Wednesday,14 August 2024

State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024

Statement of compatibility

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024.

In my opinion, the State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, may be partially incompatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

Following the High Court’s decision in AB v CD; EF v CD [2018] HCA 58, the Victorian Government established the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (Royal Commission) in December 2018 to inquire into Victoria Police’s use of Ms Nicola Gobbo, a former criminal barrister, as a human source.

The Royal Commission’s final report was published on 30 November 2020 and made 111 recommendations. The report identifies that 1,011 persons may have been affected by the conduct of Ms Gobbo as a human source, with 124 people potentially affected in a more direct way.

Since the Royal Commission delivered its findings, a number of individuals whose criminal convictions were affected by Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source have commenced civil proceedings against the State of Victoria seeking compensation following successful appeals to overturn their criminal convictions.

The costs incurred by the State to deliver the Royal Commission, and implement its recommendations, have been significant, with over $200 million spent to date. The State also continues to commit considerable resources toward ongoing legal matters arising from the Royal Commission.

In the context of this significant financial expenditure and public concern about ongoing public costs, the objectives of the Bill are to:

• limit the extent to which the State is required to devote further human and financial resources to responding to the matters that were the subject of the Royal Commission, and

• promote finality in relation to those matters.

Clause 5 of the Bill will extinguish all causes of action a person may have otherwise pursued against the State, relating to the provision of information or other assistance by Ms Gobbo or Mr Joseph Acquaro, a solicitor, to Victoria Police.

Specifically, clause 5 provides that any cause of action against the State (which will include current and former members of Victoria Police and the Office of Public Prosecutions) relating to the provision of information or other assistance to Victoria Police by Ms Gobbo or Mr Acquaro is extinguished.

This provision will apply to all legal claims seeking damages or other monetary compensation, whether in tort, in contract, in equity, under statute or common law or otherwise.

The effect of clause 5 is to extinguish legal claims which are currently before the court but have not yet been determined, and future court proceedings that have not yet been initiated. However, the provision will not affect claims that have already been finally determined by a court.

Importantly, the Bill does not apply to any criminal proceedings nor to any person’s right to appeal a criminal conviction or sentence. Nothing in the Bill affects a person’s right to appeal a criminal conviction on a basis related to Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo, or Mr Acquaro as a human source.

Human Rights Issues

The following rights are relevant to the Bill:

• right to a fair hearing (section 24)

• right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26)

• protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 10(b)), and

• right not to be deprived of property (section 20).

Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant but not engaged by this Bill

The right to a fair hearing (section 24)

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have that proceeding decided by a ‘competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing’.

It is well recognised that judicial determination of a person’s civil rights and liabilities is a crucial element of the fair hearing right. This right will be engaged where a person is prevented from having their civil rights or liabilities in a proceeding considered by a court. However, this right does not prevent the State from amending the substantive law to alter the content of those civil rights.

The Bill extinguishes legal claims for damages and other monetary compensation in specified circumstances. It affects the substance of relevant civil claims by extinguishing the underlying cause of action, meaning there remains no civil right over which a court may exercise jurisdiction.

As such, I consider that the Bill does not engage or limit the right to a fair hearing in section 24 of the Charter.

The right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26)

Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which that person has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law.

This right enshrines the fundamental common law principle of ‘double jeopardy’ and promotes fairness to persons acquitted or convicted of an offence by ensuring they are not subjected to multiple prosecutions. Section 26 of the Charter therefore guarantees a person finality and certainty in the criminal justice system, by protecting them from being the subject of further prosecutions.

I do not consider that the Bill engages the right not to be tried or punished more than once.

This Bill does not operate to punish a person. While the Bill’s operation will necessarily result in a detriment to affected persons, not all detriment, hardship or distress which may be inflicted on a person by operation of legislation will constitute punishment. Here, the criteria by reference to which the detriment is imposed is not the fact that a person has been finally convicted or acquitted of an offence. Instead, the operation of the Bill will be triggered where a person’s cause of action has accrued in connection with the provision of information or assistance by Ms Gobbo or Mr Acquaro to Victoria Police.

Further, the nature of the detriment is not one ordinarily associated with criminal sanction or punishment, as there is no imposition of any personal liability on a person of any sort. The Bill does not impose a penalty or sanction for breach of provisions which prescribe a rule of conduct and is instead concerned with the extinguishment of civil rights and liabilities. In this sense, it more closely resembles laws with respect to the acquisition of property (considered under the property right below) rather than traditional notions of criminal punishment. The High Court in Palmer v Western Australia (2021) 274 CLR 286 found that laws abrogating causes of action were not concerned either with criminal guilt or punishment.

That this Bill is not punitive is reinforced by reference to the purpose of the Bill which is to limit the extent to which the State is required to devote further resources to responding to the matters that were subject to the Royal Commission, and to promote finality in relation to those matters, rather than being enacted to punish individuals.

Finally, for this right to be engaged, the Bill must punish a person for an offence for which they have been finally acquitted or convicted. In contrast, where a person has had their conviction for an offence set aside on the basis of Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo or Mr Acquaro as a human source they will not have been ‘finally convicted or acquitted’ for the relevant offence. In those circumstances, the principle of double jeopardy could not be engaged in any event.

Human rights protected by the Charter that are engaged but not limited by the Bill

Protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 10(b))

Section 10(b) of the Charter provides that a person must not be ‘treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way’.

The law recognises that the protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is not confined to physical pain, but also protects against acts that cause mental suffering. This extends to treatment or punishment that humiliates or debases a person, or is capable of breaking moral or physical resistance. The pain and suffering caused by such treatment must, however, meet a minimum threshold of severity before this right will be engaged.

While there has been limited judicial consideration of section 10(b), this right has predominantly been found to apply in situations where severe suffering has been deliberately inflicted, or where a victim has been intentionally harmed, humiliated or debased. The majority of cases have focused on conditions of custody and/or physical harm inflicted on a person. There is no comparative case law that suggests that amending the content of civil rights in this manner engages this right.

I acknowledge that it may be argued that the Bill engages this right by causing distress to a person who has had a civil cause of action extinguished where they have suffered a loss relating to the provision of information or other assistance to Victoria Police by Ms Gobbo or Mr Acquaro (in the context of a wrongful conviction or imprisonment).

However, even if this right is engaged, I do not consider that the minimum threshold of severity is met in order to constitute a limitation on the section 10(b) right. This is because while the Bill may raise concerns of unfairness, it is not directed at intentionally causing any acute or intense harm to an individual. Further, while the Bill extinguishes civil causes of action in certain circumstances, the underlying ability for individuals to challenge their criminal convictions remains unaffected. This suggests it does not attract the necessary qualities of severe suffering or constituting affront to human dignity required to meet this minimum threshold.

Human rights protected by the Charter that may be limited by the Bill

The right not to be deprived of property other than in accordance with law (section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property, other than in accordance with law.

In considering whether this right has been limited, a court will consider whether (a) the relevant law ‘deprives’ a person of ‘property’, and (b) that deprivation is not ‘in accordance with law’.

There is no Victorian authority considering whether an accrued cause of action against the State constitutes ‘property’ for the purposes of the Charter. Whilst this term is not defined in the Charter, the Supreme Court of Victoria indicated in PJB v Melbourne Health (2011) 39 VR 373 that it should be ‘interpreted liberally and beneficially to encompass economic interests’. Accordingly, it is likely that a court would find that an accrued right to bring a claim against the State would constitute ‘property’ under the Charter.

Further, it may be argued that the Bill ‘deprives’ a person of this property by preventing that person from obtaining damages or monetary compensation that they may have otherwise been able to obtain against the State.

While such deprivation of property is likely to be considered ‘in accordance with law’ insofar as the Bill is ‘publicly accessible, clear and certain’, existing case law (PJB v Melbourne Health) also requires that it be shown that the Bill does not operate arbitrarily. The Court of Appeal, in WMB v Chief Commissioner of Police (2012) 43 VR 446 in the context of discussing the meaning of ‘arbitrary’ in section 13(a) of the Charter, has stated that a law is arbitrary where it is capricious, unjust, unpredictable or unreasonable in the sense of not being proportionate to a legitimate purpose.

Extinguishing a cause of action that has already accrued, and depriving people of compensation to which they may otherwise be entitled against the State, could be considered to be ‘capricious’ or ‘unjust’. Further, removing a specific cohort’s ability to seek compensation after having been imprisoned for serious criminal offences, and subsequently having their convictions overturned, may also be considered ‘unjust’ and ‘unpredictable’. Therefore, an argument might be made that the deprivation of property under the Bill is arbitrary, so that the right not to be deprived of property otherwise than in accordance with the law is limited.

The limitation on the right to property is reasonably justifiable

Section 7(2) of the Charter provides that a human right may only be subject to ‘such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’ in light of all relevant factors including:

• the nature of the right

• the importance of the purpose of the limitation

• the nature and extent of the limitation

• the relationship between the limitation and its purpose, and

• any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve.

I will discuss each of these factors in turn.

The right to property and a person’s right to commence a claim where there is an accrued cause of action to remedy wrongs are fundamental long standing legal principles.

It is necessary to consider the importance of the purpose of the relevant limitation. As noted above, the Bill’s objective is to limit the extent to which the State is required to devote further human and financial resources to responding to the matters that were subject to the Royal Commission, and to promote finality in relation to those matters. This is in light of the significant human and financial resources the State has already devoted to the Royal Commission.

The Government has incurred significant financial costs to ensure that the events that gave rise to the Royal Commission do not occur again, with $200 million invested in establishing the Royal Commission and the delivering of its recommendations. This includes $110 million to deliver 93 of the Commission’s recommendations for legislative, policy and operational reform and capability development, and for further investigations to establish whether any criminal and disciplinary offences arose from Victoria Police’s use of Nicola Gobbo as a human source.

Of this $110 million, Government has invested $47 million for Victoria Police to support reforms to its human source management and disclosure frameworks. Other significant investments include $5 million for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission to plan, implement and embed the new functions recommended by the Royal Commission, $2.03 million to support the appointment of the Police Informants Royal Commission Implementation Monitor, and $20 million to establish and fund the Office of the Special Investigator to investigate possible criminal or disciplinary offences arising from Victoria Police’s use of Nicola Gobbo as a human source. No charges were laid following the work of the Office of the Special Investigator, which was formally decommissioned on 2 February 2024.

With this significant expenditure in mind, and in light of the pressures on the State budget in the post-COVID environment, particularly on the criminal justice system, the critical importance of the Bill’s objectives cannot be understated. As noted above, the Royal Commission identified 1,011 cases impacted by Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source, 124 of which were more directly affected. Some of these individuals have already commenced civil action against the State, and many other claims may follow. The cost to the State in defending these claims, and if the claim is successful, any subsequent orders for damages or other monetary compensation, is likely to be substantial. The effect of the Bill will allow these funds to instead be directed to fund services that benefit the Victorian community and ensure the efficient and effective operation of the Victorian criminal justice system.

In assessing the nature and extent of the limitation, and its relationship with the Bill’s purpose, it is significant that the Bill has been designed to have limited operation. In particular, it does not broadly extinguish all causes of action against the State, but only operates to extinguish causes of actions related to the particular circumstances set out in clause 5. More specifically, it does not limit the State’s liability in relation to:

• Victoria Police’s use of other human sources, and

• any claims for injury sustained in prison or on remand (where there is no causal connection between the injury and use of Ms Gobbo or Mr Acquaro as a human source).

Further, the Bill does not exclude any claims against Ms Gobbo or Mr Acquaro themselves.

In addition to the Bill being intentionally limited in its scope, the Government has carefully considered all other potential options. For example, Government considered whether the objective of the Bill could be achieved by placing a statutory limit on the amount of damages recoverable or providing a discretion to reduce the amount of damages in accordance with statutory criteria. These options are ultimately inconsistent with the Bill’s objectives, given that they do not give rise to a sufficient level of finality and certainty of human and financial resources to be devoted. Accordingly, I do not consider that there is any less restrictive means of achieving the Bill’s critical purposes.

I therefore consider that any limitation on the right to property can be justified pursuant to the factors in section ‍7(2) if the Charter and conclude the Bill is compatible with the rights set out in the Charter.

Override declaration

However, despite the conclusion I have reached above, it may be open to argue that the Bill limits the property rights of persons with an accrued cause of action and that limitation is not justifiable under section 7(2). Accordingly, a court may find that the Bill is incompatible with human rights. In this exceptional case, the Bill contains an override declaration expressly providing that the Charter does not apply. It has the further effect that the override provisions do not need to be re-enacted every five years. Consequently, the Charter will have no application to the Bill in perpetuity. This is to ensure that the Bill operates according to its terms and that its purpose of achieving finality in relation to causes of action related to the Royal Commission and protect Victorian taxpayers and the State from further Royal Commission related expenditure is met. I also propose to make a statement further explaining the exceptional circumstances which justify the inclusion of the override declaration.

Hon Anthony Carbines MP

Minister for Police

Minister for Crime Prevention

Minister for Racing

Second reading

That this bill be now read a second time.

In AB v. CD; EF v. CD [2018] HCA 58, the High Court upheld the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision permitting the Director of Public Prosecutions to disclose to potentially affected persons that Victoria Police had used former criminal barrister Ms Nicola Gobbo as a human source.

Following the publication of the High Court’s decision, the Victorian government established the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (royal commission) to inquire into Victoria Police’s use of human sources.

The royal commission’s final report was handed down on 30 November 2020 and made 111 ‍recommendations. The final report identifies that 1011 persons may have been affected by the conduct of Ms Gobbo as a human source, with 124 people potentially affected in a more direct way.

The state has devoted substantial human and financial resources, exceeding $200 million, to establish the royal commission and deliver its recommendations. Of the 111 recommendations made, 93 have been delivered, including 49 of the 55 recommendations directed towards the Victorian government. In delivering these recommendations, significant funds have been devoted to reforming Victoria Police’s human source management and disclosure frameworks, establishing new oversight functions for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and appointing an independent implementation monitor to oversee the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations. Whilst this expenditure has been significant, it has been critical to restore the confidence of the Victorian community in our criminal justice system.

However, royal commission related expenditure should not burden our community more than necessary and government has a responsibility to ensure taxpayer money is channelled towards critical services for the Victorian community.

Considerable financial and human resources continue to be committed by the state toward legal matters relating to the royal commission. Since the royal commission delivered its findings, a number of individuals who were impacted by Ms Gobbo’s provision of information or other assistance to Victoria Police have commenced civil proceedings against the state of Victoria, seeking compensation following successful appeals to overturn their criminal convictions.

Section 31 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

Anthony CARBINES: I now make a statement under section 31 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Override declaration in accordance with section 31 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

The bill limits the extent to which the state is required to devote further human and financial resources to responding to the matters that were the subject of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (royal commission) and promotes finality in relation to those matters. The bill therefore protects Victorian taxpayers against further royal commission related spending.

The way in which the bill limits the financial liability of the state is by extinguishing causes of action that relate to the provision of information or other assistance to Victoria Police by specified human sources, expressly named as Ms Gobbo or Mr Joseph Acquaro. Mr Acquaro, a solicitor now deceased, is also captured within the scope of the bill as the matter of Madafferi v. The Queen [2021] VSCA 1 revealed he too provided information to Victoria Police pertaining to a former client.

The government considers that any limitation on the right to property can be justified pursuant to the factors in section 7(2) of the charter and therefore considers that the bill is compatible with the rights set out in the charter.

However, despite the conclusion above, the government accepts that it may be open to argue that the bill limits the property rights of persons with an accrued cause of action and that limitation is not justifiable under section 7(2) of the charter. Accordingly, a court may find that the bill is incompatible with human rights.

In this exceptional case, the bill therefore includes a provision which makes clear that the charter does not apply to the bill and that this override provision does not need to be re-enacted every five years. Consequently, the charter will have no application to this section in perpetuity.

The charter only permits Parliament to override the application of the charter in exceptional circumstances.

The exceptional circumstance warranting a charter override is the need to promote finality in relation to causes of action related to the royal commission and protect Victorian taxpayers and the state from further royal commission related expenditure.

In the wake of significant financial expenditure of over $200 million to deliver the royal commission and implement its recommendations, it is imperative that there is a mechanism to limit the devotion of further resources and bring finality to matters relating to the royal commission so that funds can be directed to support the Victorian community.

I commend the bill to the house.

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

That debate be adjourned until later this day.

Yesterday a rushed briefing was provided to a number of members of the Parliament in relation to the bill, and effectively what the government said to members at the briefing was there should be an expectation of a constitutional challenge. The government expects a constitutional challenge. That is how much of a rushed job this bill is. We know the government’s track record when it comes to the constitutionality of their legislation. You only need to look at the EV tax, which was struck down by the High Court. But the government at their own briefing yesterday admitted that a constitutional challenge was almost inevitable. How deeply concerning it is for that to be admitted during the briefing.

And it was not the only thing that was admitted. It was also admitted by the government that this bill is unprecedented. It is unprecedented for a bill of this nature to expunge the rights of people immediately. It is unprecedented. It is outrageous and unprecedented for the government to do it – and to do it in a way that they cannot even write their speeches without making mistakes. That just shows you what a rushed job this is.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I do note under the standing orders that when any member produces and speaks to a second-reading speech they can ad lib in their second-reading speech. Just because it has been presented to the members opposite does not mean that is exactly what has been said. I point out that the member for Brighton is wrong.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

James NEWBURY: I understand why the minister is trying to cover up for the Attorney-General, who has provided him with a dud speech. I can absolutely understand why he is doing that. But for the house’s benefit I am more than happy to provide the speech to anyone that missed it. I have circled the mistakes in the speech. That is how much of a rushed job this bill is.

What this bill is is a cover-up. To think that they want to push this through by 4 o’clock today shows to me that there will be 1 hour of debate on this bill. We know that the government will spend some 3 ‍hours, or 2 to 3 hours I would expect, on the Prahran Mechanics’ Institute Repeal Bill 2024. Though I know the Leader of the Nationals is going to speak valiantly on it, perhaps it is not necessarily the biggest bill in the world and the most important thing for this house to be doing. But this bill I suspect the government will not bring on until after question time to allow 1 hour of debate. How shameful to rush this through. It is on the guillotine for 4 o’clock. I expect almost no debate – and why? Because the government is embarrassed. What they are trying to do is hide the evidence that will be produced in trial. That is what the government is trying to do – to hide the evidence. This is not about money; this is only about one thing: hiding the evidence that will be produced in trial. That is shameful, and the government should be condemned.

We have put forward the plan and we have transacted it thoroughly so there are no illusions about how this week is intended to transpire, and I suggest that as bills come before the chamber the opposition duly come forward and express particular sentiments on the bills that are put before the house, as is fit and proper for us all to do as part of a democratic process. I think on that account that really is the core tenet of this particular motion here, which is really a procedural motion and not about reflecting on particular persuasions or concerns about how a speech is delivered in the house.

That presumption of innocence was corrupted by the Lawyer X scandal, and that is what this is all about. It is about the continuation of what was a very dark time in the history of the justice system here in Victoria, and it continues that injustice all the way through. There is a saying that the end justifies the means, and that is what the police did at the time with Lawyer X: the end justified the means – ‘We will corrupt the system to get a result.’ That is just not part of the Westminster system and the justice system here in Victoria. It broke down literally centuries of precedent as to how lawyers should behave and how the police should behave in that time. The end justifying the means is when any wrong or unfair method is used for the overall good of a particular issue, even if it involves unethical or immoral behaviour. I think the behaviour of our justice system under the Lawyer X scandal was unethical and immoral, and I actually put it to the house that the government bringing forward this bill is also unethical and immoral, and the fact that they are trying to force it through in one day is also immoral and unethical.

Everyone has a right, and that is being taken away – and it is being taken away retrospectively, which is another fail. One of the things that should be used absolutely sparingly in any legislation in Victoria is actually having retrospectivity in it. It is totally different going forward and changing the rules, but to change the rules on things that have happened in the past is something that should not be done lightly in this house. I put it to the minister who introduced this bill that to do it within effectively 4 or 5 hours before we go to the guillotine, when this bill will be passed and sent to the other place, is unethical, is immoral and is wrong.

I think it is a shame on the minister and the government that they would actually bring the reputation of this house, bring the reputation of the parliamentary system and bring the reputation of the justice system here in Victoria to a new low by taking away people’s rights to just compensation. With Lawyer X, or informer 3838, it is understood that over 1000 convictions were corrupted by that particular system. The government talk about saving taxpayers money. Hello there – what about the $40 billion in cost overruns on projects, compared to the supposed $45 million with this particular issue?

The last thing I want to talk about is our Victorian forest industry. Our Victorian forest industry was destroyed by court cases, by vexatious litigants out of the green movement, and the government did not lift one single finger to help that particular industry by changing legislation to actually give them the right of defence in the courts. So the government is happy to destroy our timber industry. The government was happy to destroy the jobs in our regional communities of that particular industry, because they would not come forward with legislative change. They were told – they had legal advice ‍– that they could not do it, that it was not fair to limit someone’s rights to actually go to court to bring a case against VicForests and how they harvest timber here in Victoria. But now we are going to have legislation introduced and passed by 4 o’clock, because the government has the numbers. It will be passed by 4 o’clock and sent to the other place to take away people’s rights to actually sue for an unjust decision – sue for the fact that someone spent 12 years in jail because of a corrupted legal system, with the, if not tacit approval, direct approval of the government for the actions of Victoria Police and the DPP in doing what they did. I actually oppose this bill coming forward immediately. It should lay over for two weeks.

Where I do agree with the Leader of the Nationals is where he points out that the government has the numbers in this house. Indeed the government does have the numbers in this house. But it will go to the upper house, where the government does not have the numbers, and the upper house will do what the upper house does. I do not think that there is anything unusual about this. I think that this is just simply about the smooth and efficient running of the house. It is not a surprise. At the start of every parliamentary sitting week we get together and we debate the government business program, which outlines how the house will be run and the agenda of the house for the week. We did that yesterday, and here we are today going through government business. I support the motion.

Whatever you think of the difficult situation the government has found itself in – and I have some sympathy for the government here – the removal of such a fundamental legal right requires proper consideration which we cannot give in just over a day before deciding whether to vote for or against a bill in this house, let alone both houses. We should have had an opportunity to consult with experts and to consult with people whose opinions we value, and right now I am struggling to find an argument strong enough to justify removing an important legal right. With more time I think our party potentially could have heard from more people and could have had a proper conversation with the government. I appreciate were given a briefing yesterday, but a short multiparty briefing in which a lot of the questions could not be answered is just not the same as having a detailed and grown-up conversation. And that is before we get to the situation we face today, which is that debate on this really important bill, as I understand it, is going to be compressed into an hour. If we have just got an hour to hear from everybody on what they think about removing people’s right to litigate, that is frankly not sufficient; on no planet would that be considered sufficient.

I think that then the plan is to rush this across to the other place, to the Legislative Council, where they have been discussing, as it happens, or are about to discuss, the Youth Justice Bill 2024. It is interesting that we have got two justice bills this week, one in the other place, obviously, and this one. The Premier has been very strong on consequences for children this week, but this bill seems to be saying that there should be no consequences for adult members of the Victorian police force. If anyone has had enough time to grow up and clean up their mess, surely it is the middle-aged senior police who created this mess and not some 12-year-old from a disadvantaged background who is potentially facing imprisonment. So I compare and contrast the two issues that we are confronting this week and this issue of police accountability, and I argue that this house needs far more time to consider this bill than the few hours we have been given to think about it and the measly 1 hour that some of us will get to debate it.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (30): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.

Debate adjourned until later this day.