Tuesday, 15 October 2024

Bills

Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (14:23): I rise to speak on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. From the outset I inform the house that the coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, will be supporting this bill, as we did in the other place. My friend the Shadow Attorney-General Mr O’Brien sought to amend the legislation at that time, and in this chamber I will seek to do the same. I do recommend that all members take the time to read the Shadow Attorney-General the member for Malvern’s speech on this bill, because with the benefit of many years in this Parliament he has summarised and brought together just how all over the place and weak this tired Labor government is when it comes to this issue. In 2015 the then Attorney-General in regard to these laws was beating his chest with glee. Mr Pakula said:

Outlaw motorcycle gangs are the target of new consorting laws to be introduced in Parliament this week which will give Victoria Police stronger powers to target criminal networks.

It goes on to say:

These laws will help to ensure that Victoria does not become an attractive target for members of outlaw motorcycle gangs seeking to avoid new laws introduced interstate.

And then, to quote from the then Attorney:

These anti-consorting reforms give police the powers they need to disrupt and dismantle criminal gangs.

Then three years of inaction has passed. In another press release, Pakula said:

The Andrews … government is giving police the powers they need …

Very consistent language to three years prior. I thought the laws in 2015 gave them the powers they needed, which is interesting. But now with the new Attorney we learn that, quoting from the second-reading speech in the other place:

The scheme has not been used since it commenced in 2016.

It is not being used. So a lot of chest beating, not a lot of action, and it seems like they have come back again to correct their own homework. That is how effective this government has been; that is how effective these laws have been. This is in the minister’s second-reading speech:

The scheme has not been used since it commenced in 2016.

So this tired Labor government have been in office for almost 10 years. They have had three goes at getting this right, and they still cannot put in place a scheme or regime to fix the criminal networks running riot on their watch. It is a long-running problem of Labor’s own making that is now causing Victorians to feel unsafe on our streets. If the government wants to know who to blame, then they can definitely look in a mirror.

As the member for Malvern said, we have become Disneyland for bikies; that is what Victoria has become under Labor. It is Victorians who are paying the price, because they are not just bikies riding around, going to pubs, making themselves feel tough – these are serious drug traffickers, drug peddlers and drug manufacturers. They are organised criminals, and it is Victorians – innocent Victorians and ordinary Victorians – who are feeling the pain because of crime that is being undertaken by these outlaw motorcycle gangs. This government has sat by and effectively sat on its hands for nine years and put ineffective law after ineffective law after ineffective law through this Parliament and done nothing. And we still get the same rhetoric; it is almost a copy and paste: ‘We will give the police the powers they need.’ Well, they have clearly not, because this scheme has not been used one time in nine years – update, update again. In nine years this scheme has not been used once – a shocking failure.

Of course it is all well and good on their third attempt to pass this law, but without boots on the ground it is going to do very little to solve Labor’s crime crisis. Police say they do not have the numbers they need. Forty-three police stations have closed their doors at night-time this year alone. That includes stations at Epping, Brunswick, Northcote, Flemington, Fitzroy and Collingwood in my electorate. I particularly want to mention Reservoir, where you had the former police minister, Ms Neville, open a brand new police station a couple of years ago – at the expense of millions of dollars for it to be open as a 24-hour station in Reservoir – only for it to be closed not long after that, after she was no longer police minister. It shows the shocking waste and incompetence from this government. You have got police stations closing down and reducing their hours. We do not even have police stations through the growing parts of my electorate in places like Kalkallo and Mickleham, and I want to acknowledge the over 600, I think, residents of Kalkallo, Mickleham and Donnybrook that have joined me in calling on the Victorian government to open up a new police station in their local community. I am looking forward to joining hundreds of them this weekend with the shadow police minister Brad Battin at a crime forum up there in the outer north. Last November Victoria’s own annual report revealed that the number of active serving police had reduced by 317 in the year to almost 15,850.

This Labor government cannot even keep the lights on in the cop shops, but do not worry – this latest law will fix the problem! As I said, they have gone through it once, they have come back again and the third time is the charm for this government when it comes to tackling this issue. I suspect they do not, but they should feel embarrassed about the fact that for nine years they have had two sets of laws, and they have still got the same language in there: ‘This time this will give police the powers they need.’ And they have had to come back and correct their homework three times. It is embarrassing. You should be embarrassed. Through you, Chair, they should all be embarrassed, because this is the third time they have had to do this. I know that not many people held Mr Pakula in high regard, and clearly his laws did not work, but this is a Labor government – this is a tired old Labor government – and they finally think they are going to get this one right.

There are five aspects to the bill before the house today. The first is to make changes to the unlawful association scheme in part 5A of the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012. It also provides for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission to have oversight functions. The bill seeks to replace the scheme for making declarations and control orders with a scheme for making serious crime prevention orders. The bill also seeks to prohibit the public display of the insignia of certain organisations. The bill seeks to prohibit adult members of certain organisations from entering certain areas at Victorian government worksites – interesting. The government has had a bit of controversy in this regard when it comes to members of outlaw motorcycle gangs getting jobs on the government’s Big Build – you know, the one that has about $40 billion of overruns on infrastructure projects. Of course that has been exploited by the criminal organisation – sorry, not the criminal organisations we are talking about today – known as the CFMEU, who have been quite happy to have outlaw motorcycle gangs as part of their ranks as standover men. We saw it all detailed, and we saw it all detailed that the Premier was actually warned about this. When allegations were put to her – and I know she has collapsing support in the polls – her answer was, ‘What? What? What are you talking about? What documents?’ That happened in her press conference.

So you have got outlaw motorcycle gangs repeatedly on government worksites being used as standover men. I do not think that is appropriate. The government has known about this for a long time. To quote a senior Labor source, ‘It was an open secret.’ In one extraordinary case in Melbourne a convicted criminal and bikie figure was appointed as a CFMEU health and safety official earning an estimated $250,000 in one year on Labor’s Big Build upgrading the Hurstbridge line and used a car assigned to them to conduct worker safety checks to engage in bikie gang activities. In 2019 it was revealed that senior CFMEU official and the Premier’s friend John Setka had connections with members of the Hells Angels and Comanchero outlaw motorcycle gangs. These associations were not incidental but indicative of a deeper systemic issue within the union. In 2021 it came to light that Mick Gatto, a known figure in Melbourne’s underworld, was allegedly involved in mediating a dispute between the CFMEU and construction companies. His presence and influence within the union dealings were a clear sign of criminal infiltration into our construction sector. In 2021 did this government have anything to say on that at all or did this government look into it? It seems like they absolutely did not. You would have thought that they might have thought, ‘We might have a problem here.’ No, because they were too afraid to stand up to the CFMEU, who happen to have been their biggest donor and have donated millions of course since then. Of course they were not going to speak up, because they are complicit in it, and they know it. They have not done anything about it because they have been complicit. They were too afraid to stand up to the CFMEU until they were caught out and exposed on 60 Minutes and in the Age, and then all of a sudden the Premier had tough talk. She is taking tough action. She had been warned about this over and over and over again.

More recently in 2023 police investigations uncovered that several CFMEU shop stewards were receiving kickbacks from organised crime groups in exchange for allowing them to operate on construction sites. These stewards were facilitating drug trafficking and other illegal activities, using their union positions to shield these criminal enterprises from scrutiny. They knew about it then, and they did nothing. They are only doing something because they got caught out. We hear pathetic language from the CFMEU saying, ‘Well, everyone deserves a second chance. That’s why we employed bikies on government construction sites, because they deserve a second chance,’ even though while they were on construction sites they were conducting illegal activity – drug trafficking and using government cars to conduct criminal activities. But everyone deserves a second chance!

This bill is the government’s third chance at these laws, because they have already had two. Of course they love second chances over there, but only for criminal organisations and bikies that are associated with the CFMEU and the Premier’s friend John Setka. I mean, seriously, it was pathetic by the CFMEU. Then all of a sudden, under the threat of administration, they found 25 bikie gang members that were working on Victorian Big Build sites – 25 or something like that. It is no wonder we have over $40 billion in cost blowouts on Victorian infrastructure projects. I mean, seriously. They do not care, because the CFMEU control some of their preselections and are their biggest donor. It was only once they got caught out that they took any action. It is not good enough, and it is indicative of a 10-year-old government that has lost its way.

Again, this is the third time they have tried to change these laws. In terms of unlawful association, they are lowering the threshold for committing an unlawful association offence. At the moment there needs to be association three times within three months or six months within a 12-month period, and this bill reduces that threshold to one occasion only. The bill also redefines the term ‘associate with’ to make sure that accidental meetings or communications do not cause an issue. The bill also provides for a number of exemptions from the unlawful association scheme. For example, there is an emergency services volunteering exemption, there is a welfare services access exemption and there is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural practices and obligations exemption. This makes sense, and it is a sensible protection against what we might call the unforeseeable. The bill sets out what is an applicable offence and raises the maximum penalty threshold. It used to be an offence punishable by five years if it was an applicable offence; it is now punishable by at least 10-years imprisonment. This narrows the scope of the use of those powers.

The opposition will be supporting this bill, but as I have flagged, we remain sceptical as to whether after nine years and two attempts the government has finally got it right. It is important that we do our best to crack down on bikie gangs and organised crime, and I say ‘crack down’ because I think there is a lesson that those opposite do need to hear: you prosecute bikies and crooks – you do not hire them to work on your construction sites. You do not give them a free pass because they are connected to John Setka and they are mates – a concept that might be a bit foreign to the Premier and her colleagues, who have let crime and corruption run rampant on the Big Build, which is otherwise known as the ‘big rort’.

This bill also seeks to expand oversight by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission of Victoria Police’s use of the powers conferred by the bill and by the underlying act. The opposition supports this measure but notes that no additional funding is being provided to the commission to support this widening of their powers, which is classic. Former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich is on the record as saying:

… with IBAC’s resources, we can investigate approximately 2 per cent of the complaints concerning police matters that come to us, and have to refer back to Victoria Police the balance, which in a given year may be as many as 1400 investigations.

Ninety-eight per cent of matters referred to IBAC regarding police misconduct cannot be investigated by IBAC because of the resources the government gives to IBAC, which I suspect is on purpose. It is not good enough. If the government is serious about tackling corruption in this state, they need to look at their investment in IBAC – a proud legacy of the previous Liberal and Nationals government – to make sure it has the funding to do what it was set up to do.

We know that this government sees IBAC as convenient only when it wants it to be and that when it has been in their way they have either cut its funding or restricted its remit or ability to hold public hearings. They raised the threshold in order to make it harder for IBAC to hold public hearings.

Ryan Batchelor: Are your notes correct?

Evan MULHOLLAND: They absolutely are. They have changed the rules, and it is concerning that Labor continue to pile more obligations and more responsibilities on the commission without commensurate funding to let it do so effectively. Perhaps they should listen to former commissioner Robert Redlich.

Part 3 of the bill replaces declarations and control orders with serious crime prevention orders. Under this change the Chief Commissioner of Police may apply to the County Court for a serious crime prevention order, an SCPO. This must be in writing and must state the identity of the individual and grounds on which the order is sought. The person proposed to be subject to this order must be notified of it and will be able to be heard from before the order is determined. In a society governed by a fair trial and the rule of law this is very important. It would be fundamentally unjust for someone to not be able to be heard from to make their own argument before being subject to something as serious as an SCPO. An SCPO can be for up to five years and can be renewed, but a renewal must be made before the previous order ceases to have effect. The Chief Commissioner of Police can apply to the courts and have an order varied or revoked, but the person subject to it can only apply to have the order either varied or revoked with the consent of the Chief Commissioner of Police. Given that the threshold for an SCPO is the civil test of the balance of probabilities and not the criminal threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, this is quite an onerous penalty for such an order.

The types of conditions that can be imposed by those orders are quite broad and are far more than the sorts of bail conditions one would expect. Bail matters come up when somebody has been charged with a crime. An SCPO can apply in circumstances where nobody has been charged with a crime, yet the conditions that can be applied to them go far beyond what a court could do in relation to bail. Examples of these conditions include prohibiting the respondent from associating with a specified individual or individuals in a specified case, prohibiting the respondent from leaving Victoria or Australia, prohibiting the respondent from entering a specified place, prohibiting the respondent from possessing or using firearms or other weapons, prohibiting the respondent from possessing more than a specified amount of cash, prohibiting the respondent from using specified telecommunications devices, prohibiting the respondent from engaging in specified business activities, prohibiting the respondent from using an alias and requiring the respondent to notify Victoria Police before doing a specified thing. So these are very, very broad indeed. Not only that, breaching a condition of an order is an indictable offence, and the penalty is 600 penalty units, imprisonment for five years or both. These are significant penalties as well. Do we object to these powers in the context of tackling organised crime? No, we do not, but with any exceptional powers there must be accountability for them and there must be responsibility for them. And given this government last week, with the help of some crossbench, rammed through this house and threw accountability out the window with their Lawyer X bill, you can forgive me for being a bit sceptical of that.

As I flagged at the start of my contribution, the opposition does seek to amend this legislation. Clause 110 provides for a review of the legislative changes, which is to be provided to the Attorney-General and then tabled in Parliament. However, it provides for the review period to start on the commencement of the day and conclude on the 31 December following the third anniversary of the commencement. There is a period of a year given for a review to be conducted before the report is given to the Attorney-General and then tabled in Parliament. That means that, for example, if the changes commence on 1 January 2025, the review period does not conclude until 31 December 2028, meaning that it could be more than five years before a review is tabled. We think that is far too long and should be amended so that the review is three years flat and the review must be completed within six months of that three years. We think that is much more sensible. I ask for those amendments to be circulated.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Evan MULHOLLAND: As I was saying, after 10 long years and three attempts we still see criminal organisations running amok. We do see it on our construction sites and in the labour movement as well, and it is something that this government has allowed to happen. This goes some way to fixing that. Hopefully third time is the charm. We have had a few different Attorneys-General in their time. Let us hope this one has it right for once. We do hope the government is successful this time in its attempt to fix this legislation up in what has been shocking episode, particularly recently – but, you know, it is very sloppy work in the fact that the powers have not been used once. I will conclude my remarks there.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:49): Well, the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 is new legislation the government is introducing to prevent and disrupt serious organised crime in Victoria by introducing a further tranche of reforms to strengthen the response that the state law enforcement agencies have to organised crime. It is part of a broader suite of reforms, pieces of work that are part of our government’s longstanding commitment to tackling organised crime in this state. Mr Mulholland in the course of his contribution critiqued, it would seem, the government’s longstanding commitment to tackling organised crime. He thought that somehow it was something that we should be ashamed of, that we have brought legislation to the Parliament to tackle organised crime. We have seen how organised crime operates. We are in a continual process of examining the way that organised criminal networks conduct their nefarious activities in this state, and in consultation and conjunction with law enforcement agencies we are continually looking at ways to make sure that law enforcement has the tools that it needs to tackle organised crime. We do not apologise for that. We never apologise for the fact that we are always looking at ways to make sure that our law enforcement agencies have the tools they need and the power they need to tackle organised crime. If Mr Mulholland and the Liberal Party want to critique the government for that focus, they can continue to do so, but we do not resile from our commitment to trying to keep Victorians safe from organised crime. We will not do that today, we have not done that in the past and we will not do so in the future.

The bill before us today will amend the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 to do a range of things, including strengthening the existing unlawful association powers in part 5A of the act and providing for an oversight of the scheme by IBAC. It will provide a new scheme for the making of serious crime prevention orders in Victoria, enabling the court to impose conditions restricting the activities of one person subject to the order in place of the existing declaration control scheme; prohibit the public display of designated insignia or gang colours in Victoria; and create a new offence prohibiting members of declared organised crime groups from entering government worksites.

As I mentioned, the government does take seriously the need to tackle organised crime in this state. It does have a significant and detrimental impact on community safety right across the board. We know that the serious nature of organised crime leads to serious harm in communities. We know this at a global level. We see the report from the institute of criminology that says that organised crime costs Australians up to $60 billion a year.

What we also see is the effect that organised crime has right across the community. We see the harms in the way that organised crime is used to do things like traffic in illicit substances and engage in behaviours that inhibit people’s ability to freely go about their business and enjoy their activities safely. We see it and members of our community see it on our streets in the way that organised crime has used the illicit tobacco industry to make money to funnel into other activities, further perpetuating the cycle of violence, and what we see is the government taking seriously these issues and responding to changing circumstances in the community, as good diligent governments do, providing new powers such as are contained in this bill to crack down on those criminals and ultimately to protect Victorians from the harm that these organised criminals do to the community.

One of the most important things the bill is doing is changing the current unlawful association scheme, which was introduced in previous legislation, and the experience of those laws and the way that our organised crime networks work, because they need to be looked at in parallel, have shown that the current system is not working in its current form, so the bill proposes to reduce the threshold to issuing a notice under the scheme to better enable Victoria Police to act. Currently a senior sergeant or above can issue a notice if the officer reasonably believes that prohibiting the association is likely to prevent the commissioning of an offence, and in practice this was demonstrated to be an incredibly high threshold. The reforms proposed by this bill will instead lower that threshold such that the officer must now be reasonably satisfied that the issuing of a notice is likely to prevent or inhibit the establishment, maintenance or expansion of a criminal group or a criminal network and is appropriate in all the circumstances. The threshold to contravening an unlawful association notice has also been reduced. Currently a recipient of a notice commits an offence if they associate with a person named in a notice on three or more occasions over a three-month period, or six in 12 months. The bill reduces that so that one occasion of association may constitute an offence, giving police greater powers to ensure that the known associations that we see can be actioned in a much more expeditious way, increasing the effectiveness of these laws.

Obviously there will be exemptions. Associations with family members are not prohibited by the scheme, nor will a person be accused of contravening an order during the provision of welfare services, in the course of emergency services volunteering or in the case of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person engaging in cultural practice, and those under 18 will not be subject to the scheme or any of the reforms. Importantly, it provides an oversight role for IBAC, who will continue, as part of their police oversight and monitoring powers, to report on the operation of the scheme to ensure that it is being used appropriately, and that annual report will be tabled in the Parliament.

The bill also introduces a new serious crime prevention order scheme to be overseen by the courts. These orders will prevent and inhibit the involvement of individuals in serious criminal activity. It does so by restricting the activities of adults involved in the most serious end of organised crime to curtail future involvement in serious criminal activity. The scheme will allow the Chief Commissioner of Police to apply to the court to impose a broad range of conditions on someone who has participated in serious criminal activity or is likely to help another person who is engaging in serious criminal behaviour. This is targeted at the leaders of these groups. There is no uncertainty. Make no mistake that the serious crime prevention orders are designed to target the leaders of these organised crime groups and can include prohibitions on people leaving Victoria or possessing firearms or certain amounts of cash. There are a range of steps that need to be gone through. I will not go through them in detail here today, but the courts must be satisfied in a range of ways and to a certain standard in the imposition of the order, which then is punishable by some serious fines or imprisonment if there is contravention.

The other element of the bill, which is important, is obviously prohibiting the public display of designated insignia or gang colours. As we know, most gang members wear colours so that people know they are part of a gang. They are designed as tools to associate, to intimidate and to exert unlawful influence over members of the community so that they fear those who wear those colours. It is also a recruitment tool. It is also a way that these gangs go out and attract others to them. The bill will create a criminal offence by banning the public display of insignia, such as patches, logos or other text of certain organisations to be set out in the regulations. This is a further step that we are taking to eliminate these sorts of behaviours across the community, which will hopefully reduce the potency of those insignia and reduce their effectiveness as emblems of standover tactics and unlawful behaviour.

The last thing I just briefly want to mention is that the bill will create a new offence that is designed to stamp out rotten culture that has seen organised outlaw gangs, motorcycle gangs, infiltrate parts of worker organisations, parts of trade unions. The bill will create an offence to prohibit members of organisations prescribed in regulations from entering an area that is located at a Victorian government worksite, where public access is restricted and development is taking place. In line with the process for prescribing a criminal organisation, the bill will provide clear criteria and processes for prescribing a worksite. They are important steps the bill seeks to introduce into laws to strengthen the regime to tackle organised crime in this state. We do not shy away from our commitment to making sure that organised crime groups have no place in Victoria and that Victoria Police and law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to stop them.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (15:00): I rise to speak on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024, and at the outset I will state today that the Greens hold concerns around the breadth of this bill and the increasing police powers that it represents and will not be supporting the bill today. I will outline a range of the concerns that we hold and that have been raised with us by stakeholders in relation to this bill, but I will also note at the outset that, as has been canvassed in contributions on the bill so far, the Greens oppose the original expansion of unlawful association powers that was represented by the principal act, basically on the grounds that we held the belief that police had the powers to intervene in serious criminal activity without infringing on the right to people’s freedom of association, and I think it has been borne out through the life of these powers, as has also been discussed, the fact that they have not been utilised to date. The non-use of the powers that were granted around the existing unlawful association scheme I think bears out that they were not necessary.

We will outline now our concerns around this amendment bill that is before us today. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 in the first instance by changing the existing unlawful association scheme by the mechanism of increasing police powers to issue unlawful association notices and by lowering a number of thresholds. As examples of those lowering of thresholds, a relevant association can now occur after one occasion only. This lowers the current threshold, which requires three or more occasions in a three-month period or six or more occasions over 12 months. This means that people can be criminalised after a single or one-off meeting under this bill. The definition of ‘family’ member has also been narrowed, and First Nations legal stakeholders have outlined that this could inadvertently affect Aboriginal people, who have communities with a broader and more diverse definition of ‘family’. This risks unlawful association notices being given to people that they were not intended to cover and who are not involved in serious criminal activity or organised crime. Further, there is no test that a police officer needs to have a reasonable belief that issuing a notice will prevent the commission of further offences, as is the practice under the current regime; that test will be abolished by this bill.

So this bill today yet again from this government expands police powers, broadens police discretion, lowers thresholds and creates new criminal offences. Because of this, a range of legal stakeholders have raised with us that the application and use of these powers, as we have seen in other instances where police powers have been increased, could be disproportionately used against people who are not engaging in serious crime, and it will create a risk, according to the Federation of Community Legal Centres and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, of ‘discriminatory policing and the criminalisation of marginalised community members, particularly the over-policing of Aboriginal people’.

When New South Wales recently reviewed their consorting laws, which are similar to those proposed in this bill, that review found that 42 per cent of the 4257 people that were subject to the consorting laws were Aboriginal. They also found that many of the warnings that were issued under those laws were issued for less serious offences than intended by general duties police officers targeting vulnerable communities that are already overpoliced rather than by specialist officers targeting serious crime. I will explore these concerns further in committee with questions. I understand that the Attorney-General’s office has attempted to insert sufficient protections for Aboriginal people within the drafting of this bill, including meeting family and community, but to me these explanations are not sufficient or compelling in light of the many risks that have been identified by stakeholders with this bill.

The Greens do support the clauses in this bill that provide for a review and reporting function for IBAC, and we think that that is important given the expansion of powers contained in this bill. The review and reporting function in relation to the issue of unlawful association notices is important work, and I hope that IBAC will be adequately resourced in order to undertake these functions. I will make the point at this juncture that IBAC was not and is not set up as a dedicated police oversight body, and we have heard also in contributions to the debate so far that there is already a large element of police misconduct matters directed to IBAC that they are not resourced to investigate but then in turn get referred back to police.

The Greens have been calling for years – for decades now in fact – for effective police oversight, and we want to see an independent police ombudsman set up to oversee police conduct. When we are shoehorning police oversight into the responsibilities of an anti-corruption body, it is burdensome on that body and therefore needs to be adequately resourced, and at the moment it is not serving the people of Victoria. We need an organisation that will be fit for purpose to carry out those duties. It is timely to make the point that we have stood in this chamber almost every other sitting week over the last year and we are speaking on yet another bill which provides more powers to police without seeing the long-promised reform to the police oversight system. So I sincerely hope that we will see those reforms around police oversight advanced by this government and brought to the Parliament next year.

The bill also replaces declarations and control orders with serious crime prevention orders. These orders criminalise conduct that has not yet occurred and may not occur. The Law Institute of Victoria has raised concerns that the thresholds for these prevention orders are too low given that they could be made in respect of a person who has not ever been convicted of a crime and that the subsequent restrictions placed on a person’s association abilities are, in the LIV’s words, ‘severe and harsh’. The bill creates a criminal offence to display the insignia of certain organisations which will be prescribed in regulations. Again, concerns we hold around this element are that the criteria for prescribing an organisation appear to be broad and discretionary, and at this stage we believe it lacks transparency. There is also a risk that police could use these powers to target any group of people wearing clothes or marks that police interpret to represent their membership of a particular group, regardless of whether the group is engaged in serious criminal offending.

The bill also creates a worksite prohibition offence which excludes members of organisations that have been prescribed under regulations from entering Victorian government worksites. We understand the intent of these provisions, but again, it is unclear at this stage how this will work in practice, and given it will be defined in the regulations, it is yet to be written. For these reasons we hold some concerns about this bill. We will explore those further in the committee and see if we can get some clarification from the Attorney around the proposed operation of the bill. However, as I stated at the outset, the Greens are not in a position to support the bill today.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:08): I rise to speak to the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. As my colleague Mr Mulholland has pointed out, this government has had ample time to get these laws into the house. They have failed to do so. I want to talk a little bit about the history of how they have attempted to stamp out the illegal activity that is occurring with these organised groups and bikie gangs and the like. We know that they have been in the news and have been a massive headache for the government – with good reason. The infiltration of these bikie gangs into the CFMEU on government worksites, causing all manner of intimidation, and the disgraceful display that has gone on has been nothing but shameful. I will come back to the points I want to make about what the government has been faced with, their inability to deal with these unlawful gangs and their close associations with some of these individuals that are also closely linked to these undesirables.

What this bill does is to amend the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 to make changes to the unlawful association scheme and provide for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission to have oversight functions in relation to the unlawful association scheme, replace the scheme for making declarations and control orders with a scheme for making serious crime prevention orders, prohibit the public display of the insignia of certain organisations and prohibit adult members of certain organisations from entering certain areas at Victorian government worksites. I mentioned that, and as I said, there have been significant issues around bikie gangs infiltrating the CFMEU and the control of the CFMEU and the demands that they have over government, inflating prices and causing these substantial issues around the project blowouts that are costing the Victorian taxpayer tens of billions of dollars.

But a bit of history: it was in 2012 that the then coalition government introduced the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 in a bid to better tackle organised crime in Victoria. That act has been amended a number of times by Labor, the first time in 2015, and I note what the Shadow Attorney-General said in his speech. He pointed out the ongoing chest-puffing of the government in relation to what they were saying, but the delivery and actual implementation of any real change has been far from impressive. The government in 2015, as I said, did look at amending that act that I spoke of. That was in 2015, and it was to give police the powers they needed to disrupt and dismantle criminal gangs. Again that did not work, and the government failed to bring about any meaningful powers for police to dismantle these groups. In 2018 they had another go, and again there was much lauding of what the government was doing. But here we are again in 2024, some six years, later debating legislation around strengthening the powers so that these unlawful groups and particularly bikie gangs are dealt with, giving the police and IBAC the powers that they need to be able to do their work.

I have mentioned the CFMEU and the control they have over the government. Nick McKenzie’s stories and the report he did a few months ago in relation to the extent of the infiltration of the CFMEU and subsequently the undesirables in these bikie gangs that have got in and are controlling these taxpayer-funded worksites – it has been really dreadful. It was only after that that this bill came into the house, so it is another reactive action by the government. Let us hope that they can actually get it right this time so that we see some meaningful change, because it has been too long. Nine years with no action is far too long, and look what has happened. As I said, the infiltration of these people – they have got into government worksites and are calling the shots.

We know that there have been a number of cases. Mr Mulholland highlighted a few of them, and I want to go through a couple of them as well. As we know, there was the extraordinary appointment of a convicted criminal and bikie figure as a CFMEU health and safety official, earning around $250,000 a year – what a disgraceful abuse of taxpayers money. In 2019 CFMEU official and the Premier’s friend Mr John Setka, who we know has had a lot of connections with these groups – I am aware of two in particular; there could be more, I do not know, but the Hells Angels and the Comancheros. These bikie groups have gotten into the CFMEU and are working on the taxpayer projects. They have got a lot of power, and they have caused a lot of intimidation and a lot of concerns. They are associations and they are connections, and they have been allowed to thrive under the watch of the Premier, who was the minister responsible for major projects. She is now the Premier and has allowed this activity to flourish. Under her watch as the minister and now as Premier she has allowed it to flourish. She is trying to do something now after Nick McKenzie’s article and the 60 Minutes program which exposed the extent of this infiltration, but it goes to the extent of the relationships of the Premier with the CFMEU officials at this very high level, like John Setka.

In 2021 Mick Gatto, another known figure in Melbourne’s underworld, was also allegedly or supposedly mediating disputes between various groups at the CFMEU and others on construction projects. That is the extent of the infiltration that I am speaking about – how they have got into working on government projects, got into those government sites, and how deeply these underworld figures and these undesirables have infiltrated and are calling the shots, whether it is a health and safety official or whether it is negotiating between groups and therefore coming back to the government. And we know how close the government is to the CFMEU – of course they are. They have donated millions and millions of dollars to Labor and continue to do so, and that says it all. This group, the CFMEU, closely aligned to Labor, has been exposed, and finally the government is acting, but they would not have. They would have let it all go through to the keeper, and they would have allowed these groups to continue to ride roughshod over the Victorian taxpayer. Frankly, the Victorian taxpayer has seen what has gone on, and they are absolutely appalled, as they should be, by the abuse and the gross wages and payments that have been paid to some of these individuals.

Of course we know that just last year there were kickbacks from organised crime groups – these groups allowed to be operating on these construction sites – and that was exposed. So all of these issues are very, very murky, they are very, very dodgy and they are very, very concerning to the Victorian taxpayer. I have got to say, when those stories broke it really did highlight the extent to which and how deeply these criminal organisations had infiltrated the CFMEU and other groups and the intimidatory standover tactics that were being applied. I had people who contacted me. They were too terrified to speak out because they were subcontractors and they did not want to lose their work on these jobs. It has flowed on. And it is such a dark chapter in the state’s history regarding these dreadful, dreadful happenings.

But anyway, I go back to this bill, because as has been pointed out, this is the third time the government has tried to strengthen the laws. They tried in 2015 and 2018; they failed. I fear that it will be not strong enough. I fear that the police need powers so they can actually do what they need to do. They have been let down by Labor and they have been let down by Jacinta Allan as Premier. We are not giving them the powers that they need to be able to move on people that need to be moved on or get to the bottom of what is going on on some of these sites and really be able to do that police work. Likewise with IBAC – and we know that the government has not funded IBAC. Robert Redlich belled the cat on that before he left. And the government might say that they support IBAC, but they are not stumping up with the funds that they require.

Genuinely I do say that we need to make sure that this is working. I know that Mr O’Brien and Mr Mulholland have spoken about an amendment to ensure that the review provisions be completed within six months of the three-year anniversary of the commencement of this bill so that we can see if it is actually working or not. I do hope the government sees fit to support that. We need to ensure that when legislation is coming into place – especially on the third time, when the government are trying to strengthen these laws and it is their third time in doing so – it actually is working, and so we need that review undertaken in a timely fashion, not one that is being dragged out.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:19): I speak today on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. This bill seeks to disrupt serious and organised crime in Victoria by strengthening existing criminal organisation laws and disrupting and preventing involvement in criminal groups in public construction. We know that the scourge of serious and organised crime has a significant and detrimental impact on community safety in Victoria. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, serious and organised crime costs Australians up to $60 billion each year. That is $60 billion that could be going to better the Australian community but instead is used to traffic drugs and firearms and to blow up small businesses and tobacco shops, which ultimately results in deleterious outcomes for our community.

Our reforms will give Victoria Police the tools it needs to crack down on these criminals and ultimately protect all Victorians from the harm they cause to our community. In particular they will strengthen the existing unlawful association scheme, making it easier for Victoria Police to issue and endorse an unlawful association notice; introduce a new serious crime prevention order scheme to replace the existing declaration and control order scheme; prohibit the public display of designated insignia or gang colours in Victoria; and create a new offence prohibiting members of declared organised crime groups from entering or accessing Victorian government worksites.

This bill modifies the existing unlawful association scheme, which has been in operation for over eight years but under which no unlawful association notice has been issued – that is the clue. Victoria Police has said that the scheme is unworkable in its current form, so the reform lowers the threshold such that a police officer must now be reasonably satisfied that issuing the notice is likely to prevent or inhibit the establishment, maintenance or expansion of a criminal group or a criminal network and that it is appropriate in all of the circumstances. The threshold for contravening an unlawful association notice has also been reduced.

This bill also introduces new exemptions where an association occurs whilst receiving welfare services, in the course of emergency services volunteering or whilst an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander person is engaging in the performance of cultural practice or obligation. Victoria Police is also required to report on the number of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders who receive a notice or are charged. I do point out that what is not counted is not known and what is not known is not fixed.

I have just a couple of comments briefly today on serious crime prevention orders. The bill will also introduce the new serious crime prevention order scheme, enabling the Chief Commissioner of Police to apply for a court order restricting the activities of individuals aged 18 or older who are involved in the most serious end of organised crime. Orders might prohibit, for example, the use of an alias, the possession of firearms or cash or the individual leaving Victoria or Australia. Before making an order, the court must be satisfied that an individual is an eligible offender for the purposes of the bill or has been involved in serious criminal activity. Judicial discretion and oversight are an essential safeguard in the scheme, and this reflects the significance of the serious crime prevention orders for the lives and activities of the persons subject to them.

Before I finish up, I just want to comment on the prohibition of the public display of insignia of certain organisations. Members of some criminal groups, including outlaw motorcycle gangs, wear and display colours, such as patches, logos or other insignia. Victoria Police has indicated that such public displays are used to intimidate, stand over and influence others in the community by creating fear and sometimes an implied threat of violence and also to attract and recruit new members through visual presence and status. I just want to say how important it is that we stop intimidating behaviour. Some individuals – in any forum, place of work or community organisation – experience that intimidation differently to others. To display insignia of membership of an organisation that is quasi criminal or declared and acknowledged as such can be incredibly intimidating, particularly if you are wanting to use critical thinking to improve your workplace or even to quite legitimately lodge a complaint. This is really important to try and codify. Intimidation is not tolerable, and this is a very, very strong message.

Police will have the power to direct a person to cease display of an insignia, seize without warrant property bearing insignia in a public place or obtain a warrant to seize insignia in public view. I fully support this initiative, and I am confident that the discourse that happens as a result of this will go to improving the environment within workplaces on public sites in particular. The other improvements in this bill are a really good step in the right direction. I commend the bill to the house.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:26): Once again the government is playing whack-a-mole with the consequences of organised crime whilst continuing to ignore the incentives that are causing organised crime in the first place. Many of these root causes have been alluded to in the course of this debate, but there are no actions that I can see that are actually trying to attack the root causes. In relation to some of the well-known root causes, much has been said about the CFMEU and the infiltration of that by organised crime, as was reported in the media recently, but not much has been said about the vector of infiltration, which was the government’s own workforce diversity quotas. Organised crime saw an opportunity through these diversity quotas, set up specialist labour hire agreements and found a vector for corruption.

The big one, which I have spoken at length about, is tobacco and vaping stores. Again, the incentives are caused by government itself. In this case it is the federal government, but nonetheless the incentives for the arson attacks that are happening all over the city and now interstate as well are caused by federal tobacco excise taxes and vaping prohibition, which has had no effect on reducing smoking rates in recent times and has only incentivised organised crime involvement.

The other big thing which has also been alluded to is drug trafficking. Prohibition – I have spoken about drug prohibition many times in this place – continues to be an incentive for organised crime. Why this government continues with cannabis prohibition, for example, I do not know. I will give the government credit for one thing: they are expanding the opiate pharmacotherapy options for people. I also commend the opposition for supporting that. But they are not doing it at a large enough scale, they are not doing it fast enough. Every person that we get onto pharmacotherapy is another person that we get out of the hands of organised crime.

The other thing that people are not talking about with organised crime is: where is this money being laundered? And we are talking billions and billions of dollars. I do not think we have a good handle on that, but I dare say there are not many industries in this state big enough to handle that money other than construction. Eventually we are going to get to the bottom of this, but I think that we need to take a serious look at what is going on in the construction sector – not just organised crime involvement in rorting taxpayers but also laundering money through this sector. These billions of dollars cannot just be disappearing and being laundered through vegetable shops. It is simply far too big for that – we are talking industrial-scale laundering.

One of the things that this bill is doing – of course, again, the government is infringing on the rights of Victorians without necessarily even having any sort of criminal conviction or charges – is banning insignias. This has been spoken about. What the government is doing here is actually quite similar to what they did with the Nazi swastika ban, basically taking an organisation’s logo and outlawing it in the hope that somehow that will make the organisation go away or it will somehow stop intimidation. Well, let us look at the results on that. The government has a track record here. It is an appalling track record, but they have a track record here that we can point to where they have tried to disrupt an organisation that they do not like – in this case it was Nazis – and they banned gestures and symbols used by that organisation. What has happened since then is, firstly, they consider themselves more important because they have the attention of the state and, secondly, as was pointed out, as I warned about when this legislation came into effect, they now have their martyr. The courts have said that they will jail him. These groups are openly celebrating the fact that they have someone that is going to be a historic martyr for their movement, and they are using it for recruitment purposes. These laws have spectacularly backfired on the government. They are spectacularly counterproductive, and they should be repealed immediately. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that these insignia bans that are contained in this legislation, which are almost identical to what was done with the Nazi ban, are going to be in any way more productive – in fact quite the opposite.

I am not the only one who has concerns about this. I will quote from quite an extensive report that Liberty Victoria did on the bill, opposing it. They said about the insignia:

Our position is that due to the adaptability of icons and difficulty of enforcing these prohibitive offences, the legislation is unlikely to be effective, and may paranoically only succeed in giving these organisations more attention as the matters are invariably tested through the courts.

On this point I totally agree with Liberty Victoria, and in fact we can see already the results of this type of legislation and the actual outcomes, which are totally different to the intentions purported by the government.

The other thing that this bill does is bring in new serious crime prevention orders which limit a whole bunch of rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities without necessarily anyone even being charged. This is totally the wrong way to go about fighting organised crime in this state. If we are going to undermine organised crime, we have to undermine it at the economic level. The only way that we can do that is by changing the incentives available. That means doing something about tobacco excise tax. That means doing something about the conditions on worksites, like the workforce diversity quotas, for example, which have had this terrible unintended consequence. That means things like looking at what has happened with cannabis prohibition and the criminal market that that has incentivised. That means looking at what is happening with the vaping market and the criminal market that has incentivised.

I spoke about money laundering. The other thing that really concerns me is where this money actually ends up. I have spoken about this a number of times publicly, but it would not at all surprise me if the proceeds of some of these criminal activities ended up funding foreign terrorist organisations. That is totally within the realms of possibility; in fact I believe it to be the case, at least in part. In short, the Libertarian Party will be strongly opposing this bill. We think it is totally the wrong way to go about fighting organised crime. If we want to fight organised crime, we need to focus on the incentives, and those incentives have been set up by the government itself.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (15:34): I rise today to make a contribution in support of the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. It is time for all of us to demand a safer Victoria for ourselves and future generations. Since the coalition government introduced the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 we have made strides against criminal groups, but we know much more needs to be done. In 2012 the coalition government introduced the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 in a bid to better tackle organised crime in Victoria. This bill is somewhat of a half-measure, and I am afraid it does not go far enough to dismantle the financial pathway that enables organised crime to thrive in our state.

As we have seen borne out in recent times and current investigations into criminal elements, organised crime profits from government contracts. If we do not cut these funding sources, criminal activities will rise. We must prevent further escalation, ensuring zero taxpayer dollars fall to organised crime gangs working on government contracts. This bill introduces serious crime prevention orders, granting police anti-association powers similar to those in New South Wales, monitored by IBAC. It prohibits respondents from associating with specific individuals or individuals of a specific class, prohibits respondents from leaving Victoria or Australia, prohibits respondents from entering specific workplaces and prohibits respondents from possession or use of firearms and other weapons.

It aims to ban the public display of the ‘1%er’ bikie patch and it restricts criminals from accessing certain government worksites. The purpose of this bill is that the mark of the ‘1%er’ insignia denotes organised crime by including the organisation’s name or logo, including membership organisations, to indicate an association with organisations. Organised crime has long plagued Victoria in the form of groups like the Hells Angels and Bandidos pursuing illegal activities. Under Labor’s current weak laws, Victoria has become a haven for these criminals, as highlighted by the history of gangland killings and drug trafficking. After nine years of ineffective response, the Allan Labor government continues to allow crime to flourish, with the significant increase in property crime linked to organised activities.

This bill was introduced by the coalition, but the Labor Party failed to give it any associated powers as in the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012. The Attorney-General at the time, Robert Clark, stated that:

Criminal organisations pose a serious and ongoing threat to public safety and order in Victoria.

More needs to be done to prevent criminal activities, especially among groups that are resistant to traditional policing methods. The impacts of organised crime every day in Victoria include fear of these gangs’ violent actions. The increase in aggravated burglaries and motor vehicle theft is connected with the influence of organised crime, particularly through gang conflicts and over illicit markets, as we have seen in recent times with the tobacco industry.

A recent report by the Victoria Police’s Commander O’Brien notes that the link between arson attacks and extortion efforts of organised crime networks indicates the dire need for effective intervention. This bill empowers police to disrupt both bikies and Middle Eastern crime syndicates, but the government must demonstrate that it can be trusted to enforce these measures. Strong oversight is necessary for this bill to be effectively implemented, and IBAC needs full funding to guarantee accountability. IBAC will be in charge of the monitoring of serious crime prevention orders. These orders empower authorities to prevent respondents from leaving Victoria, as I stated, possessing weapons, and entering specific locations. A well-resourced IBAC is crucially needed for maintaining transparency and preventing the abuse of power. Improving the contracting process is vital to prevent criminal infiltration, particularly in the construction industry, as we have seen in recent times.

This bill will introduce an important power, but we must question whether it is enough to effectively tackle the root of the issue. While imposing a fine and a penalty is a step forward, we need comprehensive reform to truly safeguard against corruption and criminal influence. The current scheme Labor has overseen has hamstrung police, overburdening them with paperwork and impossible requirements to fulfil. When I mention this I am referencing what various acts have done in previous years. In the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment (Unlawful Associations) Act 2015, a new amendment gave Victoria Police power to issue a notice to persons ordering them not to associate with each other and warning them that they may be committing an offence of unlawful association. However, under this act which was implemented in 2015 no offence is committed unless a warning has been issued. How can police implement their authority if first they must give a warning when known criminal associates are associating with each other? They must issue a warning before a crime is committed. Hamstrung police are tied by various obstacles.

While imposing a fine and a penalty is crucial, the history of laws addressing organised crime in Victoria reveals a longstanding struggle of the balance between public safety and civil liberties. Organised crime costs Australia over $60 billion a year, and this bill will make it harder for criminals to do their business. Previous amendments aimed at counteracting criminal associations have had limited effectiveness and demonstrated the need for robust enforcement and new strategies. Successful frameworks in other states, despite the introduction of serious crime prevention orders, have required clear guidelines and oversight.

In closing, the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 is a necessary step forward in the fight against organised crime in Victoria. Laws like this have a longstanding history in Victoria, with anti-consorting legislation originating in the 1850s. This law was necessary to prevent criminals from freely gathering during our early colonial settlement and aimed to curb criminal association and enhance public safety. But as society has progressed, legislation has attempted to keep up with current modern activities. This bill is designed to adapt to and evolve with criminal threats. While introducing this important measure, we must also push for further reform to tackle corruption in the construction sector and beyond. It is time to send a strong message that Victoria will not accept the influence of organised crime in any organisation. We can look forward to a safer and more accountable society in Victoria.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:44): I rise today to discuss the bill before us, the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. This bill will equip our criminal justice system to address criminal organisations within Victoria. These tools we are giving to our police include several measures, such as new serious crime prevention orders, reforms to the unlawful association scheme, the barring of members of certain organisations from state government worksites and the prohibition of displays of insignias by certain organisations. Before getting into the substance of this bill I would like to touch briefly on some facts we know about organised crime, both in the context of Victoria and as a broader concept.

The simple fact of the matter is that organised crime ruins lives and ruins communities. Organised crime has no place in our state. It has no place in our society. On an economic level organised crime costs the larger community billions of dollars each year, with an Australian Institute of Criminology report suggesting that the financial costs of organised crime could range from $27 billion to $60 billion a year due to a series of factors, including but not limited to the cost of prevention and the cost of responses to serious crimes committed by criminal organisations. Additionally, the costs of money laundering, which many of these organisations are involved with, have a significant economic impact on the state and the community. It is estimated that $3.5 billion was laundered in less than a decade. This economic damage alone is a matter of deep concern, but we know where there is smoke there is often also fire. The same study that found an estimated $3.5 billion was laundered in seven years also found a significant connection between money laundering and other serious crimes. Criminal organisations involved in money laundering are 1.7 times more likely to have committed a range of other criminal offences.

Another study even found that there is a correlation between outlaw motorcycle gangs, one of the most common cohorts of organised crime organisations in Victoria and Australia, and an individual’s likelihood of committing high-harm offences. Whilst this may seem obvious, it is helpful to be able to quantify these connections to further understand the nature of organised crime. This study found roughly 73 per cent of outlaw motorcycle gang members or prospects have committed prior offences; among the most common of these are violent and drug-related offences, both incredibly dangerous kinds of crime. Involvement in outlaw motorcycle gangs just pushes these people to reoffend. Their influence is unacceptable, and our criminal justice system must be supported to be able to respond in a way that prioritises public safety.

There is also of course the question of the drug trade and organised crime. There is a notable connection between organised crime, particularly outlaw motorcycle gangs, and the domestic drug trade. Far and away the most common drugs crime organisations have been found to be involved with are methamphetamines. This includes the trafficking, manufacturing and selling of said substances. In 2021 a study found that 74.1 per cent of organised crime bodies were involved in the methamphetamine market. This is an out-and-out evil industry that ruins lives. It ruins livelihoods, health and families. It simply has no place in our community, and organised crime is integral to the continuation of its presence. Methamphetamine is directly correlated with a series of health issues on the user and influences on the user’s behaviour, impacting the likelihood of other crimes, such as domestic violence. This is all facilitated by the involvement of outlaw motorcycle gangs and other crime organisations.

All of this is to illustrate the gravity of the topic before us and why the Allan Labor government is pushing ahead with these reforms. Organised crime is a direct and indirect aggregator of many social problems, such as violence and drug use. They offer nothing but harm and risk to the community, and it is essential Victoria has a government that takes crime seriously. Because of this I am proud to be a member of the Allan Labor government. We are tough on crime in ways that matter. Those across from me often like to imply that we are not, but it is often the case that this just does not stack up with the facts. Since 2016 we have invested a record $4.5 billion into our police to ensure they have the technology, equipment and manpower to tackle crime. Today this bill will enable that further by giving them the ability to more effectively tackle organised crime. We are committed to delivering the outcomes that matter in a safer and better Victoria.

This bill uses the term ‘prescribed organisations’, which I would like to explain before discussing the intricacies of this bill. Within this bill it refers to the organisations that are prescribed by regulation by the government at the recommendation of the Attorney-General. This recommendation can only be made following consultation with the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police. Additionally, the recommendation may only be made if the Attorney-General is confident that the measures will meaningfully disrupt and prevent the occurrence of criminal activity and that the measures are considered reasonably necessary to the prevention of criminal activity. This can be found under the division 4 stipulations. The bill also refers to prescribed organisations as certain organisations throughout. The inclusion of this means that once the bill takes effect, any and all offences included in it may only apply to the members of said prescribed organisations. This is to ensure that, whilst the bill is strong against crime, it leaves no leeway. It is also targeted. In finishing my contribution, I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Police in the other place. It is important that our police be properly equipped to prevent and respond to criminal activity. I commend the bill to the chamber.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:50): I rise to make a contribution to the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. As the name suggests, the bill is amending the 2012 act to allow for a more robust response to the activities of criminal organisations, notably outlaw motorcycle gangs, amongst others. Firstly, the bill amends the unlawful association scheme. It lowers the criminal threshold for issuing an unlawful association notice, allowing police to issue notices to a broader range of people for lesser offences, with more severe penalties for breaching them. It also replaces the existing declarations and control orders with new serious crime prevention orders. The bill bans adults from knowingly displaying the insignia of certain organisations in public. Finally, the bill seeks to prohibit members of prescribed organisations from entering Victorian government worksites.

I will say from the outset that Legalise Cannabis cannot support this bill in its current form. Given the bill’s very easy passage through the Assembly, however, I doubt that our votes will decide much in this chamber on this matter. Nevertheless, it would be good to see some more guidance and clarity around parts of the bill for the benefit of the legal community, so we will have some questions during the committee stage.

This bill, once passed, will again hand yet more power to Victoria Police to restrict a person’s civil liberties and basic rights. The existing legislation already gives police substantial powers to restrict individual freedoms of association and political expression and, as Mr Mulholland noted, has not been used. Victoria Police are not known for wielding power with restraint or consideration. Where is the case for handing even more extreme powers to them? There is already insufficient oversight of police conduct. How is IBAC, the agency responsible for overseeing police misconduct, supposed to take on additional oversight when it already struggles to fulfil its current brief? As it is, less than 3 per cent of police complaints are investigated by IBAC; the rest are reviewed internally. And how is IBAC supposed to objectively oversee a scheme which relies on Victoria Police’s self-reporting on how that scheme is operating?

The Victorian Inspectorate noted the dangers of an institution that relies on the self-reporting of its members – the risk of corruption, the unwillingness of Victoria Police officers to act against their own, the conflicts of interest it engenders. It is highly problematic. Stakeholders we have met with have also expressed alarm at the creeping authoritarianism that appears to have been enthusiastically embraced by both sides of politics over the last two decades. Police can exert extraordinary control over individuals’ lives in circumstances where they have not committed a crime or they have done their time and are entitled to move freely and associate with whoever, and we see these laws being frequently abused. It is what happens when you hand unchecked power to the police.

Indeed this bill reminded me of formative events in my distant past, when another instance of police being handed extraordinary powers spurred my first foray into political activism. In 1977 Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen announced a total ban on street protests, handing power to the police commissioner to approve or reject any application, no questions asked. The gathering of two or more persons without a permit constituted an illegal assembly. As an idealistic uni student, I was incensed by this violation of my democratic right to protest and even more appalled at the state handing extreme powers to police to uphold this violation, so I went along to the march with a bunch of mates, ostensibly to fight for our right to assemble. All sorts of people showed up that day; 400 were arrested, myself included. And 50 years later, here we are. While this bill is not the sledgehammer or nutcracker that Bjelke-Petersen tried to use back then, it is nonetheless a blatant expansion of police powers and the control order regime. As the saying goes, ‘History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.’

Turning to the changes to the unlawful association scheme, these reforms remove the need for an individual who is subject to one of these notices to have been previously convicted of an indictable offence, allowing the police to issue notices to more people for lesser offences. The prerequisite that the association is likely to lead to the commission of a crime is changed so that police need only be reasonably satisfied – so based on a vibe, for example, that a notice will prevent or inhibit the establishment, maintenance or expansion of a criminal group or a criminal network, thereby preventing criminal conduct. Similarly serious crime prevention orders can be used to impede an individual’s ability to associate with who they like, to travel, to use certain telecommunications devices and to prevent them from engaging in certain business activities without that individual ever being charged with a crime. I am reminded of the movie Minority Report, pre-emptively criminalising conduct that has not yet occurred and may never occur. It is quite chilling, in my opinion, and without more robust police oversight the scheme is ripe for abuse.

Only last week we learned that Victoria Police still employ racial profiling despite the fact of this being banned in 2015. The Centre Against Racial Profiling has used FOI data to track how the ban on racial profiling was working. They found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are still 11 times more likely to be searched by Victoria Police than non-Indigenous people, and people perceived as African were eight times more likely to be searched, and of course we know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are already subject to overpolicing and over-representation in the justice system. Victoria Police have a problem with systemic racism, and in the absence of a statewide monitoring scheme and some robust oversight they do not appear to have an appetite for monitoring or enforcing their own zero-tolerance-to-racism policies. As I have noted, there are significant concerns around IBAC’s role in overseeing this scheme. The Australian Lawyers Alliance warned that:

The proposed plan to give IBAC further monitoring tasks simply increases the strain on an organisation that already cannot cope with its current police misconduct remit.

We will be asking some questions around the oversight of these schemes in the committee-of-the-whole stage. We will also be asking some questions about the ban on the public display of insignia of certain organisations. Legal stakeholders we have spoken to are concerned that the legislation is vague enough to capture people who are not the intended targets of the legislation, including members of political organisations or protesters, and again that there should be more oversight. They would like to see some tightening of the definitions in the bill.

Turning to the prohibition of members of prescribed organisations from entering Victorian government worksites, we are opposed to this provision, particularly as there is very little detail about how these organisations will be prescribed. Building sites are possibly one of the few remaining places where someone with a previous criminal record can find stable work and turn their lives around. Restricting these people’s capacity to earn a living and depriving them of the other protective factors that a job provides may in fact force them to seek out the very criminal connections they are trying to leave behind just to earn some money. Stakeholders would like to see this legislation tightened, particularly around definitions. The intent to target serious criminal gangs could be more explicit to give the legal community more direction around how the law should be applied in court.

As I noted at the start of my contribution, we cannot support this bill in its current form. Serious organised crime is obviously an issue in Victoria, but I am not convinced the legislation will have any effect on thwarting crime. A better way to protect our communities and to tackle serious organised crime in Victoria would be to cut off their source of funding. As I noted in this chamber only last month, illicit cannabis is a boon for organised crime, aptly described by a senior New South Wales police officer as ‘the jet fuel of organised crime’. According to our own Parliamentary Budget Office, illicit cannabis pulls in around $1.25 billion a year in Victoria alone. By conservative estimates, Victorians consume about 8 tonnes of illicit cannabis each year. Indeed only a couple of weeks ago a Victorian with a link to organised crime was charged with trafficking cannabis between Victoria and New South Wales. Police seized 58 kilos of cannabis worth about $600,000, which is but a drop in the ocean. With the money we could save on policing, not to mention detention and court resources, we could prevent a lot of serious criminal activity and do a lot of good in this state as opposed to passing ever more reactionary legislation that hands more power to the police.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:00): Thank you to previous speakers on your contributions on the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024. I will just take a brief opportunity to sum up given that there has been good coverage of the bill’s proposed amendments and intentions.

Effectively, this bill is about ensuring that Victoria Police have the tools they need to prevent, disrupt and tackle serious and organised crime in Victoria by delivering a tranche of reforms that aim to strengthen the response against organised crime. The bill will strengthen the existing unlawful association powers in part 5A of the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 and provide for oversight of the scheme by IBAC. It will also provide a new scheme for the making of serious crime prevention orders in Victoria, enabling the court to impose conditions restricting the activities of persons subject to the order, replacing the existing declaration and control order scheme. Notably it will also prohibit the public display of designated insignia, commonly known as ‘gang colours’, in Victoria, modelled on our nation-leading ban of the Nazi symbol and also bringing us into line with many other jurisdictions in the country. The bill will also create a new offence prohibiting members of declared organised crime groups from entering prescribed Victorian government workplaces. It also complements earlier work we have done, including passing the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Act 2024, which strengthened Victoria’s unexplained wealth scheme, and the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2022, which expanded powers around cybercrime, cryptocurrency seizures and electronic and specialist search powers.

There is no doubt that this is a significant piece of work. It has been informed by comprehensive public review into the existing criminal organisation laws, which were seen as not fit for purpose, not an effective response, and needed to be updated. In that respect it has been a journey. It has been incredibly complex, and there have been a lot of conversations and negotiations. As you can tell from the flavour of the debate, I think there are people that think this has not gone far enough and there are those that think it has gone too far. Often that is an indicator that the government is balancing a lot of different views and therefore has landed in the middle, which is sometimes the best place when you are drafting complex laws that impact the lives of Victorians.

I understand that the opposition will be moving their review amendment. I note we are not proposing to oppose that amendment, but I would like to take the opportunity to briefly explain the rationale for the initial review period. The review period was set to be engaged at the end of three years from the reform’s commencement and scheduled to go for 12 months. They were chosen to maximise the data collected to more comprehensively review the effectiveness of the reforms. Reducing these timeframes is likely to result in a shorter, less comprehensive report back to Parliament. But as I often do, I have read the tea-leaves in this respect, and I am not shying away from a review. I just think it would have been more effective to keep those resources to be deployed at a time when they would have been more effective. But we do have a habit of bringing forward reviews to legislation, particularly in my space often, and it seems to be the will of this chamber therefore so be it.

In conclusion, the reforms in this bill are an important tool to tackle and disrupt serious and organised crime in our state. They have been informed by, as I said, public review – broad and significant consultation with a variety of stakeholders, including Victoria Police. Victoria Police have not got everything that they asked for, contrary to some of the contributions today. Obviously we have gone into measures that people believe are impinging on people’s rights, and I acknowledge that this is what this bill does in effect, because it is all about ensuring that we get the balance right to protect Victorians, discourage the growth of organised crime and disrupt those organisations from growing by impacting their recruitment tools and indeed jumping on illegal activities that are causing significant harm to the state.

Thank you to Mr Bourman and Legalise Cannabis in particular for their engagement with my office on this bill.

In conclusion, we as a government are wanting to do everything we can to crack down on criminals who ultimately are a threat to ordinary Victorians because of the seriousness of the harms that can be caused by their illegal activities. We are hoping that this enables police to do what they do best, and that is to keep Victorians safe. I know there will be a series of questions in committee, which I am more than happy to address.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (32): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Noes (7): Katherine Copsey, Moira Deeming, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:14)

I just have a couple of questions primarily related to the insignia ban. We have seen some consequences of this type of ban in other jurisdictions where, after the ban, the only motorcycle insignias or group of insignias that you see are actually legitimate organisations, not criminal ones. My question to the Attorney-General is: what sort of training will be provided to police and general communications to ensure that legitimate, law-abiding motorcyclists are not hindered or harassed as a result of these laws coming into effect?

Thank you, Mr Limbrick, for your question. As you have indicated, the bill creates a criminal offence banning the public display of insignia, such as patches, logos and other texts, colloquially known as ‘gang colours’, of certain organisations which will be set out in regulation informed by the intelligence from Victoria Police. Members of criminal groups often wear and display colours, such as patches and other insignia, to represent their affiliation with a group. Victoria Police has indicated that such public displays are often used to intimidate, stand over and influence others in the community by creating fear and an implied threat of violence and also to attract and recruit new members through visible presence and status. As indicated, the purpose of the new offences is to prevent and disrupt serious criminal activity in Victoria which is created or facilitated by the public display of insignia. As you have indicated, legitimate members of the public who ride motorcycles and might wear a leather jacket are not intended to be caught by this legislation.

In terms of other jurisdictions, other states have taken approaches equivalently. We will obviously draw on some of the experiences from other states, but our proposed offence actually goes further than New South Wales and South Australia, because it will ban the wearing or carrying of clothing and other items, whereas the other states do it in licensed premises only. There will be the opportunity for police to be trained and educated in relation to the enforcement of these offences. They will only apply to organisations that have been prescribed in regulation under this act. To become prescribed, organisations will have to be set with clear criteria and processes for when the organisation may be prescribed to ensure that it is confined to directly relate to its intended purpose. I cannot state more clearly that this is a bill that has been informed by a lot of consultation, and my conversations with Victoria Police were very much around ‘I understand what you want to deal with. You want to deal with organised crime.’ This is not another crime-fighting tool for offences and other groups, even if they are engaged in criminal activity outside of this organised crime, this particular targeted thing. In terms of other gangs that are not organised crime or other crimes that are committed that are similar to what maybe outlaw motorcycle gangs might engage in, even that is not captured by these laws. This is about targeted disruption, dismantling and prevention of these types of gangs because we know the harm that they can cause. There will be training, as I said, in relation to the prescription of which organisations are in. That will be informed by police, and there will also be the disallowance ability of Parliament.

I thank the Attorney-General for her explanation on that. Another related question, again relating to the insignias – I suppose you could call it one of the benefits of these people wearing colours is that you can easily identify them. What sort of effect does the Attorney think that these laws will have on gathering intelligence on these types of organisations? After they are prescribed, they will no longer be visible therefore I would expect that gathering intelligence will be much more difficult. What is the expected outcome of that? If you have been consulting with other states that have similar things, then how does the Attorney expect that that will work?

It is not a matter for me to have a view in relation to the specifics of your questions because that is an operational matter for Victoria Police. Given that Victoria Police sought these laws and they have been engaged in a process for many years in relation to this, they have thought through the implications of the impact on their intelligence gathering.

Minister, just going back to the listing of clubs in the regs – and not knowing how the police intend on doing it – say someone is, let us call it, borderline, or it is someone from the Ulysses motorcycle club, who are growing old disgracefully and are basically just a bunch of older blokes without the one-percenter-type criminal element, if they got caught up in this, is there a method for disputing being listed in the regulations? And how would they go about it if they feel that they were unfairly done by?

Mr Bourman, apologies for the delay. I just want to take you through the process before coming before coming to your specific question. The bill provides clear criteria and processes for when an organisation may be prescribed to ensure the scheme has a confined impact directly related to its purpose. Specifically, an organisation may only be prescribed upon recommendation via the Attorney-General, where the Attorney-General has first consulted with the Chief Commissioner of Police and is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the application of the prohibition on publicly displaying an insignia to the organisation is likely to substantially assist in disrupting or preventing serious criminal activity and is reasonably necessary to prevent or disrupt serious criminal activity. In considering that threshold, the Attorney-General may have regard to whether any person has been involved in serious criminal activity whilst a member or prospective member of the organisation. The criteria set out an appropriately rigorous threshold to overcome and will ensure that organisations with no involvement in criminal activity will not be captured by this scheme. Your example of Ulysses, to my understanding, would not meet the threshold in relation to the purposes of disrupting organised crime. There would also be the ability to make submissions before regulations are made, and procedural fairness requirements would apply in the process.

Just for the record, for the benefit of anyone from the Ulysses motorcycle gang – club, I should say – that may be watching: just because they look like bikies, I am not saying they are. But the question still is: if someone feels unfairly done by, is there a process that they can attend to to try and get themselves delisted?

Mr Bourman, in addition to the answer that I gave to Mr Limbrick earlier, there are opportunities along the way, just by the application of the principle of procedural fairness, and the ability for the Attorney-General to seek submissions, views, evidence and the like. There is the ability for organisations to raise a concern, and there is also the ability of Parliament to disallow a regulation in this legislation. It is not exactly a specific appeal to a court per se, but the Parliament could disallow a regulation if it was convinced on the merits it was inappropriate.

Moving on to a couple of other things – if you are okay, I am just going to deal with a couple of questions I have in clause 1. There are a couple of definitions in the bill regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and a couple of other things about age-related exemptions. What is the government putting in place to make sure that these exemptions will not be abused and so that someone is not going to, for the want of a better term, create a First Nations motorcycle club and run around doing the same thing? Again, I am not suggesting they are going to, but where there is an exemption, humanity is very good at finding its way out of it. Also, what about young people being recruited to do the dirty work, which we are seeing out in the community right now? As far as this bill goes, how does the government see that there is a safeguard against these things happening?

As you have indicated, there are exceptions in the legislation to the unlawful association offence. We want to ensure that they are not abused, so therefore the exceptions do not apply where there is an ulterior purpose for associating. I have had examples put to me that we are going to see bikie gay marriages so that people that have got orders against them can hang out under the exemption of a genuine family connection. I do not think we are going to see that happen. I have had other examples put to me in relation to people going to overtake a CFA brigade, going to start up a bikie men’s shed or going to make up a sorry business, for those that identify as Aboriginal, and also happen to be a member of a bikie gang. These are theoretically possible examples, but there is the ability to ensure that if you have an ulterior purpose for associating, the exceptions do not apply.

I really do not see these exceptions playing out. I think in instances where an order might apply to two people and they both happen to be emergency service volunteers – again, it is really remote – if they are both responding in an emergency, I do not think they will have much time to talk about their organised crime activities if they are actually genuinely part of an organisation that is responding to an emergency. I am more than happy to have a look if examples pop up of these hypotheticals. I think it is extremely unlikely, and I think the ulterior purpose clause covers the field.

I am with you. I do not think it is going to come up, but it was put to me a couple of times, and the question had to be asked.

Moving on to another thing, at this stage we are generally talking about outlaw motorcycle gangs as such and organised crime in general. There are people that have wide and deep influence within the building industry that may or may not make the fit and proper person test. Will this prevent people in the building industry – whatever the intent of the government’s bill is – from associating with people outside? I do not like using names in this place, but Mick Gatto, for instance, runs a company. He at this stage would not be touched by this legislation, as I understand it, but he would probably meet the threshold for organised crime, and he has a lot of influence over the industry. Is this envisaged to touch upon those sorts of relationships?

Mr Bourman, there are a range of laws and police powers to respond to criminal activity. This is not designed to be the answer to all criminal activity that may be committed by somebody that is affiliated with organised crime; it is just one tool. The orders are designed to keep individuals apart where they are identified to be apart. The example you have put is, with respect, a little clunky in how you would apply the law, because it is not really a specific example that you have given me. However, if there was one individual, regardless of their status as an employer or a community member, if they were identified as somebody that fits this prescription then they could be captured for an order. But I am going to answer in a way that I think you were trying to allude to in relation to the worksite exclusion offence as opposed to the orders, because either could apply depending on the circumstances. But let us go down the workplace exclusion path. The worksite exclusion offence will operate to prohibit any member of a prescribed group from attending specific worksites. The offence will not apply to directions that might be given by a member of an organised crime group to contractors or other workers who are not members of a prescribed group. If a member of an organised crime group is directing a person to conduct criminal activity on a Victorian government worksite, then both persons can be charged with any offence being committed. So there is a place for this scheme, but it does not displace normal police operations.

One last question: New South Wales has the New South Wales Crime Commission. Queensland has the Crime and Corruption Commission. Does Victoria envisage setting up a similar body? I see this could be quite a strain on Victoria Police’s resources, and following the lead of other states, would Victoria set up a similar body to oversee these sorts of things?

In relation to the operational matters for Victoria Police taskforces and how they go about their affairs, that is a matter for Victoria Police. In relation to the ability for people to make complaints about police interaction with these laws, then there is IBAC for people to be able to seek guidance from in that respect.

Attorney-General, I actually was not talking about police complaints or misbehaviour; the crime commissions are for specifically more organised crime. I do not know if it is exactly a separate body to the police, but just for the avoidance of any doubt, I was not saying that there is a separate body for IBAC. It is a separate enforcement body or an enforcement body alongside the police.

Mr Bourman, Victoria Police do the majority of the intelligence work. They obviously consult with the AFP, and then we also have a role for the Office of the Chief Examiner in relation to the powers that that office holds.

Attorney, you have alluded to this several times, but just for total clarity in the committee stage, what is the government’s intention around what types of people will be subject to the unlawful association notices and serious crime prevention orders?

Ms Copsey, this is a very targeted bill. This is about ensuring that it is focused on people that are involved in serious criminal activity. It is designed for police who have intelligence in relation to organised crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs and their engagement in criminal activity to be able to have expanded powers to respond appropriately. There is concern about whether this is a broadbrush approach to capture other illegal activity. It is not. It is designed purely for the purposes that we have outlined in the bill. The unlawful association notice has to be issued by a senior police officer to persons so that they do not associate with each other. One of those persons must be an eligible offender who has previously been convicted of an applicable offence. This is of course for the association notices. If a notice has been issued, the recipient commits an offence if they associate with a person named in the notice. Both the recipient of the notice and the person named in the notice will be subject to the same obligations not to associate.

It is important to note that a person who is 18 years or older can be issued with an association notice, not people under the age of 18. You have to have the reasonable belief that they have previously associated with an eligible offender and be reasonably satisfied that preventing the person from associating with one or more eligible offenders is likely to prevent or inhibit the establishment, maintenance or expansion of a criminal group or a crime network and thereby prevent or inhibit criminal activity. The issuing of the notice must be appropriate in all the circumstances, having regard to factors such as the nature and gravity of the applicable offence and the time that has passed since the offence. As you have asked more about people, it is not about the identity of a particular person, it is about their connections, their criminal activities and their involvement with prescribed gangs.

The New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission’s review of consorting laws, which are similar to those proposed in this bill, found that many of the warnings were issued for less serious offences than intended by general duties officers rather than specialist officers targeting serious crime. Is it the government’s intention that the new police powers in this bill be used against high-ranking or senior gang members responsible for organised crime rather than community members or young people suspected of low-level offending?

Yes.

Attorney, why has the unlawful association scheme not been used since it commenced in 2016 when the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012 was amended?

Basically as soon as I came into the role of Attorney-General and was meeting with the police commissioner and going through a list of their priorities – obviously you would appreciate that a lot of the legislation relating to police powers and conduct sits with the Attorney to avoid a conflict with the minister who is responsible, being the Minister for Police – what became apparent was that we have existing laws that do not work and that are not being used. Therefore it was my task to ensure that I negotiated and listened to people about what was needed and why the existing laws did not work and what we could do to rectify that.

There was a report into the Victorian criminal organisation laws. It was a review that evaluated the effectiveness of the existing unlawful association and declaration and control order schemes. It noted Victoria Police’s view that the complexity of the declaration and control order scheme, the standard of proof required and the challenges associated with the protection of criminal intelligence hampered the effectiveness of the scheme, and as I have indicated, it has not been overly successful or has not been successful. It has not been utilised and therefore has not met its intended purpose. The report also noted that the high thresholds for the issuing of unlawful association notices, specifically the need to demonstrate that an offence is likely to be prevented and the requirement for multiple instances of association, have been barriers to the use of the unlawful association scheme, and therefore it was the view of the police that if these laws were indeed going to be effective and disrupt organised crime, we had to look at changes particularly in relation to some of the barriers that they identified as to why they were not being able to be applied.

Thank you, Attorney, for the answer to Ms Purcell’s question. I wanted to dig into that as well. Given there have been no unlawful association notices issued under the previous schemes since 2016 there is a bit of a lack of data around the effectiveness of those notices. The report you have spoken of, I am interested to understand, from your previous answer it sounds like that relied heavily on submissions from police as to their views on what tools were required. What has informed the government’s decision to revitalise this scheme when there does not seem to have been a necessity for its use that has arisen in the past eight years? Have there been things additional to police?

It is an independent, publicly available review that was quite comprehensive and, as you would appreciate, has taken some time to work through in relation to landing legislation that is responsive to the needs and the intention of when it was first introduced. It has not been working, so since that time we have been working with particularly Victoria Police because they are the ones with the intelligence in relation to the crimes that are being committed and by whom and the impact they are having on the community. They are saying that if they had these tools, then they could get in earlier and stop the harm in the community. They were pretty compelling conversations that I had with Victoria Police in relation to the good that these laws can do if you get them right.

I thank the Attorney for the answer to Ms Copsey’s question. Attorney, could you explain how this bill will avoid encroaching on judicial powers when the bill effectively hands Victoria Police the power to pre-emptively judge whether the commission of a crime will take place?

In relation to the different orders that are available, there are obviously the two different schemes. Which scheme would you like me to go through?

I would like you to cover both please, Attorney.

All right. Mr Ettershank, I am just thrown a little bit by your question because the way you have framed it is indicating a false premise – that there is not a role for the courts when determining the criteria for the application of a serious crime prevention order. Can you just re-ask your question, because it is the court that would determine that order and you have said it will displace judicial independence, so I am a little confused about how you have constructed that question.

I guess my question strikes to the issue of whether or not judicial interpretation of intent is effectively pre-empted or prejudiced by Victoria Police pre-emptively judging whether the commission of a crime will take place and whether you could comment on that.

Let us have a conversation and see if we can tease out exactly what you are trying to understand. A person who is subject to a notice can seek an internal review by Victoria Police of the decision to issue or amend a notice within 28 days of the decision being made. The review must be undertaken by an officer above the rank of inspector who was not involved in the decision being challenged. That can be affirmed or it can be set aside. The bill also allows a person to seek an extension for a review. A person can also seek a revocation notice if there has been a substantial change in the circumstances – for compassionate grounds or something like that. Every unlawful association notice must include information about the review rights available for a person subject to a notice, and a person issued with a notice is entitled to seek a review of the decision to issue or amend a notice internally within Victoria Police. They may seek judicial review of the decision to issue the notice, because the decision to issue a notice is an administrative decision affecting a person’s rights. So that is one pathway. Then in relation to the court orders, they still need to be satisfied that either the person is an eligible offender or they have been involved in serious criminal activity, so the court has a role in that pathway. There is the ability to engage the court in both pathways and have those conversations, so I do not see, again, how you believe that there is no court oversight or that it is impinging on judicial independence here.

I might be getting this wrong, but isn’t the court effectively being presented with almost a fait accompli in that the police are forming a view as to intent and presenting it to the court, and is that in and of itself not prejudicial or limiting of the judicial role of the court to make a judgement about that intent?

Mr Ettershank, the court has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is either an eligible offender or has been involved in serious criminal activity whilst aged 18 years or older. They must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that compliance with conditions imposed under an order would protect the public by preventing or inhibiting the individual’s involvement in serious criminal activity and that imposing conditions is otherwise appropriate in all the circumstances. There is a fair bit of consideration that the court has to go through, as set out in the bill, so I reject your characterisation of it as a fait accompli.

There is also broad discretion in relation to serious crime prevention orders for the court to impose any conditions that it considers appropriate, so it is able to tailor conditions to the individual’s specific risk profile and circumstances. The bill contains a non-exhaustive list of conditions by way of example. For instance, you can prohibit the individual from associating with specified individuals; from leaving Victoria or Australia; from possessing or using certain things, such as firearms, telecommunication devices, cash or an alias; or from engaging in specific business activities or specified activities in respect of property. The court can also impose conditions that require an individual to provide information and notification to Victoria Police regarding specified things.

Discretion in determining appropriate conditions is something that we consider an essential safeguard. They must balance the protection of the community in preventing persons from being involved in serious criminal activity with the restrictions on the liberty of an individual. I expect that in the instances where courts are considering these matters there will be a lot of submissions in relation to what is an appropriate course of action and what is not. I do not think it is a fait accompli at all.

Attorney, I am just seeking some clarification around the definition of ‘family’ in the bill – if the government can clarify whether or not it intends to impose what we would see as colonial notions of family on First Nations people or if there will be an understanding that who is considered family by First Nations people can be different and therefore cannot be the subject of association notices.

Ms Purcell, the short answer is yes to that. Let me find the provision. Ms Purcell, the bill narrows the exception for association with family members by amending the definition of ‘family member’ so that it applies to a more confined group of people, as you have identified. The new definition includes close family relationships, such as parents and siblings, but will no longer capture any persons who can reasonably be regarded as like family, having regard to specific considerations. The definition retains the reference to intimate personal relationships to ensure that relationships such as engaged couples are included. It does not, however, extend to mere close friendships. In relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural concepts of family, there is a specific carve-out to accommodate that.

Attorney, taking the example of the New South Wales consorting laws, the Aboriginal Legal Service New South Wales, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the New South Wales Bar Association have criticised how those New South Wales consorting laws have been misused to disproportionately target Aboriginal people and young people. As I referred to in my debate on this bill, the New South Wales review found that 42 per cent of the 4257 people who were subject to the consorting laws were Aboriginal, and in western New South Wales over 75 per cent of people warned or named in warnings were Aboriginal. What provisions in this bill will ensure that unlawful association notices and serious crime prevention orders are not disproportionately used against Aboriginal people and young people beyond the requirement that Victoria Police self-report these numbers to IBAC?

This is something that was front of mind in my consideration of how to craft this legislation, and it was something that has been discussed in detail. In fact one of the reasons this took so long to land is that I was extremely determined to not have a disproportionate outcome for disadvantaged and vulnerable people. You have cited New South Wales. I can confirm that the Victorian scheme contains safeguards that are not in the New South Wales legislation, including limiting the application of the scheme so that it does not apply to children, a higher threshold for an applicable offence, meaning any offence punishable by at least 10 years imprisonment, and certain other organised crime offences, such as firearms offences, which may be linked to organised crime. There are processes for a person subject to a notice to apply for internal review by Victoria Police of the decision to amend the notice or to have the notice revoked. There is a requirement for Victoria Police to report annually to government on the use of the laws, including the age of persons given notices and the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons issued a notice, and of course there is oversight by IBAC.

In relation to further consideration of how this bill lines up with New South Wales laws, as I said, in New South Wales a child aged 14 to 17 may be issued a notice. As you have indicated, the New South Wales Ombudsman and the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and others have recommended the removal of children and young people in the applications of their law, and certainly something I was pretty firm on from the outset in this legislation was that I did not want it applying to children. Even in the context of youth crime concerns, this is not an appropriate vehicle for dealing with youth crime. This is about organised crime gangs, and I wanted to ensure that it was very much targeted in relation to that and not an ability to cast a wider net to address other concerning criminal conduct that is outside of this. There are other ways to deal with other forms of offending, and as I have indicated, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reporting mechanism will be something that I will be looking at very closely.

After seeing the results and the impacts of the New South Wales consorting laws on Aboriginal people, can you tell the chamber if there will be more funding for oversight to avoid that disproportionate targeting of Aboriginal people in Victoria?

I am not in a position to make funding announcements through the process of this bill, but where I would probably like to go with the answer to your question is my other piece of work in police oversight and IBAC’s role in relation to the police stream and in particular Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander complainants. That is a big focus of that reform, and I am sure you and I will have the opportunity to have more conversations about that. In a sense, those changes could be of benefit here. I will leave it there.

Attorney, how do the expanded police powers in the bill protect against the risks that police intervention and police contact – just the mere interaction – have to young people and Aboriginal people’s lives?

Ms Copsey, I think I have answered that question. I have a commitment to Aboriginal community and those that engage regularly with me at the Aboriginal Justice Caucus to consider ways of reducing the over-representation of Aboriginal people. That is why there are special provisions in this bill and many of the bills that I bring to the Parliament that touch on the response to criminal lawmaking policy. It is always a factor; it is something that we consider; it is something that we consult with Aboriginal leaders on in relation to crafting of legislation.

As I said, we have safeguards in this bill, and the target is organised crime; the target is not vulnerable, disadvantaged groups in Victoria. In relation to your question about children: this bill does not apply to children, so that is the protection there.

I am going to keep pushing on this issue a little bit I think, Attorney, so bear with us. The racial profiling data monitoring project found that in 2023 Aboriginal people were 11 times more likely to be searched by Victoria Police than white people. What safeguards does the bill provide to actually prevent the racial profiling of First Nations people?

Mr Ettershank, I have answered that question. This is not a bill that I anticipate will have a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal persons; there are safeguards and reporting requirements for me to keep an eye on in relation to that. As I have indicated in my previous answers, this is a very targeted piece of legislation. It is about dismantling organised crime. It has been confined specifically to respond to that type of activity and not be a tool to capture broader concerns about alleged criminal behaviour. Indeed, because the thresholds are so targeted, it has to be for this specific purpose; there is not the ability for it to be used as a tool by police to have conversations with people because they want to harass particular people. I understand the issues you are both raising in this, and that is where I have started – ensuring that this legislation could not be used to do that. I have been very careful in ensuring we are balancing what police need, the powers they need, to ensure that there is enough rigour in there to ensure that I can defend against concerns about it being used as an opportunity to facilitate police interaction with people that are not designed to be captured by the purposes of this bill.

I get what you are saying, but I just want to be really clear. Manifestly there is an enormous amount of data from both the racial profiling data monitoring project and from a range of other sources that demonstrate overwhelmingly that these sorts of consorting laws have a profoundly discriminatory provision. I think I get what you are saying, but can I just confirm that there are effectively no practical preventative measures on the ground that will be put in place to prevent racial profiling of First Nations people by Victorian police officers arising from this legislation? Am I understanding that correctly, Attorney?

This legislation is not about low-level, poverty-driven offending behaviour that is often cited in the over-representation of disadvantaged groups. A notice cannot be issued to a person under 18. The issue of a notice creates significant consequences in response to behaviour that ordinarily is not criminal. Excluding children from the scheme will limit its impact on young, disadvantaged persons and avoid the risk of exposing them to the criminal justice system needlessly, which as we all recognise could have a detrimental effect on them. It is for a particular purpose. There are reporting mechanisms in place. There is the ability to complain to IBAC if anybody has concerns about this. We are well aware of failures in other states, which have informed the ability for us to bring in broader safeguards, review mechanisms and reporting tools, as well as review and repeals. And IBAC will be reporting annually on the use of these laws. So I am very optimistic that these laws will be used for their intended purpose and nothing else.

I take on board what you say there in terms of minors and suchlike. But surely things like the change to the indictability test is a significant indicator that in fact much lower level crime can indeed be captured by these consorting laws.

I knew there was a section. If you refer to the bill, new section 124R goes through the functions of IBAC in relation to their functions to monitor the exercise of powers and the performance of the duties and functions under these unlawful association provisions, monitor content and compliance with procedures regarding unlawful association and monitor the impact of the scheme. But important to the point that you have been raising, subsections 124R(c)(i) and (ii) require IBAC to look at and monitor the impact of the scheme for which the part provides, including the impact of the unlawful association provisions and police procedures regarding unlawful association on persons referred to in new section 124ZD(3)(c)(iv) – that is my roman numeral interpretation – which includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. So I am sorry that is a clunky way of a few provisions working together, but there is a specific function of IBAC to monitor the impact of this legislation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Attorney, just going back to my question earlier about the carve-out for the definition of ‘family’, could you give clarification on where that is or give a further explanation of it? I am slightly confused because I know there is a provision talking about the exempt participation in cultural practices, but that is not changing the interpretation of ‘family’ for First Nations people.

Ms Purcell, if you go to clause 8, which inserts new section 5A, we talk about the meaning of ‘family member’. It goes over many, many pages, then when we get to subsection (1)(m) it talks about:

… the relevant person under Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander concepts of family … kinship relationships and family structures).

Attorney, just going on from that, how does the bill recognise the importance of maintaining and supporting the development of a person’s connection to culture, kinship, family, elders, country and community?

That is why it has been expressly excluded.

Attorney, is it the intention of the bill to capture less serious offending by dispensing with the tried-on-indictment requirement? I thought I might assist the Attorney by specifying: we are asking questions at clause 1, but I am particularly talking about clause 16 in relation to that requirement.

The answer to your question is: a broader range of offences but not to capture lower level offending.

On that question, can you give an example of the broader range of offences that you envisage that you do not classify as being more serious?

What do you mean?

Your response to my query about whether it was the government’s intention to capture less serious offending by dispensing with the tried-on-indictment requirement, if I heard you correctly, was that it will capture a broader range of offences but not less serious offences. I am wondering if you could give an example of that broader range that you do not consider meets the less serious definition.

Currently an applicable offence includes any offence punishable by at least five years imprisonment and certain other specific criminal offences, such as firearms offences, that are often associated with organised crime. The bill changes the definition to include offences punishable by at least 10 years imprisonment and equivalent offences against the laws of another state or territory or the Commonwealth. It retains and updates the list of other organised crime offences.

Perhaps returning, Attorney, to some of the themes that we were discussing before – and I guess I am in the context of clause 29 a bit here – IBAC has been tasked with monitoring the unlawful associations scheme specifically to monitor the content and compliance with police procedures regarding the unlawful association, including the impact of the provisions and the police procedures regarding the scheme. How can IBAC be assured of receiving accurate information when the scheme relies on police self-reporting on the operations of that scheme?

Mr Ettershank, it is not relying on self-reporting. There are reporting obligations built into the legislation, and IBAC also has all the powers it needs to go and retrieve any information it thinks it is not getting.

I guess the obvious question that comes to mind in terms of that response is that the findings of the Victorian Inspectorate discussed at length the limitations on self-reporting by police, the unwillingness of Victoria Police to act against their own and the conflicts of interest that that engendered. How does that stack up in the context of those comments from the Victorian Inspectorate?

Mr Ettershank, I think you are ignoring my answer that it does not rely alone on self-reporting. IBAC have powers of entry. They have powers of inspection in relation to orders that are issued. They do not exist if police do not record them. Therefore it is a little bit hard for them to be issuing orders that are not within the remit of IBAC. They have to be issued, so there has got to be a record of them. I do not see your concerns about IBAC not knowing about the way these laws are applying, when by virtue of what is required for a notice to be issued is the existence of a notice.

I will move forward. Given the recent reporting by the Centre Against Racial Profiling that close to 17 per cent of police search records fail to record ethnic appearance, despite this field being made mandatory in 2019, how does the government intend to address police noncompliance in relation to the recording of the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are subject to unlawful association notices?

Mr Ettershank, I think you are coming from a slightly false pretence here, because all of that information has to be recorded and reported.

Isn’t the issue, though, that it is not being recorded or reported?

That would amount to misconduct and be a matter for IBAC. In new section 124DA there is a requirement to ask whether a person is Aboriginal.

I think we will agree on that point. Could I ask, Attorney, will Victoria Police be required to turn on their body cameras when issuing an unlawful association notice to a member of the public?

Mr Ettershank, we went through a similar line of questioning in the Youth Justice Bill 2024. It is not the intention of the government to make mandatory requirements for Victoria Police to turn on their cameras. Having said that, Victoria Police are well minded to have practices and policies in place that mean that the cameras are turned on for instances such as this, but there are examples where perhaps sometimes it would not be appropriate, though that would be rare.

Attorney, why is there no limit on the number of renewals of serious crime prevention orders for a single person? Perhaps you can dispel a fear I have that there could be a situation where the five-year durations are continuously renewed for a person for feasibly their whole life or for many decades or many years despite that person never having been charged with an offence.

Ms Copsey, the Chief Commissioner of Police may apply to the court to renew an order. The court may renew it if it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe compliance with the conditions imposed under the order would protect the public by preventing or inhibiting the individual from being involved in serious criminal activity and the imposition of conditions is otherwise appropriate in all of the circumstances. There are in-built protections for the ability to re-look at renewals as a new application, effectively.

Attorney, why has the belief standard for police changed from the legally accepted and known terminology of ‘reasonably believes’ to the lesser, arbitrary ‘believes on reasonable grounds’?

It is a direct response to the review and Victoria Police’s experience of the laws being ineffective as they were.

Could you please clarify what grounds are to be considered as reasonable or unreasonable by an officer in this belief?

Reasonable in the ordinary legal meaning.

Could you also please provide an example of the conduct that you are trying to capture in the change between the previous requirement for an officer to issue a notice to believe a crime is likely to be prevented with the bill’s proposed wording of ‘satisfied on reasonable grounds that preventing those individuals from associating with each other is likely to prevent or inhibit the establishment, maintenance or expansion of a criminal group or a criminal network or criminal activity’?

As you have indicated, the bill removes the requirement that the police officer issuing a notice reasonably believes that preventing the association is likely to prevent the commission of an offence. However, the scheme only allows people to be banned from associating where one of them is an eligible offender. In that case the officer must be reasonably satisfied that issuing the notice is likely to prevent or inhibit the establishment, maintenance or expansion of a criminal group or criminal network and therefore prevent or inhibit criminal activity. The officer must also be reasonably satisfied that the issuing of the notice is appropriate in all the circumstances. The bill provides for matters that the officer must have regard to when determining whether issuing of the notice is appropriate, such as the nature and gravity of the applicable offence the eligible offender was convicted of as well as the time that has passed since the offence. Identifying a specific offence was one of the challenges that police raised in the review. The new test is more consistent with the objective to prevent and disrupt organised crime groups.

Further to that, if the officer has no belief that a crime is going to be prevented by this notice, it implies that the inclusion of ‘inhibit’ can essentially capture any behaviour or conduct that is not linked to a future crime. Can you please explain what conduct this is intended to capture?

Ms Purcell, I can confirm that it is intended to capture criminal conduct.

Attorney, how does this bill avoid encroaching on people’s rights under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, such as freedom of expression, freedom of movement and freedom of association and peaceful assembly?

With respect, Ms Copsey, that is what a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 is designed to do. It is outlined in that response.

Deputy President, if you could indulge me. Attorney, I would like to understand the government’s intent in the interference that this bill does create with people’s freedom of association.

Ms Copsey, I would table it, but I already have – the statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The charter was brought in by the Labor government to answer the exact questions that you are asking, so that we draw our minds to human rights when we are making important legislative decisions in this place. That is what the statements are for. I do not think it would be a good use of the Parliament’s time for me to read out that compatibility statement, which specifically addresses the questions that you have asked.

Attorney, could you explain how members of the public know what constitutes prescribed insignia that carry criminal penalties if they are publicly displayed?

Mr Ettershank, at this point in time there have not been any prescribed organisations. I cannot answer your question, because it is hypothetical at this time.

I am a little unclear on that answer, however. In drafting this clause or these provisions around clause 93 I presume the drafters must have had some logic that underpinned their drafting as to how it would operate and I suppose how the community or community members – members of the public – would interact with this legislation. Could you perhaps elaborate a little bit rather than saying it is hypothetical?

So in the future, once something is prescribed – you are asking about now.

I take on board what you are saying about its future, and I am also suggesting that it is not necessarily this government that might be interpreting it. There might be future governments with different views of assembly and whatever else, but thinking prospectively I am just asking: how would members of the public know that an insignia may carry criminal penalties?

Mr Ettershank, to commit the offence you have to publicly display insignia that is of a designated organisation. As is outlined in the legislation, a person must know or ought reasonably to know that the mark is an insignia of that organisation. That provides a safeguard against inadvertent displays by persons who are unaware or could not reasonably have known that the mark is an insignia of an organisation. If you go to an op shop, you buy a jacket, you are walking around in it and you get pinged, I think you are going to be okay when you explain the story behind your inadvertent display, because you would not be captured by the definition or the requirement to know or ought reasonably to know that the mark is an insignia of a prescribed organisation. Does that answer your question?

David ETTERSHANK: It does.

Jaclyn SYMES: Okay, great.

I think that is enough on the insignia. I just wanted to tease out from the Attorney how the government reconciles part 5 of the bill, ‘Exclusion of members of certain organisations from Victorian government worksites’, with the known evidence that the opportunity in terms of employment that these construction sites provide is vital to reducing recidivism and reintegrating people back into society sustainably.

I think you will appreciate why I was concerned by the opposition’s proposal in relation to similar laws, because of the impact it might have on the ability for people with criminal records to seek employment, particularly people that may have been engaged in organised crime as an 18-year-old or an outlaw motorcycle gang, for example, but had left and the like. The construction industry is a fantastic industry for people with criminal records to get a chance to get employment. It is a dedicated industry that we know, from an exiting-corrections perspective, is a good opportunity for people to reintegrate back into society, and the intention of this legislation is not to impede that. That is why it is confined to ensuring that it is creating a criminal offence to prohibit members of organisations that have been prescribed in regulations from entering an area that is or is located at a Victorian government worksite where public access is restricted and development is taking place. It is not designed to pick up people that have loose associations, past associations or any form of criminal record unless it is a relevant offence captured under a different process. This is about certain organisations and responding to, obviously, concerns we have about the infiltration of underworld figures and outlaw motorcycle gangs on worksites, particularly through the CFMEU.

What organisations are to be included under part B? You have given one specific example, but what criteria, Attorney, will you be using to determine a prescribed organisation?

Ms Copsey, as you have indicated, the offence will only apply to members of organisations that have been prescribed in regulations. The bill provides clear criteria and processes to prescribe an organisation. And you asked about workplaces, didn’t you?

Katherine COPSEY: What organisations will be included under part B?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, okay. I think I have answered this before, sorry, so I will just repeat myself in relation to the process of prescribing an organisation, which can only happen once the law has passed. The criteria and processes involve the Attorney-General consulting with the Chief Commissioner of Police and being reasonably satisfied that the application of a prohibition on entering Victorian government worksites in relation to that organisation is likely to substantially assist in and is reasonably necessary to disrupt or prevent criminal activities.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 109 agreed to.

Clause 110 (17:31)

I move:

1. Clause 110, page 122, line 27, omit “one year” and insert “six months”.

It omits ‘one year’ and inserts ‘six months’ so that the review can be completed within six months of the three years.

Mr Mulholland, in relation to the amendment to bring in a review and reduce the timeframes, are you confident that there will be enough data to effectively assess the effectiveness of these laws?

Through my colleague the Shadow Attorney-General Mr O’Brien I am quite confident that the three years is enough. We think that six months post the three years will be more than enough to get an indication of how these laws are working. Given that we have come back to these laws a couple of times, it is important to have an indication of how these laws are going.

I just wonder if you could give me a plain English laying out of the timeframe that you are proposing to change with your amendment, from what is proposed in the bill to the effect of your amendment, just to ensure that I have clarity.

I am happy to do that for you, Ms Copsey. Clause 110 provides for a review of the legislative changes. However, the review period is to start on the commencement day and is to conclude on 31 December following the third anniversary of the commencement, so there is a period of a year given for the review to be conducted before the report is to be given to the Attorney-General and then tabled in Parliament. The effect of that means that if the changes commence on 1 January 2025, then the review does not conclude until 31 December 2028. So it is just shortening that review period to six months after the three years since commencement.

The government’s position is that the amendment reduces the timeframe, as Mr Mulholland has outlined, from 12 months to six. We are concerned that it would be a less comprehensive review of the efficiency of the reforms; however, we will not be opposing the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move:

2. Clause 110, page 123, line 7, omit “31 December following”.

It is similar in effect to, and goes with, the first one. It omits ‘31 December following’ from clause 110.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 111 to 116 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:36): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:36): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (29): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Noes (9): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill with amendment.