Thursday, 12 September 2024
Bills
State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024
State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024
Council’s amendments
The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert) (16:44): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024 with amendments.
Ordered that amendments be taken into consideration immediately.
Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:
1. Clause 1, lines 3 and 4, omit “extinguishing causes of action” and insert “providing for a maximum cumulative amount of damages or other monetary compensation”.
2. Clause 2, omit this clause and insert –
“2 Object
The object of this Act is to limit the extent to which the State is required to devote further financial resources to responding to the matters that were the subject of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants.”.
3. Clause 5, line 10, omit “extinguished” and insert “– limit on amount of damages or other monetary compensation that may be awarded”.
4. Clause 5, lines 11 to 14, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –
“(1) The total maximum cumulative amount of damages or other monetary compensation that may be awarded to a person in respect of any and all causes of action against the State relating to, arising from or in connection with the provision of information or other assistance to Victoria Police by a specified human source must not exceed $1 000 000.”.
5. Clause 5, page 5, after line 11 insert –
“(2A) Nothing in this section –
(a) increases the maximum amount of damages available for non-economic loss that is specified in section 28G of the Wrongs Act 1958; or
(b) affects any power of a court to order costs in a proceeding; or
(c) affects any power of a court to grant an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Act 1998.”.
6. Clause 6, omit this clause.
7. In the Long title, omit “extinguishing” and insert “providing for a maximum cumulative amount of damages or other monetary compensation which may be awarded in”.
That the amendments be agreed to.
In speaking to those amendments, as the Attorney-General said in the other place, the government will accept Mr Limbrick’s proposal. The government had designed a bill that was best for taxpayers – the extinguishment would have put an end to litigation and all the legal costs on both sides and the time and resources to manage these matters. However, we do agree that the other options have merit and still want to do whatever is possible to reduce costs. As such, we are happy to support a cap model. The $1 million cap reflects an upper limit on the total cumulative damages and goes a long way to achieving our cost-reduction goals for the taxpayer. Our intent in supporting this amendment is that it operates as an upper limit of compensation. I fully anticipate lower claims and awards. I conclude my remarks there, and I commend the amendments to the house.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:46): The amendments that have been moved are deeply concerning. The bill and the proposal that were put initially to this house concerned the coalition, and the coalition has spoken about those great concerns. The reason we have spoken about those concerns is because what the government is trying to do is hide a very dark and shameful chapter in this state’s history, to whitewash that chapter in the state’s history and say to people ‘You have no right’. That is what this bill does. It says: ‘You have no right of recompense.’ It does not matter who a person is. Every Victorian deserves to have their day in court, and they do deserve their legal rights.
What the government are doing is extinguishing rights in relation to certain Victorians because they do not want, during trial, evidence given which embarrasses the government. That is what they want: they want to hide evidence that will embarrass the government, I suspect. The government has pushed forward with an unprecedented bill. This is an unprecedented bill, a bill that we have never seen the likes of before and hopefully will not again. To know that the government is extinguishing the rights of Victorians is shameful. Frankly it is tampering with underlying principles of how our legal system operates.
I know that the member for Malvern is in the chamber and will certainly speak far more eloquently than I on these matters. I will leave my comments by saying this is a very dark and dangerous day where the government is tampering with the underlying principles of the legal system and legal rights of Victorians. The member for Malvern has most eloquently, since the government has introduced this bill, worked in the broader community and with the legal fraternity to point out the issues and concerns that I think have come to the attention now of Australia with a recognition that the law is being used to whitewash the rights of Victorians and hide the truth of bad behaviour of this government.
Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (16:49): It is a dark day for the rule of law in Victoria to think that a government can come into this place and pass a bill that puts it above the law and that says that the government alone is not responsible for the consequences of the damage it does to individual citizens. That is what this bill does. The bill initially proposed to extinguish all civil liability for the government arising from the Lawyer X scandal, the worst scandal of Victorian legal history, a scandal which the High Court said was reprehensible conduct, a scandal which led one man, Faruk Orman, to serve 12 years in jail for a crime of which he was later acquitted. This government wants to come in here with a bill that says you cannot get compensation for the wrongs done to you by the state of Victoria.
Michael O’BRIEN: It is shameful. It is disgraceful. This bill is offensive to the principle of equality before the law, because no other Victorian can just pass a law that says, ‘I’m not liable for what I’ve done. I’m not liable for the damage I’ve caused to you.’ Only the Labor government can come in here and do that. This bill is offensive to the principle of equality before the law, and it is offensive to the principle of the rule of law. Politicians should not be making decisions about the compensation for those who have had wrong done to them by the state. That should be done in a court of law according to the law. But that is what this bill is taking away. This bill has now decided that there is going to be an arbitrary $1 million cap on any civil liability claims arising out of the Lawyer X scandal – a $1 million cap. Doing 12 years inside for a crime for which you are ultimately acquitted this government has decided unilaterally is worth $1 million and not one cent more. What a disgrace. What an absolute disgrace.
Michael O’BRIEN: He was acquitted of serious crimes that led to him doing 12 years inside. The Minister for Police does not have any idea. He was acquitted, Minister. That means in the eyes of the law he is not guilty. You can tell that the Minister for Police is certainly not a lawyer and certainly does not understand the principles of the law, which is exactly why this government has brought this bill into this place. This bill disgraces the government. It disgraces the people in the other place who voted for it, and I include in that the Libertarian Party MP Mr Limbrick. Mr Limbrick parades as a libertarian standing up for the individual against the power of the state, and yet he brokered a grubby deal with the government to limit the power of individuals hurt by the state to get the full compensation which they are entitled to. How is that in any way consistent with the notion of being a libertarian? It is maybe Stalin’s idea of a libertarian, but that is about as far as you can go.
This bill is a disgrace. Those who voted for it should hang their heads in shame, because it is not just about the very real damage that this bill will do to the people who have been hurt by the state and whose rights to compensation will now be massively reduced. The precedent that this bill will set is a horrific one – absolutely horrific. Any time this government stuffs up – which, lets face it, is a pretty regular occurrence – the principle has now been established: ‘Let’s bowl in a bill to limit our liability. It doesn’t matter. Maybe there are children at a state government school who were molested. Let’s limit their right to compensation too.’ That is the principle the government has just voted for. Maybe people in public hospitals have been the victims of negligence by public doctors – ‘Let’s limit their right to compensation. We’ll save taxpayers money.’ That is the principle that this government has just established, and it is horrible and it is wrong.
There is no reason to vote for this on any principled basis. But we know this is not about principle for the Allan Labor government; this is about politics. This is about trying to avoid accountability and political embarrassment for the Lawyer X scandal. We know the government has already avoided criminal accountability for the Lawyer X scandal because their DPP refused to allow the special investigator to lay any charges. After two years of investigation run by a former High Court judge and 5000 pages of evidence, the DPP said, ‘No, let’s not have any criminal investigations; it’s all a bit too far in the past.’ So having avoided any criminal liability arising from Lawyer X, the government bowls this bill into Parliament to try and sweep all the civil liability under the carpet. Why does it want to do it?
Michael O’BRIEN: Well, member for Brighton, you are quite right: cover up. How many people in the government were involved when the Lawyer X scandal was going on who would be embarrassed by it? How many people in the public service might have had knowledge about it? How many people still serving in Victoria Police might have had knowledge about it?
These matters deserve to be exposed, but this government is sweeping them under the carpet in the most horrific way, trampling over the rights of individual citizens – and not just people who may have had things done wrong to them but people we know have had the wrong thing done to them, people who have spent over a decade in prison for a crime of which they were acquitted. This government comes in and says, ‘We’re going to take your rights away. As though we haven’t done enough to you – 12 years in prison for a crime of which you’re ultimately acquitted – we’re going to take your rights away from you as well.’ When the social justice warriors opposite go out to their branch managers and talk about how they are warriors for social justice, I wonder if they are going to be speaking about this bill. I suspect they will not. I suspect they are going to be very quiet when it comes to talking about this bill.
This bill is friendless apart from this Labor government and the ragtag group they managed to get to vote for it in the other place. The Law Institute of Victoria have attacked it. The Victorian Bar have attacked it. The Australian Lawyers Alliance have attacked it. Some of those organisations are not known to be particularly friendly to my side of politics – far from it. But they know what is right and what is wrong when it comes to the principles of the law, and this is wrong. It is wrong, and yet this government pursues it simply because it can, simply because it wants to avoid political embarrassment and because it does not give a damn whose rights it tramples over in the process of getting what it wants. That is what we have seen over 10 years of this government. A few of us thought that when the former Premier, the former member for Mulgrave, rode off into the sunset maybe things might be a little bit different, that maybe there might be a bit of a change in leadership and a change of direction, but this bill shows you, if you needed any further proof, that there has been no change at all. It is simply the exercise of power for power’s sake, and they do not give a damn who gets hurt in the process. That is what this government is all about, and it is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace.
The amendment limits the ability of any person to bring a claim arising out of the Lawyer X scandal to $1 million, but of course we know what will really happen. We know that as soon as there is any case with a sniff of embarrassment to the government, they will simply make an offer of $1 million – problem solved. ‘You will not be able to get into court because we’ve already made the offer up to the maximum of the cap.’ Of course if somebody wants to have their day in court, if they say, ‘Well, no, we don’t want to accept your offer. We want to go to court and have a court decide it,’ it does not matter, because they will have to pay the ruinous costs of the state’s lawyers, which makes it entirely impossible for this matter to get to court. This is simply about stopping anybody with a real case from actually going to court, because as soon as there is a hint of embarrassment, political or otherwise, for this government: ‘Here’s your million dollars. Off you go.’ This is not about saving money at all. To think a government that set fire to $2 billion over the ripping up of contracts for the Commonwealth Games and the east–west link cares about saving taxpayers money is a joke.
Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would say that the debate needs to be confined to the amendments, and I would ask you to bring the member back to confining his remarks to the amendments.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I ask the member to bring his remarks back to the amendments.
Michael O’BRIEN: On the amendment, this is about allegedly trying to save taxpayers money, and this government has got zero credibility when it comes to saving taxpayers money – the highest taxing, the most indebted, the worst government that we have had in this state’s history. This is a bill which is appalling on all fronts. It offends the rule of law. It offends equality before the law. It will do real damage to real people, but we have a government that does not give a damn as long as it accords with its political interests. This bill is a disgrace. It should be opposed.
That the debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.