital assistance in working carefully and considerately with sexual assault victim-survivors. At the Monash Medical Centre they can even provide a just-in-case examination if a victim-survivor does not wish to notify police at that point in time. That is a service that is respectful and considerate of the person’s needs and wants in what can only be described as a truly horrendous situation.

All of this demonstrates, I think, just how important the work of the VIFM really is not just for survivors or tissue donors but for the broader community’s safety as well. Their work is not just limited to this or just to our state. VIFM partners with the Australian Sports Brain Bank to investigate CTE head injuries by conducting post-mortem examinations of people who suffered sports injuries and concussions.

It is quite an interesting, timely moment for me to talk about those concussions and the importance of having them investigated, having had to pick up my 11-year-old son last Monday – well, it was really the early hours of Tuesday morning. At about 2 am my husband had to go down and pick him up from school camp. Apparently this is a very regular thing that happens with kids mucking around on school camp. He had a head knock twice actually. The first time he did not report it because he was doing something he should not be with the other boys, and then the second time it hurt, I think. He let the school know, and then later that night he had a headache. The school did a great job in being responsible and doing the right thing. They called us at about 11 pm. They had given him Panadol and then took him to the local hospital – or the virtual ED there at Rosebud – and they confirmed that he probably had a concussion so my husband drove down at 2 on Tuesday morning to pick him up and bring him home.

But one of the things that the hospital did offer – and I actually did not know this – is the suggestion that we do not see a GP, that we need to actually go and see a concussion specialist. I am surprised it took me 11 years with Leo to work this out. The concussion specialist said, ‘No, it is not a GP that you go to. They don’t specialise in concussions and head knocks.’ It was incredible, because we spent – and I am not kidding – over an hour with the concussion specialist, who conducted all kinds of tests on my son, including a pre-test the night before. He had a little computer game to play on the phone, which identified his responsiveness and if he was slow or fast in playing the computer game. They found out that indeed he did have a concussion and his responsiveness was slower than it should be.

So I would say to anyone listening out there: if your child or someone in your family does have a knock on the head and you are concerned, sometimes it pays not just to go to your local GP but you can book into a concussion specialist. We did not actually need a referral. It was very much like booking in to see a physio. It was a very thorough investigation into Leo indeed. They then provided a report on brain injury but also brain rest. So over the past week I have been learning a lot about the brain and the importance of taking these sorts of knocks seriously.

It is a pretty scary situation to be in as a parent when you think about concussions and injuries that players and family members can get on the sporting field. Parents whose children might participate in sports like AFL or rugby – and believe me, I have met quite a lot of those parents standing alongside them watching their kids play the many footy and rugby games that take place in my electorate of Laverton – worry about the impacts of sports injuries on their kids and head injuries that could very much impact their long-term cognitive development or leave them impaired for the rest of their lives. We can hope that the research conducted by the Australian Sports Brain Bank will be instrumental in preventing these long-term physical head injuries and ultimately keeping our kids and the broader Victorian community safe.

That is just some of the valuable work that this institute is involved in. And that work is not simply confined to this state or indeed Australia; it has also helped build capability for coronal activity and mortuary services in Bhutan and it has assisted the Red Cross with the mercy work in Ukraine, in Lebanon and Armenia, changing lives at the flashpoints of international conflicts. This is the stuff that matters. It is not always on the front page of the paper as something that the community might find to be salacious and other things as points of interest to read, but this stuff actually does matter. And the work that they do and continue to do is what this bill is actually all about when you have a read.

As for what this bill is going to do, it is going to establish a new enabling act for the VIFM. There are a number of changes that are designed to improve the governance and, importantly, the operation of the institute. It does this by introducing a new skills-based framework for its governing board. It creates two new leadership roles: a CEO and, importantly, a director of forensic medicine. Under the current framework, the leadership of the institute is governed by a council of 13 members, and that includes judges, professors, doctors and police, all of whom collectively answer to the Attorney-General and the Department of Justice and Community Safety – and that consists of another four advisory committees that answer to them. It seems like a lot, right? This bill will also allow for these roles to be held concurrently, importantly, by the same person to ensure that knowledge and expertise of forensic medicine and science not only is held by the leadership of the institute but is at the forefront of its decision-making. The council itself is going to be replaced by a new skills-based governing board, and these external representatives will retain their ability to influence decision-making through a stakeholder advisory group, which the bill requires to be established.

I am just watching the time that I have got left. It is a great bill before the house. I know there have been lots of contributions; some of them have been quite emotional contributions indeed. And it is no surprise, because the work of the VIFM does provide community safety across the broader Victorian community, whether it is identifying perpetrators involved in matters of sexual assault or indeed making sure that our kids playing sport on a Saturday or Sunday that have received a knock are safe and will be okay. I think it also can help drive towards finding ways in which to ensure that our sports are played more safely, whether that involves having one knock and coming off the field and not going back on at half-time because ‘You’ll be right’. A concussion specialist said to me that is real no-no; one knock is serious enough to be knocked out.

This is a really great bill. I do thank all members of the house for making such good and powerful and respectful contributions to this bill. Since its inception 40 years ago the institute – what can we say – has done an incredible job of advancing forensic medicine not just in Victoria but indeed around the world, and we want to make sure that it can keep doing this. That is why this bill is really important, and that is why I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the house.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (18:34): I rise to contribute to the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. This bill modernises the process under which this important service operates. I should say at the commencement I am pretty lonely down this end of the chamber; I do not know where everyone has gone. Maybe they were waiting for me to get up, and that is why they have bailed out. But anyway, hopefully they are watching on a TV screen. This bill is significant because the VIFM’s enabling legislation has remained largely unchanged since the establish of the VIFM through the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985. Despite the continuing expansion of its services and changes to the public governance, it is best practice.

The VIFM was established over 30 years ago, nearly 40 years ago, and that was back when Foreigner wanted to know what love is, back when I was in Ambulance on the road in my shorts and shirt out there trying to assist people on the road in the great days of the 1980s and back when naloxone for heroin overdoses was expanded for MICA paramedics. Of course we know naloxone is a life-saving medication which is now available over the counter from participating pharmacies, and again these are things that happened through forensic medicine, good medical practices and the expansion of medical practices for prehospital care.

A lot has changed in the world since then, and it is time for this legislation to reflect those developments in regard to those changes. This bill reforms and modernises enabling legislation to better align with contemporary community expectations, the institute’s role in supporting the coronial and justice systems and its interactions with other service users and partners, and this will allow the VIFM to operate from a more current foundation, enhancing its independence and effectiveness.

I had a bit to do with the VIFM and the Coroners Court in my previous roles at the ambulance union and as a paramedic, and I want to thank all the staff that make a fantastic contribution to this state through the work that they do. I was involved directly in a number of Coroners Court cases as a paramedic in those days of the 1980s and 90s and then as a union official in regard to it. When I was the secretary of the ambulance union we had a lot to do with the Coroners Court investigation unit when they were investigating paramedic suicides in the period between 2008 and 2014. The report that they tabled in regard to that was quite compelling, even though I did not agree with the number of suicides amongst paramedics within that time; I thought there were quite a number more.

I would like to talk a bit about the important and diverse range of work that the VIFM perform. As I said, it assists the coroner in determining cause of death and works to prevent future deaths, so their contribution allows for the coroner to consider the evidence that they provide in their research. The VIFM treat affected families, through the coroner, in a very dignified and compassionate way, and I really extend my gratitude to them in regard to how they treat affected families and family members.

Through a partnership with Victoria Police the VIFM add in roadside drug detection and criminal intoxication cases, so their work is quite diverse. Established in 1995, the end of that year when I left the ambulance service, was their clinical forensic medicine collaboration with VicPol, and we have seen their results out of that. Of course in 2023 our government granted them $19.47 million to transition to a new clinical forensic medicine service delivery model that meets victim-survivor needs and expectations and ensures a sustainable and efficient service model across metropolitan and regional Victoria. It guarantees forensic medical examinations can be available to victim-survivors of sexual assault on their terms, 24 hours a day, seven days a week; there has been a lot of commentary about that in some of the contributions today.

Again, human identification – the VIFM confirms the identities of deceased individuals and unidentified remains through various methods including dental identification, skeletal remains and of course DNA. We see all of this sort of stuff go on through some of the American TV shows. The VIFM has been incredible and made some incredible world firsts, and among those achievements are its partnerships with the Australian Sports Brain Bank to investigate CTE and its research into technology-facilitated sexual assault. You will no doubt have heard a lot about CTE, even as the federal Senate have wrapped up their concussion inquiry, and the calls on the AFL to act. We have seen a lot of newspaper reports and things like that about the footballers that have been affected through head knocks and concussion and about the tragic outcomes of CTE. We lost a good man in Danny Frawley, who suffered from CTE, in 2019, and we owe it to him, his family and players past, present and future to make sure that we are not contributing to this medical complication. Playing sport should not cost you or your family everything. Playing sport is about being physically active but also about being safe and enjoying it, not coming out with a longer term outcome that has a serious effect in regard to your brain and your body and what it may lead to in regard to mental health for a number of people that have suffered from those head knocks.

There has been research done on CTE within women who have suffered at the hands of abusive partners. This is a new area that the research is moving into and forensic medicine has moved towards. Those numbers are increasing, and it is not because it is happening more; it is because we are starting to look for it in autopsies. We know of two women who endured decades of intimate partner violence, including dozens of brutal assaults and head injuries, before they passed away. They suffered from CTE through domestic violence. We know of those two, and there are obviously many, many more in this country but also around the world. The findings were made by a group of pathologists from several states and territories who teamed up to understand whether the degenerative brain disease found mostly in deceased male footballers and boxers was also prevalent among abused women with histories of repetitive head injury, and I think that evidence is quite conclusive.

The VIFM’s impact extends beyond Victoria, as has been alluded to by previous speakers. There has been a worldwide collaboration in Bhutan and with the International Committee of the Red Cross in Ukraine, Lebanon and Armenia. It has also provided expert evidence for inquiries and coordinated national and international disaster victim identification efforts.

The Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria, which was established in 1989 as Australia’s first multi-tissue bank, provides important bone, skin, tendon and cardiovascular grafts. If you might indulge me, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a topic that I am very passionate about, one that I have spoken about quite a number of times here in this place: the importance of organ donation. I have registered as an organ donor. They can take every bit of me if they like. I do not think they will want much of me, but anyway, I encourage them, if they get the opportunity, to go for it: take as much as you like. In 2023 we had 1396 Australians receive an organ transplant, which is terrific – it was an increase – but it is nowhere near enough. We need to have many, many more people register for organ donation. I think we are at about 55 per cent of families saying yes in 2023, and we really need to get it up to at least 70 per cent. 1800 Australians are on a waitlist and there are 14,000 people on dialysis. Tissue and organ donation are so important, and VIFM is one of those institutions that support us in that bank alone.

This is a really important bill. I do commend the Attorney-General’s office and her staff, but I also finally want to extend again my thanks to the staff at the VIFM and also the Coroners Court. I commend the bill.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (18:44): I too rise to support the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine is an institution that is focused on forensic medicine, diligently serving our health, medical and criminal justice systems, the courts and the wider community as it discharges its statutory responsibilities to provide independent forensic medical and scientific expertise to the justice system, tissue transplantation and to undertake research and teach in the fields of forensic medicine that will benefit the community. Amongst its varying functions, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine contributes to the professional development and education of forensic pathologists, physicians and scientists, with the VIFM helping to ensure a high standard of forensic medical services to Victorians through the provision of that critical support across the healthcare and justice systems. It works to support patients and families through overseeing the work of the Donor and Tissue Bank of Victoria, which provides safe tissue to medical specialists and Victorian hospitals for transplantation and medical research, benefiting many patients every year, which the member for Melton was just touching on, and I will turn to if I have time remaining for my contribution at the end.

But, importantly and fundamentally, VIFM provides our criminal justice system with crucial evidence that underpins safe convictions and appropriate acquittals as its doctors and scientists investigate deaths reported to the coroner, examine alleged offenders and medically assess and support victims of crime. This important work has continued to evolve through significant medical and scientific advancements since VIFM was first established in legislation in 1985 to initially provide forensic pathology and scientific services to the Coroners Court and the Victorian criminal justice system.

Over the years it has continued to undertake landmark scientific work. I will just touch on a couple of these before I turn to the substance of the bill, such as working with the Australian Sports Brain Bank to investigate and undertake post-mortem examinations of people who have participated in sports with risks of repetitive head injuries. It is also undertaking research into technology-facilitated sexual assault to better protect us from men’s offending and has engaged in international work for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Ukraine, Lebanon, Armenia and many other parts of the world.

Domestically, within Victoria, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine continues to undertake very important work for our criminal justice and legal systems, as outlined in its 2022–23 annual report. I note I am not the only one who has gone through the annual report; I know the member for Greenvale went through it extensively. Some of those key stats include over 2300 clinical forensic medical services. It undertook over 7200 medico-legal death investigation services – that is essentially bodies that have passed through VIFM for assessment – and it resolved over 4860 inquiries by the coronial admissions and enquiries office of non-reportable deaths.

While today we may take for granted the role of forensic medicine across our justice and health systems, that certainly was not the case over 40 years ago. As outlined on VIFM’s website, which I am going to turn to extensively – and the member for Greenvale touched on this a little bit – it says:

In the mid 1950s the College of Pathologists of Australia acknowledged that the standards of forensic pathology in Australia were not uniform and that in many areas the medico-legal autopsy work was far from satisfactory.

The college argued that a high standard of forensic pathology was a fundamental requirement for the administration of justice in this state. The website continues:

It made recommendations to all Australian jurisdictions about the adequate training of specialists in the performance and documentation of medico-legal autopsies and the interpretation of autopsy results. The College recommended that a forensic pathologist have access to laboratory facilities in the specialised fields of histopathology, bacteriology, biochemistry and toxicology to enhance the quality and reliability of the medico-legal death investigation.

By the late 1960s it was also becoming increasingly apparent that the facilities at the old Melbourne City Mortuary in Flinders Street were woefully inadequate for both staff and members of the public. As described by Professor Vernon Plueckhahn …

The foyer of the building was often filled with bereaved relatives, witnesses, lawyers and police waiting for an inquest to start. Odours from the mortuary usually permeated through the crowded foyer. Distressed relatives called to make formal identifications had to find their way through the crowd to the identification room. No dignity existed for either living or the dead.

In 1968 a group of senior –

scientists –

… made representations to the Victorian government drawing attention to the appalling conditions of the City Mortuary and pressing for change. By the early 1970s the Victorian Government was seeking a suitable site for a new coronial complex, a challenging task given the likely local opposition to a mortuary being built close to residential and business areas.

That is still a challenge. The website continues:

In 1975 the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Vernon Wilcox QC established the Coroners Court Review Committee which met over a two-year period to inquire into whether the existing arrangements for the identification of deceased persons … were satisfactory …

In … February 1977, the Committee recommended that all coroner’s autopsies in Victoria be performed by, or under the supervision of, an appropriately qualified pathologist who has access to –

relevant –

services for toxicology, serology … and microbiology and radiology.

…

In 1978 the Victorian government approved a site in West Melbourne … This proposal was ultimately not supported, leading to the separation of police and coronial scientific laboratories. A change of government in 1982 saw the election of the Hon. John Cain as Premier, and the appointment of the Hon. Jim Kennan … as Attorney-General in 1983.

During the early years of the Cain government, the shortcomings in the standards of forensic science in Australia were played out in the notorious trial of Lindy Chamberlain, a case where both the law and forensic experts failed, and in failing, brought about terrible injustice.

Following the imprisonment of Lindy Chamberlain for the murder of her infant daughter Azaria, a small group of Australian scientists formed the Chamberlain Innocence Committee. Their work led to a number of findings that challenged the scientific evidence presented by the Crown during the trial. On 12 June 2012, almost 32 years after Azaria Chamberlain’s death, a final inquest announced its finding that the cause of her death was the result of being taken and attacked by a dingo.

The trial of Lindy Chamberlain was vital to the creation, and fundamental to the creation, of the then Victorian Institute of Forensic Pathology, as it was known. The institute was formally established by the enactment of the Coroners Act 1985. The act provided an independent council, with members appointed by the Governor in Council to be the governing body of the VIFP. Over those two years the council met regularly to oversee the appointment of new staff and establish a new coronial services centre, with a parcel of land in South Melbourne on the corner of Power and Kavanagh streets identified as the appropriate site for the new centre. The new state-of-the-art building, as we heard earlier, was officially opened by the then Premier John Cain, who said:

… most importantly of all, it will offer to relatives of a deceased person an independent scientific review of whether, in the period leading up to the death, everything that could have been done was appropriate. That, as everyone here –

in this chamber –

will know, is a profoundly humane service.

Over the last 30 years the work of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) has gained international and indeed national prominence when it comes to forensic medicine, and it has achieved quite a lot over those years, leading the way in many respects. This bill will continue to build on that important work to modernise the Victorian institute of Forensic Medicine, so it can continue undertaking that essential work by undertaking and implementing a number of reforms contained in the bill.

One of the most widely reported investigations by the VIFM has been the identification of the skeletal remains of Victorian bushranger Ned Kelly. Ned Kelly of course is one of Australia’s most well-known and infamous historical figures and last bushrangers. An often-forgotten part of his story is that Ned spent time within the grounds of Pentridge Prison, both in life and death. Ned was briefly imprisoned in Pentridge in 1873 for the crime of stealing a horse and sentenced to three years of hard labour. Ned started his sentence at Beechworth Gaol until February 1873, when he was transferred to Pentridge with half of the sentence left to serve. On arrival Ned was taken to the building now referred to as building B division, which is now a hotel and a wine bar and wellness centre. And after a gruelling six weeks Ned was then moved to C division, where he was assigned to hard labour. He also may have worked, according to the National Trust, down in Merri Creek in the quarries and mining for bluestone.

Upon his release in 1874 he wrote at the time, ‘I would rather face the gallows, than to go to gaol again.’ Unfortunately for him, facing the gallows did not stop him from coming back to Pentridge. In June 1880 Ned was captured by police in the famous shootout, an infamous shootout at Glenrowan, and taken to Melbourne Gaol. After three months of recovery from his 28 gunshot wounds, he was executed on 11 November 1880.

Ned was buried in the Old Melbourne Gaol, but the law required at the time that executed individuals be buried within prison grounds – this could not last forever. In 1929, five years after the Melbourne Gaol closed, the site was redeveloped and burials were to be exhumed. Forty-seven individuals were exhumed from the jail and relocated to Pentridge, where Ned would remain for another 80 years. It was not until 2006, when it was Pentridge’s turn to be redeveloped, that archaeologists were given the task to locate and identify these graves. And this work was led by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. An investigation started with the excavation of bodies and executed prisoners, and the state suspected that Ned Kelly’s body might be amongst those skeletal remains. An investigation involving historical research, anthropology, odontology, forensic pathology and DNA analysis resulted in an unlikely identification of Ned Kelly’s remains. And so with the time remaining, I commend the bill and the important work of all the team and staff at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine for their work.

Pauline RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (18:54): I am very pleased to be able to have the opportunity to contribute to the debates, albeit not for too long, on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill ‍2024. I commend in fact, as you leave, Acting Speaker Mercurio, your contribution on this bill, because I know a lot of effort and consideration goes into the contributions you make.

I was very pleased to be able to follow on from the member for Pascoe Vale and, as always, have a deeper understanding of the history of some of the landmarks in that electorate that he represents so well. I had not anticipated having that understanding of the role of this extraordinarily august organisation in the consideration of Ned Kelly’s remains and his journey at the end of his life.

As was beautifully articulated by the member for Wendouree, it is exciting to have a new bill that will replace the current Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Act 1985. It is going to have as part of the principles which will guide it a new governance structure, a clarification of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine’s objectives and functions, and the introduction of a new information-sharing framework.

Like other members, I think I spent a bit of time fascinated as I went through the annual reports. Full disclosure, I perhaps did not quite understand – and I know others have probably more deeply understood – the role that this institution plays, including as an organisation that supports a great deal of international work. Starting first, though, in a domestic setting I want to particularly congratulate the organisation for the work that they did in the Stop the Coward Punch campaign. This sort of research and study on the consequences of assaults I think is really important for us to have a deeper understanding of what happens when people are hurt and damaged in an assault, which can be fatal, but also in non-fatal assaults. I think we need to commend the work of this organisation in providing that extra insight and, in doing that, deepening our understanding as a community of the impact of assaults.

I was fascinated to see in their international report some of the work that they have done in partnership with some of the countries that are part of our neighbourhood. In particular I was interested to see the work that they have done in Bangkok in improving forensic human identification through implementation of simple systems. It was fascinating for me to read about especially some of the work that they have done in South Africa and of course in Sri Lanka, where some members of the organisation have been guest speakers in important conferences, and also in Vietnam. I thought that that was really important for us to understand the work that is being done by our organisations in Victoria to support other countries. Some of the disaster victim identification activities involved work in the aftermath of the Bali bombings, the devastating tsunami in Thailand, the earthquake in Nepal and the exposure of clandestine graves in Timor-Leste.

I commend the work of the scientists who are right at the leading edge of furthering our understanding of and insight into what are often the most difficult and tragic times in people’s lives. I think it is fascinating that we have an MOU that was signed between the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and the operational science and technology division of the Australian Federal Police. This type of work occurs as well in Hanoi in Vietnam, where we have also got a memorandum of understanding with the Asia-Pacific region. I commend the work of the nurses, the clinicians and the scientists who need to respond, many times during tragic events.

I think this is a really important piece of legislation that speaks to this government’s vigour in making reforms that are necessary. It speaks to this government’s commitment to a science-based approach to reform and to looking at all the ways that we can support the international community in everything that we do. This is terrific work. I commend this bill to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.