Tuesday, 18 February 2025

Bills

Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Gayle Tierney:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (13:43): I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals today as the fairly newly minted Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024. This bill amends the Inquiries Act 2014 and the Public Records Act 1973, and its aim is to regulate the management, access and preservation of records relating to the Yoorrook Justice Commission. Indeed the Yoorrook Justice Commission came into being in terms of its operation in 2021 to collect evidence and testimonies from natural person authors. Of course we also know that the Yoorrook Justice Commission was bestowed the same powers that a royal commission has and collected records in terms of transcripts, witness statements, submissions and audio and video recordings of evidence. But I want to put on record that the Liberals and Nationals oppose this bill, the inquiries amendment bill of 2024.

I say that with a sense of severity about my contribution and the concern that not only the Liberals and Nationals but so many of the stakeholders that we have listened to and spoken with hold. I want to put on record my thanks to the former and longstanding shadow minister for the Liberals and Nationals, the Honourable Peter Walsh, for his exemplary work in this space and the respect he has out in Victoria through various stakeholders and people that he has met over that time. I understand that this role is one I take on most sincerely, and I look forward to very much getting out into communities and listening to perspectives.

It has been clear over the course of time that we have certainly come to the understanding that this bill does not serve the greater Victorian population. We know that at the heart of our democracy – this democracy – there needs to be a fundamental principle of equity before the law. This means that the laws we pass in this place must apply to people fairly and equally without favouring one group over another. This bill undermines that principle. It does not seek to protect all Victorians equally, it seeks to divide us. It creates two different classes of citizens and it is unnecessary. I want to in my contribution unpack the safeguards that exist now in our legislation that support all Victorians who provide critical information, personal information, vital information and sensitive information in the course of public hearings, royal commissions and, in this case, this commission.

This bill proposes a 99-year secrecy order, overrides the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and gives a particular group of people control over public records that no other set of Victorians has. I want to address that in the sense that it is important to provide that context, to provide information, to learn from mistakes and to recognise and understand errors – and they are long and varied. I was born some 50-plus years ago. We have to stand up on the feet that we have now. We have to look forward and we have to walk together in a positive direction, acknowledging our past but looking to positive outcomes for all Victorians. The language of this bill implies a division based on race, which is not only counterproductive but fundamentally unjust. As I have said, our aim should be to unite our communities, not further divide them. While it is essential to respect and uphold the rights of First Nations people, we must be cautious about establishing systems that foster division. We need to ensure that there is respect and dignity for all Victorians.

Let us have a look now at how our current legislation, our current laws, protect all of us who make contributions in these sorts of forums. We have legal safeguards, we have clear timeframes and we have defined decision-making powers. We have them under the Public Records Act 1973, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and under the Inquiries Act 2014. In the Public Records Act the primary decision-maker, the Minister for Government Services, is responsible for overseeing record access and the decisions around that. The keeper of public records, otherwise known as the director of the Public Record Office Victoria, has delegated authority to classify records and manage access. Key restrictions and timeframes – this is the nub of why we do not need this bill. Under section 9 the minister can declare records private or personal and restrict access for a time period specified in the declaration. Under section 10 the minister can withhold records for up to 30 years after they are transferred to the Public Record Office Victoria and a declaration under subsection (1) may not be varied or revoked. These are the current laws that we have in place for all Victorians.

In the Freedom of Information Act 1982 the primary decision-maker is the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General is responsible for administering FOI laws. The decisions on those requests are made by individual ministers for their departments and agencies and by the Freedom of Information Commissioner. I will not go through all of these restrictions but some of them. Under section 28 cabinet documents are protected for 10 years. Won’t it be interesting when the 10 years are up on this particular set of governance structures of the Labor government of the last 10 years. Law enforcement records can be withheld indefinitely, but under section 33, personal and private protections allow withholding sensitive and personal information – again, there are protections.

In the Inquiries Act 2014 the primary decision-maker is again the Attorney-General, and they are responsible for this act. The Governor in Council, upon recommendation of the Premier, can establish a royal commission and boards of inquiry. The chair of an inquiry, the commissioner, has the authority to restrict publication of evidence in order for confidentiality to be implemented where necessary. Key restrictions and timeframes – section 124 requires that the records must be transferred over to the public records. There is a line of sight and there is good governance in this state.

Under the Public Records Act there are clear provisions about declaring documents, including those personal testimonies from the Yoorrook Justice Commission investigations. They can be deemed sensitive and they can be sealed. Witnesses or the commission can request that the minister use these sections – 9 and 10, as I said – to protect sensitive information. It strikes a balance that we have now between individual privacy and ensuring public accountability and transparency. We need to learn from past mistakes, we need to learn from past injustices, we need to learn from past systemic issues and we need a level of transparency that supports that while protecting the rights of the individual. That is what we have now. The main provisions in this bill, however, apply specifically to evidence provided by Aboriginal individuals, and the duration of orders is for up to 99 years. No other Victorian will have that provision, and we believe that that is unfair.

If we look at the history of various issues and various royal commissions, I note the nationwide Commonwealth Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which provided critical insights into our systematic failures across the nation. It highlighted the importance of making informed information accessible to the public and allowing community scrutiny to ensure that lessons are learned. If we look at our own Mr Andrews-inspired Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, that was tabled back in 2021, and various recommendations have fallen out of that. I am sure this house will understand that our Shadow Minister for Mental Health has been absolutely at the forefront of identifying what recommendations have not been forthcoming under this government, though recommended some four years ago. If we look at that information, the final report highlighted the need for transparency and community scrutiny – again, it is about lessons learned – but it also wanted to ensure that it built trust within the community and in the mental health system around that accountability. It also suggested amendments to enhance protections for individuals providing evidence. We are not seeing that in this piece of legislation today. Those recommendations and requests are still sitting on the table some four years later. I make no analysis on the merits of those, but we have a bill that is before us today – what about those recommendations that were made by the mental health royal commission?

If we look at what we want to see moving forward, if we let this bill pass – and I am assuming that there will be crossbench support and it will pass – it will set an incredibly dangerous precedent in terms of future inquiries. Labor should be protecting all Victorians and all of them equally. Every individual who provides evidence should be treated with respect and dignity.

When we look also at some of the important issues that need to be addressed, one of the key issues that is identified in our nation and our state and agreed on at a nation-wide level is the closing the gap targets. The closing the gap framework certainly looks at disparities in health of our First Nations people and in education, in employment and in housing. It is focused on lowering incarceration rates and reducing the number of children in out-of-home care, and yet we find ourselves in this state under this Labor government failing on many fronts. These are not my words; they are those of the Productivity Commission in its recent review on that.

The Productivity Commission has identified that while this Victorian government is allocating resources in terms of treaty and in terms of the Yoorrook Justice Commission, it is delaying progress on closing the gap initiatives. It is delaying the very core grassroots level positive outcomes that can happen in each and every one of our communities. This is not on. The Productivity Commission has said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The Victorian government must ensure –

these are the Productivity Commission’s words, not mine –

that the prioritisation of treaty negotiation and the administration of the Yoorrook Justice Commission does not delay. Immediate action is required to meet the closing the gap targets. Balancing long-term initiatives and urgent needs is essential to achieve meaningful progress.

So the report card is in. This government is focused not on those core issues that improve the lives of our First Nations Victorians.

In my time in the last 10 years I have had the opportunity to speak and listen to many wonderful First Nations people both in my electorate and further afield, and there is much to learn; there is no doubt about that. One of the most wise, forceful, passionate, understanding and positive people in my community that I have met is Aunty Cheryl Drayton, a Kurnai elder and farmer from Labertouche. Hers are the wise conversations that I so enjoy listening to. The work that she is doing and the Kurnai elders have been doing is instrumental in promoting grassroots programs for those closing the gap targets – things like cultural programs in schools, language, artwork, bush foods and medicines – working right in our local kindergartens, our local primary schools and our secondary schools. As she said, these things can benefit everybody – all of those children – and promote healthy outcomes for those children. Koori parents and early years engagement with parents are also very important, and she is working on initiatives through that.

To give credit where it is due, the education system is encouraging and working with Aunty Cheryl Drayton. We need to see more of this, and we need to fund those programs that benefit our youngest First Nations people but also all Victorians. We want to see more collaboration in those spaces. We want to see health outcomes and health initiatives. Indeed again the Kurnai community has focused on integrating traditional and modern health practices through some of their initiatives, networking with the West Gippsland Healthcare Group and other service providers to promote health and wellbeing and to ensure that for new mothers and the elderly there are programs that support them. Also in terms of career initiatives, we want to see greater focus on vocational career pathways for our First Nations, in addition to all those who need that support. There have been many very good programs, and some of them are stunted by a lack of resources and a lack of funding. These are the sorts of initiatives that the Liberals and Nationals want to see coming to fruition, not being delayed because of other activities that are the focus of this government. The Kurnai gave recommendations to local, state and federal government, and I use this as a case study for our argument. There needs to be formal recognition of Aboriginal-led initiatives, and that formal recognition needs to be integrated within local government, state government and federal government policies. Put the funding where it can have the maximum benefit.

We also need to see a dedicated advisory group – as Aunty Cheryl, a passionate and wise person, informs me – again at that grassroot level, making local decisions, not being told from on high. Indeed we often talk about a root-and-branch approach; a tree grows from the roots, and these grassroot programs can deliver healthy outcomes. There are a multitude of examples across our state, and I will just raise one that my colleague the member for Mildura outlined in her contribution in the lower house about the Clontarf Foundation, a wonderful foundation that changes the lives of First Nations young men and students in terms of career pathways, giving a good foundation during education and post school life, including by being able to get around by getting your drivers licence. These are the sorts of programs that we supported back in 2010 when we were in government. The Liberals and Nationals funded that. Can you believe that it has not had any funding increase in the last 10 years? It still has the same funding, which compromises the ability of that foundation, that great initiative, to continue its good work and expand. It is being hobbled.

Instead of prioritising these real changes, this government is focusing on sealing records for 99 years, a measure that does nothing to address First Nations people’s disadvantage. Our current laws are sufficient. Our current laws are what are needed. How does closing up an FOI document for 99 years help to close the gap in health, education and employment, the incarceration rate and those troubling and very concerning figures in terms of out-of-home care numbers? We are all here to support people to ensure that their voices are heard, but we must not, should not and cannot create two sets in society. For this reason I urge the crossbenchers to contemplate this argument and to vote against this bill. It is legally unnecessary; we have the provisions already. Our existing laws do provide protection for sensitive information and records. It is divisive, it creates two separate legal systems, it undermines legal equity and it fragments our FOI laws. For those reasons the Liberals and Nationals will be opposing this bill.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (14:04): I will also speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024. As Ellen Sandell outlined in the lower house, the Greens will support this bill to embed the principles of Indigenous data sovereignty within Victorian law. These are important issues, and the bill rights one of many historical wrongs following colonisation, ensuring the principle that our First Peoples’ information is stored, accessed, used and maintained once the Yoorrook Justice Commission has concluded its inquiry. At the heart of this important legislation lies a simple and indisputable truth: First Peoples can only thrive when they have the power to determine their own futures. While this is not a new idea, governments across Australia are still struggling to put it into practice, despite the persistent calls from Aboriginal communities and experts.

This bill brings the principles of self-determination to life by ensuring First Peoples have control over their own stories and the evidence they share with the Yoorrook Justice Commission. It marks a decisive step towards Victoria’s treaty era, where First Peoples, as the true experts in their own lives, are placed firmly in the driver’s seat to make decisions on issues that matter most to them. This moment, the treaty era, is such an important historical time for First Nations rights within Victoria. The Greens proudly offer the government our bipartisan support for treaty – or treaties, in Victoria’s case. Outrageously, the Liberals and Nationals last year reversed their decision to support the treaty. But the Liberals have a new leadership team, and we call on the new opposition leader to come to the table and cement treaty with tripartisan support. This is far too important to let party politics stand in the way.

We commend the government on their consultation process with the Yoorrook Justice Commission, along with stakeholders like the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, Public Record Office Victoria and the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner. As the Greens outlined in the lower house, we cannot praise a bill based on a Yoorrook recommendation without mentioning the dozens of other recommendations that remain unaddressed, because as important as Indigenous data sovereignty is, it is only one of six Yoorrook recommendations Labor has accepted in full – just six of 46 recommendations from the Yoorrook for Justice report. That is less than 15 per cent. By rejecting these reforms the government is not just failing First Nations people, it is complicit in the continued criminalisation, overincarceration and systemic oppression of our Aboriginal communities in Victoria.

The Yoorrook for Justice report called for significant reforms across child protection and criminal justice systems to address systemic injustices faced by First Nations people. To truly support self-determination we must follow First Nations led solutions to the crises we see in child protection, criminal justice, health care and fundamental human rights. Yoorrook’s recommendations are not optional extras, they are the bare minimum required to uphold First Peoples’ rights to make decisions for their own communities. Sadly, it is the same level of inaction from the three Yoorrook recommendations this Labor government has rejected, namely the umpteenth expert recommendation that Victoria raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 years without exceptions and prohibit the detention of any child under the age of 16 years. Last year Premier Allan refused to recommit Labor to enacting this longstanding demand from First Peoples to finally stop imprisoning their kids. It was a devastating betrayal of a previous Labor promise under Dan Andrews.

This betrayal puts the government at odds with First Peoples, criminal lawyers, human rights groups – really anyone who can perceive cause and effect. Back in 2021 that included the new opposition leader Brad Battin. Before becoming leader Mr Battin was a backbencher, and before that he was a police officer who would engage weekly with kids involved in shoplifting and burglaries. In a moment of honesty he told the Age that:

… almost without fail, if you looked at their history, you could identify them as high risk at a very young age because they had a parent in jail or with addiction problems, a lack of family support, had been in and out of care – a whole range of things.

With the right services in place, Mr Battin said:

… we will save a fortune in the long term for not putting these kids in jail.

We appreciate his common sense even if the opposition has yet to update their policies to reflect this, because whether or not this Labor government admits it to the Herald Sun, everyone in this chamber knows that imprisoning children at the key developmental stage only continues that cycle of trauma. Forcing kids into criminal justice increases not only their chances of reoffending but tragically their rates of depression, self-harm and suicide. That remains true even for adults in prison. Regardless of their level of offending, prison fails to rehabilitate the people it institutionalises, yet Labor has rejected Yoorrook’s meaningful and self-determined recommendation to create a presumption in favour of bail for all offences except for murder, terrorism and similarly extreme offences. That is even though punitive, reactionary changes to bail laws in 2013 and 2018 directly led to a shockingly disproportionate surge of First Peoples imprisoned on remand waiting for either their trial or sentence.

By May 2023 almost 50 per cent of Aboriginal adults in Victorian prisons and a massive 82 per cent of Aboriginal children and young people in detention were there on remand. To quote Yoorrook for Justice directly, the commission:

… heard that Aboriginal women were hardest hit by these changes and were often denied bail and imprisoned for repeat low level non-violent offending.

Yoorrook received evidence that government ignored First Peoples’ concerns about its bail reforms, undermining commitments to self-determination and reducing overimprisonment and eroding trust bill through justice-related consultations with Aboriginal communities.

Tragically it took yet another preventable death in custody – Veronica Nelson, a 37-year-old Gunditjmara, Dja Dja Wurrung, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta woman – for Labor to admit that they ‘got the balance wrong’. Veronica was a woman with a strong spiritual connection to her culture. In the Fitzroy Aboriginal community she was known for her deep empathy and care for others. It should not have taken until the unequivocal coroners report into Veronica’s death was published for Labor to admit any wrongdoing. Last year the Greens supported the unwinding of the more extreme elements of the Bail Act 1977 that Labor introduced in 2018. Now, 10 months later, the Premier has been spooked by some bad polling and announced yet another review into bail laws. The Greens join Yoorrook in acknowledging that bail is a fundamental human right and presumption against it, just like prison itself, must only be reserved as absolute last resort for extremely violent offences.

Lastly Labor has rejected Yoorrook’s call to strengthen human rights and cultural rights through the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. While Victoria’s human rights charter acknowledges human rights and cultural rights, it lacks strong enforcement measures to ensure public authorities follow them or provide victims of human rights violations with ways to seek justice. Instead the commission called on the government to draw on a 2015 review of the charter and then work with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and other First Peoples organisations to strengthen and clarify the charter. That would mean two things: (1) public authorities would be required to act in ways that genuinely respect human rights, including Aboriginal cultural rights, and (2) public authorities could be held accountable if they fail to do so. But yet again Labor has put these extensive, evidence-based recommendations in the too-hard basket.

We need to listen and respect the wishes of our First Nations communities. The government has done something historic in finally negotiating treaty, but the job does not stop there. We need to continue to act and build trust with our First Peoples at every opportunity.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:14): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today. I want to thank the work of the commission and also to thank Lauren Scott from my office for their work in compiling some of the thoughts for me today. Lauren is a young person from the Arabana and Southern Arrernte land, and I know from them how much this bill will make a difference. The Yoorrook Justice Commission was established with a principle of truth-telling, but it is to be done on and with the Indigenous community in Victoria so Indigenous people in Victoria can determine how their information is reported on and used. This commitment to Indigenous data sovereignty and protection is crucial to understanding the challenges Indigenous communities across Victoria face today. The commission has empowered Indigenous people across the state to have unwavering rights over their data, giving them ownership, control, access and total possession over their data. It has also adhered to the governance framework which supports Indigenous decision-making on how data is controlled, collected, interpreted, accessed, stored and used. I make a point to highlight these pillars to show how seriously the Allan Labor government is taking our state’s efforts to push for self-determination. This is very important, for many reasons. It is very important to build that trust and respect among our communities, and this bill is part of that. If we want to have positive outcomes for Indigenous peoples in Victoria, it is important that we discuss these matters in their terms, and upholding data sovereignty and guarantees for these communities does just that.

The commission has done incredible work over the past few years. Since beginning their work in July 2020, they have done a lot of work, and many of you in this place will be quite familiar with some of it. The commission delivered an interim report in June 2022 and a critical issues report in August 2023, and it is now preparing to deliver the final report in 2025. Prior to the release of the completed two reports, the commission engaged in an extensive, multiphased process to draft their terms of reference and to gain clarity on what First Nations people expect from the commission in terms of forms of reporting, availability of information on the commission itself and how information would be managed, including expectations of confidentiality, with a focus on cultural safety. With much of this preliminary work occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic, I would like to commend the commission for their innovative and comprehensive work throughout that time.

The commission’s hard work over the past five years will be vital in allowing for the establishment of treaty in Victoria, which acknowledges and addresses the historical injustices that First People have faced since colonisation. The commission already provides participants with significant support in engaging with reporting in a culturally and legally safe manner, providing support for making submissions and attending hearings, and wellbeing support and legal support through promoting organisations independent from the commission itself, namely Lotjpa Independent Legal Service. It is critical for the Allan Labor government to support and engage in these efforts and to continue upholding the principles of Indigenous data sovereignty and governance, set out by the commission.

The creation of this bill has been in collaboration with several stakeholders, including the commission, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner and government departments, and it was also due to the hard work of the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples in the other place for bringing the bill to Parliament in the first place, to amend the Inquiries Act 2014.

The bill primarily provides for the Yoorrook Justice Commission to make orders to close and restrict access to certain records once the commission ceases to exist and makes amendments in relation to the treatment of the records of a royal commission, board of inquiry or formal review that has ceased to exist. The bill will additionally amend the Public Records Act 1973 to give effect to the orders made by the Yoorrook Justice Commission to close or restrict access to certain records.

By the nature of the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s purpose of truth-telling, there will be instances whereby they must gather data on culturally sensitive matters. In some instances, these practices might be what you consider closed. That refers principally to cultural practices or Dreaming stories that outsiders to the culture cannot partake in or have knowledge of. That can also include historical artefacts that might similarly depict these. This is why, as I previously mentioned, Indigenous data sovereignty is critical to the empowerment and self-determination of First Nations people. Indigenous data is the right of Indigenous people to govern the collection, ownership and application of the data about Indigenous communities, peoples, lands and resources. Its enactment mechanism, Indigenous data governance, is built around two central premises: (1) the rights of Indigenous nations over data about them, regardless of where it is held or by whom and (2) the right to the data that Indigenous people require to support nation rebuilding. Upholding these two premises will require us to respect the sensitive nature of closed practices, and as such the crux of the bill is the empowerment of the commission to restrict access to the data records upon conclusion of its work later this year.

The commission will report on the lived experience of First Nations people in Victoria over many generations. We know that lived experience requires care and consideration when identifying individuals and groups. These are difficult experiences to recall on both an individual and intergenerational level, and we must consider legislation in a way so as not to traumatise anyone participating in the commission’s activities. The bill aims to achieve that. Many Indigenous cultures have provisions regarding textual, auditory or visual representations of deceased individuals. It is vital that the commission can address and report on matters of import without violating cultural protocol. To achieve this, the commission employs the social and emotional wellbeing model. This model is broadly accepted by Aboriginal community controlled organisations (ACCO) as the most effective methodology to support the social, emotional, spiritual and cultural wellbeing of a person. It also acknowledges the community’s connection to land, sea, culture, spirituality, family and community. As a result, the data collected can remain confidential and restricted as determined necessary by First Peoples at the conclusion of the commission. This is in line with the two central premises of Indigenous data governance.

This legislation will help the Allan Labor government meet the Priority Reform One target of formal partnership arrangements to support Closing the Gap to be in place in each state and territory. That means formal partnerships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and governments in place in every state and territory. This cements joint decision-making roles and responsibilities where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have chosen their own representatives. This is why this bill is crucial, ensuring the Allan Labor government can deliver on our commitment to reconciliation and providing frameworks for Indigenous self-determination. In the September 2020 to May 2021 period, per the report to the Yoorrook Justice Commission for the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the commission had reached a significant level of engagement, including 457 people joining general community meetings, 103 detailed feedback responses, 190 traditional owners reached from eight Victorian nation groups and 170 people reached who were incarcerated in prisons or correctional facilities. It has taken some years, but the commission has been determined to get this right, owing to how crucial their work is to the treaty process going forward. The report is set to be delivered later this year, a culmination of all their work in discussions and collaboration with all communities and peoples reached in these engagement efforts.

The act in question currently requires that the royal commission must, upon conclusion, transfer reports to the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Under the current arrangements reports of this nature are then available for public access unless an order is made under the Public Records Act 1973 or an exemption applies under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Therefore the public availability of records and reports is subject entirely to the government’s discretion. A core issue in this arrangement as it stands is that no necessary consideration is given to the wishes of Indigenous people and families in Victoria. The decision rests with the discretion of the government and the government alone.

If we want to get serious about data sovereignty for Indigenous people in this state, then current arrangements cannot stand when it comes to the Yoorrook Justice Commission. We must include provisions for the protection of Indigenous people’s rights and ensure culturally safe mechanisms for data retention and protection. This is where more of these amendments come in. These amendments are designed to specifically allow for provisions enabling the Yoorrook Justice Commission to redact or to not provide sensitive information publicly. Empowering specifically the Yoorrook Justice Commission to restrict or close off access to records after the conclusion of its work provides for culturally sensitivity to Indigenous people’s needs. It should not be up to the discretion of the government of the day to restrict or publicise information provided within the confines of this commission when First Nations peoples were given the assurance and guarantee of privacy. Many practices are not to be viewed publicly or by people outside the cultures partaking in these practices. By providing the authority to the Yoorrook Justice Commission to restrict access to these records, it becomes not a matter for the government of the day but for the commission itself.

Indigenous data has precedence in government and department policy across the world. For example, the Canadian government funded the First Nations Information Governance Centre to release the inaugural First Nations data governance strategy in 2020. This is both a necessary and a narrow-in-scope amendment to legislation that addresses two recommendations from the Yoorrook Justice Commission on the handling of evidence – namely, these are recommendation 2 of the Yoorrook with Purpose report 2022 and recommendation 45 of the Yoorrook for Justice report 2023 – and these changes are in line with the Allan Labor government’s commitment to the First Peoples’ self-determination in Victoria.

In the hearings held last year across 27 days for the report into Victoria’s child protection and criminal justice system, 84 people including international witnesses gave evidence to the commission. This gives us an indication of the scale in which the commission is operating and engaging. This included evidence from the Attorney-General; the Minister for Police; the Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Victim Support; and the Minister for Child Protection and Family Services. Senior government officials, including departmental secretaries, associate secretaries and deputy secretaries, also gave evidence along with the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, the commissioner for Aboriginal Children and young people and the corrections commissioner, and the youth justice commissioner also gave evidence.

Yoorrook issued 29 notices to produce to the state and received 4100 documents in response. Twelve round tables were held by the commission across the state between December 2022 and February 2023 to inform the findings of the report at Bangarang Aboriginal Corporation in Shepparton; Barengi Gadjin Land Council; Goolum Goolum Aboriginal Cooperative in Horsham; Dardi Munwurro at Preston, Reservoir and Mernda; Winda-Mara Aboriginal Corporation in Heywood; and Dhauwurd Wurrung Elderly and Community Health Service in Portland. It also organised prison and youth justice visits in February 2023 at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre, Barwon Prison and Marngoneet Correctional Centre. Submissions were received and were compiled from 33 organisations and experts in response to issue papers as well as 88 from individuals in the 2022–23 period, where over three-quarters of these referenced issues about the child protection or criminal justice system. Together these will inform the findings of the commission in their first full report on the child protection legislation and policy, ACCO proportional funding targets and achievements for different front-end service types. That includes the criminal justice legislation for both adults and youth, criminal justice complaints mechanisms and oversight bodies, the Department of Justice and Community Safety’s community-based diversion programs for Aboriginal people, Aboriginal-specific programs delivered in Victoria prisons and much more key information to address injustices in the system. Simply put, the commission has done incredible work in gathering evidence and creating these reports, and by the time they have concluded their final report it is critical that we have this legislation amended to support self-determination in reporting.

The commission is expected to deliver its report later this year, and in preparation, to continue our commitment to the core principles and premises of data sovereignty and governance for Indigenous people, we must pass the necessary amendments to the Public Records Act 1973 and adhere to the culturally sensitive matters. We know the commission closed submissions for the general public in November, and now we await the release of the final report. The Allan Labor government has continued its strong and unwavering commitment to reconciliation in this state by pressing on with treaty negotiations. These negotiations, along with the outcomes and actions taken from the commission’s report, will be pivotal.

But as I have already said, we cannot understate that there must be a commitment from the government of the day if we want to continue to be strong and engage with our First Nations communities, to respect culturally sensitive matters and to adhere to their sovereignty. It is absolutely crucial and a cornerstone of our discussions going forward as the state presses on with treaty. I eagerly anticipate these reforms, and I commend the bill to the house.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14:29): I rise to oppose this bill and to support my colleague Ms Bath, the Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who did a very erudite job of explaining why this bill is so unacceptable. I oppose it for a very simple and straightforward reason. I cannot accept what it legislates – a legal division between Australians, completely undermining the principle of equality that our country is built on. This is about justice, fairness and equality, and I am actually quite shocked by how casually the legislation has been introduced and by how limited the public debate has been. We are in serious danger of conceding a fundamental principle of our society, almost without objection.

New section 52B of the bill empowers the Yoorrook Justice Commission to issue orders which would close records from public viewing for up to 99 years. New section 52C is similar, in restricting access to certain records, but it applies exclusively to evidence provided by Aboriginal individuals. This is the same kind of exceptionalism which Australians rejected in droves in the Voice referendum – and they did it across Australia and in Victoria. It creates rules that discriminate based on race, that give rights to Indigenous Australians without extending the same protections to the non-Indigenous contributors to the commission. It is not a road we should be going down, and most relevantly, it is not a road we need to go down.

Sections 9 and 10 of the Public Records Act 1973 already allow commissions to declare witness evidence or documents as sensitive and have them sealed. We already have this power. It is a perfectly sensible power – to be used very sparingly of course, but on some rare occasions it is necessary. That is why it is there in the legislation. It already exists. It does a job, and it is there for all Victorians, without any discrimination based on race. So why, you might ask, has the legislation been proposed? If it is unnecessary and, worse still, divisive, how on earth has it come up? Unfortunately, the answer is that in the areas of treaty and Indigenous affairs this government has been captured by activists and has itself become activist. The result is performative. We have legislation which makes a point, which sounds good, which advances a cause and which drives an agenda.

A casualty in the case of this bill is truth. This provision for secrecy is at odds with the notion of scrutiny, truth and justice. For transparency, information provided to the commission ought to be scrutinised and challenged. How can we trust the conclusions of any body or process if we cannot even see the evidence on which it has based these conclusions? In some cases it may be entirely wrong, and yet now it will pass unchallenged. The commission may well make judgements critical of institutions and individuals, and yet their ability to respond and challenge the evidence underpinning those decisions could be totally undermined. It would be like a legal case where the defence was not allowed to hear the prosecution’s arguments.

The second-reading debate in the other place was predictably disappointing. We heard about the damage of colonialism and its impact, of stolen generations and of trauma – crucial, important and deeply significant issues – but none of these is an argument for division and exceptionalism. Undermining equality before the law will not remedy any of these historical injustices. As with much of the Voice debate, it is about an activist class making a political point – not doing anything for Indigenous people most in need.

On this point I want to come to the matter of Indigenous data sovereignty. The minister’s second-reading speech says the bill:

… will extend First Peoples’ control over their own stories and evidence shared with the Commission … in line with Indigenous Data Sovereignty … principles.

She continued:

IDS is an international, Indigenous-led movement seeking to remedy government methods of holding Indigenous peoples’ records and assert the sovereignty of First Peoples over their own information. The Commission has articulated IDS as the ‘right of Indigenous Peoples to own, control, access and possess data that derive from them, and which pertain to their members, knowledge systems, customs, resources, or territories.’

To me this is deeply concerning. ‘The right to own, control, access and possess data that derive from them’ – how far are we going to take this principle? It is discriminatory and unworkable in our society. It is ridiculous. Where do we draw the line? Society does not operate. It is not a Victorian Indigenous movement; it is a worldwide political agenda, operating across countries and deeply damaging to Western values, to liberalism and to societies based on individual rights. Perhaps some IDS advocates share with me scepticism about government bureaucracy and its use of information about us. But this is unworkable extremism – and deeply unequal, unfair extremism. IDS is a dangerous, extremist position. I am deeply concerned that the Victorian government is explicitly referencing IDS in introducing this legislation and I would urge all Victorians to look into what this will actually mean. I worry about the society that this approach will create. It is not a Victoria or an Australia I recognise. To achieve long-lasting and effective change we must acknowledge that we are all Victorians, that we are all equal before the law and that we all share the same rights. This bill is diametrically opposed to that and imports the foreign concept of Indigenous data sovereignty, which will do nothing but harm our state.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (14:37): I rise to speak in support of this bill, and in doing so I am proud, because it is a move towards self-determination for First Peoples. This bill recognises the indisputable truth that First Peoples can only thrive when they have an active say and power to determine their own futures. The Yoorrook Justice Commission is the first truth-telling inquiry in Australia, and it is shameful that it has taken us until 2025 to get here today. This bill enshrines Indigenous data sovereignty principles, ensuring that First Peoples are in control of their own stories and the evidence that they share with the Yoorrook Justice Commission. That is all this bill does. We should feel honoured as members of Parliament to have First Peoples share their stories and life experiences with us in this place and allow us to learn from them and to do better.

First Peoples are finally being recognised in this state for the autonomous people that they are, which is a vital step towards Victoria’s treaty. It is the beginning of First Peoples being able to make decisions on the issues that matter most to them and affect them uniquely. This bill contributes to the removal of white people’s control over First Peoples’ knowledge and stories, and that is so vitally important in terms of moving forward, because decisions about Aboriginal people should be made by Aboriginal people. It is that simple.

To those on the other side of this chamber who are playing politics with this issue and will argue that this is divisive I say that this state’s treatment towards First Peoples is what is actually divisive and why we are here today. Victoria Police’s treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is divisive, with them being 11 times more likely to be searched by Victoria Police than non-Indigenous people. Ninety-two per cent of First Nations female prisoners have received mental illness diagnoses expected to last their lifetimes. Aboriginal people are four times more likely to be homeless than non-Aboriginal people in Victoria. Aboriginal women are 45 times more likely to experience family violence in Victoria than non-Aboriginal women, mostly at the hands of white men. Our child protection system is divisive. The stolen generation continues to this day. Our education system fails to meet the needs of First Peoples. Racism is rampant within the state towards First Peoples.

We cannot stand here today and pretend that treaty will divide Victorians. That is simply not the case, because our state is already divided by the appalling conditions imposed on First Peoples and the legacy of colonialism that continues in full force. We are divided because some of us are colonisers who refuse to acknowledge it while others are First Peoples whose homes were invaded, which is the very reason many of us are here today.

The racist tropes presented in this chamber and in other chambers of Parliament across Australia by certain members are what are fuelling this division. Treaty is what will bring this state together and form a part of the long-awaited justice First Peoples are more than entitled to and have waited long enough for.

I will continue to work with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victorian – in fact I am looking forward to meeting them this afternoon – so that I can amplify their voice and support treaty negotiations as they progress forward, because treaty is long overdue in this country, a country that has always belonged and that will always belong to First Peoples. In doing so, I commend this bill to the house.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:41): I also rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024, and I will also preface my remarks by acknowledging the Wurundjeri people as the traditional owners of the land on which we are gathering here today.

The Victorian Allan Labor government has remained consistent and steadfast in its commitment to achieving voice, truth-telling and treaty with First Peoples. This is a genuine position which the government has held since Victoria became the first state to legislate a framework for treaty negotiations in 2018, and since then this government has worked to achieve true reconciliation. I think it is worth outlining as well that whilst by national terms our proportion of the population who identify as Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander is quite small – in fact it is the second smallest, after the ACT – we do in fact have more Indigenous people in this state than in the whole of the Northern Territory. So the things that we discuss in this place as they concern our First Nations community are critically important.

We have structures in place, such as what is now the First Peoples’ Assembly, the establishment of the treaty process and very, very crucially the establishment of a truth-telling commission, the Yoorrook commission. We know that the opposition was against this path and then supported it, apparently, but they soon got their marching orders from Peter Dutton and they opposed it again. I note the opening contribution to this debate from Ms Bath. I was hoping for a contribution in which she was going to once again reaffirm the opposition’s support for treaty in this state. It was very disappointing the way in which the then Leader of the Nationals came out against the move in a radio interview last year, and then the next thing you knew, the tail wagged the dog once again and suddenly bipartisanship on treaty was no more. I was very much hoping for that courage from Ms Bath today – hoping for that recommitment to put the opposition back onto the path with us and with others who have spoken in the chamber today, those who do want to see reconciliation and who do want to see the gap closed through measures that are very, very critical.

I note that Ms Bath quoted the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission has been outspoken in its support for various truth-telling and treaty processes as among the most effective ways in which we can actually close the gap. For too long, good, well-intentioned people have put too many resources into fighting this issue without actually listening to First Nations communities, and what we have seen is that gap remain stubbornly large. Addressing this issue means listening, and the Yoorrook commission is one of the most important – I would almost go so far as to say sacrosanct – ways in which we can do that, because of the opportunity it provides and because of the opportunity it provides for some very hard truths to be discussed. And that is what brings us to the subject of this bill today.

There are some records that community members who have made evidence to the inquiry have sought these protections over. We know that there are various other existing provisions, such as with the Public Records Act 1973, that people are able to exercise, as with any inquiry. But what we have seen here is indeed a request from the commission for this to be in place because of this large number and because of the special circumstances in which we find these submissions being made. It is very appropriate then to clarify that what is a relatively very small number of documents in the commission can be treated and afforded this way. It is important that we listen, and from those member contributions opposite it is clear that they are still not listening.

I would also at this point like to comment on a few remarks made by Mrs McArthur in her contribution. Whilst I very much appreciate that Mrs McArthur was in fact the first and so far only Liberal member of Parliament to speak on this bill, I do note that, as Ms Bath did, many members of the National Party did speak on the bill, sadly against the bill, in the other place. The only contribution from any members of the Legislative Assembly from the Liberal Party was a point of order on frivolous points of relevance trying to distract from the debate. But none of them, not even the so-called progressives, such as the member for Hawthorn or the member for Kew, were prepared to put up their hands and speak in favour of this bill. In fact none of them were prepared to even speak on this bill at all. So I at least give the Nationals some credit for being prepared to engage on the topic and Mrs McArthur for outlining her points of view on the bill, which I can only take to be reflective of the entire Liberal Party, and disappointing they very much remain.

For one, Mrs McArthur spoke about procedural fairness, and I think it is important to note that there is still a procedural fairness that is at the heart of any such move under the bill that we are talking about today. If the commission makes a recommendation that goes against an institution or individual, that organisation still has a full procedural fairness process. We know that the commission already has hundreds of pieces of state and community evidence that are already public on its website, which it will use to make reports, and as is standard process indeed even with parliamentary committee reports, it will not be able to use any closed evidence in the preparation of those reports, or it will not be able to be referenced in those reports, as is appropriate in the same way in which we consider closed evidence in a parliamentary committee. So I take what those opposite are saying, but it strikes me that they have not properly engaged with the bill or properly even considered what this bill will and will not do. Certainly based on Mrs McArthur’s remarks, that is the conclusion you have to draw, because that is exactly the same procedural fairness function that would apply in any other setting too. This certainly is not special treatment by any means.

Yoorrook is a historic opportunity for us to reflect and, most importantly, for us to listen. It is foundational before any further moves can be made on treaty, because we must know our shared history as Victorians, as Australians, for those of us who are not Indigenous, to have an opportunity to learn from Indigenous Victorians on their truth, their facts and their truth-telling.

For people to feel truly confident and comfortable in coming forward and speaking openly and honestly about their experiences of injustice, the commission has engaged with First Peoples about how the information they provide is to be treated by the commission and afterwards during its life as well. We have heard remarks from other speakers about how under existing provisions it would be at the capricious whim of any potential future government of any persuasion to retrospectively change those rules around any certain bits of evidence. This bill safeguards against that.

The commission will be required to uphold Indigenous data sovereignty principles, firstly, by accommodating to the extent possible First Peoples’ choices in how they wish to participate, including their rights to free, prior and informed consent at all stages of participation; and secondly, upholding the sovereignty of First Peoples over their knowledge and stories, by consulting with them on how the information they provide should be treated and ensuring adequate information and data protection. Through extensive engagement, the commission has sought this legislative change to ensure that these voices of First Peoples and these choices that they are entitled to make regarding their stories and the dates they are in are upheld once the commission ends on 30 June this year. They ensure additional protections for this evidence so that they commission can definitively guarantee that First Nations people who have shared their truth will have their choices respected and honoured. I think all members of this place can agree that for too many years – decades, centuries – the institutions of this state have not respected and honoured those choices, so to make this move today is administratively relatively minor but a very, very important statement to be making nonetheless. The various provisions around the sharing of data have been gone into extensively by other speakers and in other second reading speeches but will still continue to apply, and again I reiterate that those principles of procedural fairness will still be very much in place.

As part of this the Inquiries Act 2014 will be amended to provide the commission with the power to make two orders to either close or restrict access to certain records: either a record order to close certain records once the commission ends or a record order to restrict access to certain records once the commission ends. There may be certain restrictions placed around this. For example, a condition may be that a person may be entitled to view the record but must not make a copy of that record. The record orders are for a period of 99 years, in line with other provisions for personal or private information under the existing Public Records Act.

I think it is also worth mentioning that the government has worked closely with the Yoorrook Justice Commission to ensure that this bill does meet the needs and expectations of the commission but also of the First Peoples who have sometimes under great distress found the courage to speak up. The commission has also consulted with the First Peoples community members and the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria to ensure that their preferences were considered in the development of this bill. The Public Record Office Victoria have also been deeply involved in the process of ensuring that the bill does align with other legislative requirements.

There are also of course select other various minor amendments to the bill, including making amendments to section 124 the Inquiries Act as well as other relatively minor changes. The bill before us today, the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024, makes these changes to the Inquiries Act, I would like to reiterate, at the recommendation of the First Peoples and the Yoorrook Justice Commission, because this is a government that is committed to taking tangible steps towards reconciliation, not flip-flopping and cynically pointscoring as others have done – to listen to all of those who assembled for the Uluru Statement from the Heart so many years ago, almost a decade ago now I believe, and their heartfelt plea for voice, treaty and truth-telling. The Yoorrook commission goes to the heart of that, and this is a government that has consistently demonstrated its commitment to all three principles of voice, treaty and truth-telling. The reforms today will ensure that the First Peoples’ engagement with this historic process is on their terms and that the commission can uphold its commitments to them with respect to their wishes regarding how their evidence will be treated.

While this government is looking at how we can bring Victorians together, at the same time those opposite have continued to backflip on their support for Victoria’s treaty. They have walked out on Indigenous Victorians through a sudden, dramatic change of policy announced in a radio interview. Today we have had two contributions so far from them members opposite, bringing the total across both chambers to a contribution of one by a member of the Liberal Party. We still do not have a clear answer as to why or as to whether they will they change back. Will they once again stand with Victorian Indigenous peoples? I was very disappointed not to hear either Mrs McArthur or Ms Bath reaffirm that commitment as part of Victoria’s treaty process, and as far as the truth-telling process goes it is very disappointing to see those attacks continue through their comments in this place and the comments of the Nationals members in the Assembly just a few weeks ago. So whilst this government is steadfast in its commitments, those opposite would rather take their quotes from shock jocks and former Queensland cops. That is not leadership; that is not how you deliver the best outcomes for all Victorians. But I do not wish to reflect on the repeatedly disappointing actions of those opposite in my closing remarks on this bill. I return to what is important here, and what is important is that we continue to walk with, respect and learn from First Nations Victorians.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the commissioners, Professor Eleanor Bourke AM, Adjunct Professor Sue-Anne Hunter, Travis Lovett, Distinguished Professor Maggie Walter and the Honourable Anthony North KC, and also acknowledge the work that they have undertaken on behalf of all Victorians, including the Indigenous community and also those non-Indigenous Victorians who will also benefit so greatly from this process. Indeed, I speak on behalf of the Parliament, which will also greatly benefit from this process.

This is a bill which is very straightforward. It touches on a small number of documents and provides a level of respect and decency for people who have sincerely come asking us to honour their wishes and honour their privacy. It is a bill that should be supported by all members of the house, and I hope to see this bill passed in a matter of hours. I commend the bill to the house.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (14:56): I rise to make a contribution on the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024, and in doing so I say that the Liberal Party are opposing this bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Inquiries Act 2014 and the Public Records Act 1973 to empower the Yoorrook Justice Commission to make record orders to close or restrict access to specified records for 99 years after the commission concludes and to provide that the Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not apply to its records for the same period. There are two main provisions in the bill: those relating to section 52B of the Inquiries Act 2014, which is that the Yoorrook Justice Commission may make record closure orders, and those relating to section 52C, which relates to the Yoorrook Justice Commission making record restriction orders.

This is legislation that creates division with respect to how the Victorian government manages personal information based on race. This is a bill that divides Victorians rather than uniting Victorians. The government actually already has powers to use sections 9 and 10 of the Public Records Act to declare a document sensitive and to close it for up to 30 years, but now it wants to extend those powers to 99 years for evidence that will be given before the Yoorrook Justice Commission. Historically in Victoria, sections 9 and 10 of the Public Records Act have been used for this purpose. When a royal commission ends, its records are transferred to the Department of Premier and Cabinet and then to the Public Record Office Victoria, where the records are publicly accessible. However, if a record contains particularly private or personal information, the minister can apply a restriction or closure order to the record under sections 9 and 10 of the Public Records Act 1973. A closure record under this provision has a limit of 30 years. As I said, this power already allows for any witness to the Yoorrook Justice Commission to request the minister close or restrict access to a record of evidence that they have given for 30 years, but for some reason the government believes this existing power is not specific enough nor long enough.

The government intends through this bill to create a new power specifically for records of evidence given by Indigenous people and for a period of 99 years. No good justification has been given for why this power is necessary. The only insight we have to the government’s reason for introducing this legislation came from the minister’s second-reading speech, when the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, Natalie Hutchins, said that the existing provision means that:

… access to and use of these records is a matter for government for government decision-making and discretion, not First People’s choices.

From this we see that the government bill draws heavily on Indigenous data sovereignty principles and aims to change government methods of holding Indigenous peoples’ records and assert the sovereignty of First Peoples over their own information, but shouldn’t the aim be to give all Victorians data sovereignty and power over how their information is held, used and shared? Data autonomy should be a right enjoyed by all Victorians equally, and it would be nice if the Labor government cared this much about data sovereignty for everyone.

If we remember back to March 2023, when the government passed a bill to create an electronic health information database for sharing private patient information between health services, the government certainly did not care about people’s right to have sovereignty over their own data at that time. At the time that that bill went through the Liberals moved amendments to the bill to allow individuals to opt out. We wanted to allow a person to apply to the secretary not to be included in the electronic patient health information sharing system, but the Labor government blocked those amendments. They did not want Victorians to have data autonomy, so why do the government now care about data sovereignty for one specific group when in the past they have completely ignored the data sovereignty of all Victorians? The Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Act 2023 forced everyone to share their personal health data, including highly sensitive private information, on a health database that would be accessible by medical practitioners across Victoria. At that time Labor proved to Victorians that they do not care about data sovereignty, so it is now surprising to see them introduce new privacy rules that are stronger than the existing rules for records of evidence given to the public royal commission for the purpose of truth-telling between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

We are not against privacy for those who have shared deeply personal or traumatic stories. We are sensitive to the need to protect those who have come forward in this inquiry in good faith to give evidence. But we see no reason for the law to embed a distinction between the processes that apply to Indigenous Victorians and those that apply to all other Victorians when it comes to handling royal commission evidence. The law already enables the minister to make closure orders for records that contain highly personal or sensitive information that must be kept private. Those laws are enough, and the government has not given any good reason for new privacy laws that are based on racial distinctions.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:03): I rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024, a bill which seeks to make some amendments with respect to data and records keeping to enable the operation of the Yoorrook Justice Commission, which is a groundbreaking process underway in this country being led by this state to get to the truth about past injustices and the ongoing impact of those injustices felt by the Aboriginal community here in Victoria.

Before I go into the detail of the bill I do want to take a moment to reflect both on why the Yoorrook process is important and on why it is important for us as members of this place to be doing all that we can to support its effective operation so that we can get to the truth that it seeks. The history of dispossession and injustice felt by Aboriginal Victorians should be well known to many in this place and many in the community. Sadly, it is not very well known to many, and part of the process that we as a community need to go through to better support our First Nations Victorians thrive in our community and overcome the injustices of the past is to understand what they were and how those actions impacted and continue to impact on Aboriginal Victorians.

I reflected at the earliest opportunity I had to speak in this chamber, at the beginning of 2023, on the special responsibility I feel that members of Parliament, particularly those sitting in this chamber, have to both understand and acknowledge the injustices of the past and commit ourselves to fixing them, because it was within these gilded walls that the laws were passed to enable the dispossession of Aboriginal people from their lands. The laws were passed through people who were only able to sit on these red benches because they had property that was the result of the dispossession of the first inhabitants of the land that we now call Victoria, and the laws that were passed here removing people from their connection to their land, removing children from their families and outlawing culture and language were passed by our predecessors on these benches without the input of Aboriginal Victorians, who did not have a say over the laws that were being put before this Parliament. I think we have all got an obligation when we consider the bill before us today and talk about voices and talk about classes of citizens to remember that the things we are trying to overcome, the things we are trying to acknowledge so we can begin to redress them, were done by this chamber without the input of, without the consent of and without any form of democratic connection to members of the Victorian community they directly affected – Aboriginal Victorians. That is the starting point for this debate – the history of dispossession in this state and the role that our predecessors in this chamber who sat here by dint of their propertied interests until the middle of last century had. That is where we start.

What the Yoorrook commission is designed to do is to shed light on those injustices of the past, to understand how the laws that we passed, the statutory office holders that we created and the empowerment of funding that we gave to various parts of the state apparatus here in Victoria impacted on dispossession and forcible removal and created criminal justice systems that discriminated against First Nations people here in Victoria. The Yoorrook commission is designed to put that truth on the table, and it is a remarkable thing that it has taken so long for it to start. It is even more remarkable that we have so many willing to come forward and share the pain and the anguish that they still feel, and the stories that Aboriginal Victorians have been willing to tell to the Yoorrook Justice Commission are doing our state a great service so that we can understand, we can learn and we can commit ourselves to creating a future with Aboriginal Victorians instead of for Aboriginal Victorians.

This bill today, which the opposition do not support, which they are opposed to, is about creating the necessary conditions in terms of the stories and the voices to enable that partnership to continue into the future. That is the crux of what we are at here today. That is the context of why we are here, not just because of this bill but because of the bills that came before it over the last 170-odd years of this chamber’s existence. Thinking about the failings of the past, we have got to think about what a better approach might be in the future. A fundamental principle of the Yoorrook justice inquiry has been that First Peoples here in Victoria must be able to engage with the truth-telling process on their self-determined terms.

At the heart of this legislation lies a simple and indisputable truth – that First Peoples can only truly thrive when they have the power to determine their own future. This concept of self-determination, which underpins things like Indigenous data sovereignty, is not a new idea, but governments across the country still struggle to put into practice this concept. We know from past inquiries that have exposed horrific injustices and practices – the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody is one, the Bringing Them Home report by the Australian Human Rights Commission is another – how challenging it has been for First Peoples to tell their truths. We know that many of the stories that the brave members of our community here in Victoria, our brave Aboriginal Victorians, have come forward and told to Yoorrook have never been heard in public forums before. And we know that Yoorrook’s work and the value of that commission rests on those stories being told so that we can hear them and others can hear them and we can learn and make decisions for the future.

What this bill seeks to do is to bring that principle of self-determination, which should underpin a successful partnership going forward, to life by ensuring that First Peoples have their own stories in the evidence they share with the Yoorrook Justice Commission. Part of the process that the commission went through to find ways to ensure that that truth-telling and storytelling can be done openly and honestly was for First Peoples to understand how the information that they were telling to the commission would be used once the stories had been told, both for the purposes of the commission and then at its conclusion. That is where the concept of Indigenous data sovereignty plays such an important role, which is the right of Indigenous people to own, control, access and possess data that derives from them and which pertains to their members, knowledge systems, customs, resources or territories. As a result of the extensive engagement that the Yoorrook commissioners did, they have sought this legislative change so that these choices are upheld by the state of Victoria once the commission ends its work at the end of June 2025. The changes will ensure that additional protection for First Peoples’ evidence so the commission can guarantee definitively that First Peoples who shared their truth will have choices about access and use of the evidence respected. This government, through this legislation, is respecting that request and supports the commission’s commitments by enshrining them in this bill.

The Inquiries Act 2014 is going to be amended to provide the commission with the power to make two types of orders, to either close or restrict access to certain records. One is an order to close records once the commission ends, and that will prevent First Peoples’ evidence being publicly available within the Public Record Office Victoria or via FOI requests, thereby preventing secondary access and use without the consent of the records’ authors – so without consent, use will not be available. At the very heart of self-determination and control over stories and truths is that the people who have those experiences get to decide. The second is a record order to restrict access to certain records once the commission ends. That will be a power to make records relating only to First Peoples’ evidence, so not about the other evidence that the commission is receiving from non-First Nations people – for example, by government representatives from other organisations. That public evidence from public sources – from public institutions, from governments and the like – will be available, but the records from First Peoples will not. That is due to the sensitive and personal nature of many of the accounts provided in the evidence. The reforms are about authors of the records retaining access in full, so people will still be able to access their own stories and records and be able to share or publish or copy or use the records in any way consistent with Victorian law.

The commission has provided first sets of reports, which have I think shone a very stark light onto some of the issues that still confront Aboriginal Victorians and which contain some pretty harrowing accounts of dispossession and injustice. It is due to provide two more reports and has a collection of evidence from elders, ministers and leaders from across the community on the website. The process that got us here has been one of engagement and consultation. The Yoorrook Justice Commission has engaged with members of the First Nations community and with the First Peoples’ Assembly. It has also worked with the public record office to ensure that the provisions in the bill align with other legislative requirements. Drafts of the bill were also shared with the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner and the First Peoples’ Assembly for their feedback.

The reports from the Yoorrook Justice Commission will serve as important historical documents, but they will also serve as important building blocks for the work that the government is doing as we move towards treaty. Truth-telling is an important part of the treaty process. It is an important way that we acknowledge where we are and what has happened in the past and the ongoing effects of those actions. It also provides us with guidance on how and where the treaty-making process should embark upon the issues that need to be addressed, because it has been a long journey since colonisation here in Victoria for Aboriginal Victorians, and there is so much that has happened in terms of systemic exclusion from opportunity and in terms of dispossession and discrimination.

The bill today plays an important role in ensuring that the work of the Yoorrook Justice Commission has that truth on the table. It allows the principles of self-determination to be put into practice so that the stories that are being told, the truths that are being told, remain within the control of those who are telling them – so that they have the ability and the power over their stories and their lives. So many, for so long, were disempowered by the laws that were made in the state of Victoria by those who stood in this chamber before us. We have an opportunity by supporting this bill today to take another step towards righting some historical wrongs, supporting the principles of self-determination and getting closer to truth. I commend the bill to the house.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:18): I am pleased to stand and make a contribution to this bill, the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024. At the outset I should say that it is sad and regretful that this bill is in the chamber. I must say that, increasingly, this divisive type of bill is not the way that we should be proceeding. This bill sets up two classes of Victorians and treats them inherently differently, and I think this is a deep problem. We just had a large national vote last year where people sought to treat people in different ways. That was obviously not successful in changing the national constitution, but I think there was a very clear vote, including in Victoria. The vote was very clear. It was a 55–45 vote in Victoria, and people took the view on the Voice and the inherent nature of the way the Voice was treated as the wrong step for our nation.

I must say that the idea of locking records away for 99 years is something that I think would concern most Victorians. I do not think most Victorians want to see this kind of secrecy. I do not believe most Victorians want to see our records locked up. They want to see greater transparency. The Yoorrook Justice Commission is meant to be about transparency, and yet we are introducing right at the heart of it a proposal that is the opposite of transparency.

The main provisions of the bill seek to empower the commission to issue orders to close records from public inspection for up to 99 years. This applies exclusively to evidence provided by Aboriginal individuals. It allows that restriction of access to records may include some changes to that, with viewing at designated locations, and prohibitions will be there on copying and photocopying and restrictions on sharing of copies. The access terms for restricted records will be by designated personnel and oversight entities and for purposes specified by the commission, such as maintenance or preservation.

The bill provides that the transferring of records can occur to the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Public Records Office, and it requires custodians to comply with closure or restriction orders. When it comes to authors, it ensures that authors who have provided evidence retain access to their evidence. It puts a number of definitions in place for closure or restriction. Orders cannot be applied where evidence is provided on behalf of organisations or bodies. There is compliance required with commission orders. It requires the keeper of public records to manage records according to closure or restriction orders. When it comes to access for specific purposes, permits can be issued for access for archival preservation, legal obligations and specific purposes outlined by the commission. When it comes to the duration of restrictions, it specifies that closure and restriction orders can last up to 99 years.

This is enormous power. It is not a transparent approach. It is an approach that actually restricts access in an unhelpful way, and this is already being used by government. I am in the midst of a freedom of information request with the Department of Premier and Cabinet where many of these matters are being cited as reasons not to release information from ministerial briefs. I am in possession, for example, of a brief signed by Gabrielle Williams on 10 February 2023, a proposed government response to the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s Indigenous data sovereignty recommendation. The use of section 30(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, that this is working document and its release is not in the public interest, is claimed on analysis – it is claimed on recommendations that the minister has actually signed off on. ‘Improve in-principle support for the commission’s recommendation 1’ – the reason why the minister signed off on that is being contested. I mean, this is truly bizarre, and it is truly part of a decision to restrict information.

The key reasons in the brief include ‘The commission recommended legislating changes for post-inquiry treatment of records’, and for recommendation 2 the chamber can see the size of the redaction is most of the page. This is a Gabrielle Williams brief and a decision to claim under 30(1) huge slabs of material.

Page 6 of the brief also has similar claims. On page 7 of the brief further reasons are listed, and there are massive points under 30(1) again – restrictions on information and an attempt to close down the community from being able to see the decisions the government has made. There has been a widespread decision here, a broad decision, to deny access to this information. What we also know is that there is another brief that is in dispute in a similar way: the interim agreements under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act. This was signed by Daniel Andrews on 10 October 2022. So just a smidgen before the state election he signed a set of recommendations, 1 and 2. Both were approved, so they were not just recommendations; they were actions that he had approved: ‘Go ahead. Do this.’ This is the approval of two interim settlement agreements with the Dja Dja Wurrung and the Wotjobaluk peoples under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010. These significant restrictions go through into a focus on a section which deals with the Treasurer’s involvement in the settlement packages. Again, we are not allowed to see how taxpayers money is being spent in Victoria. It is a reasonable thing to ask, where potentially millions of dollars of taxpayers money – we do not know the amount, because they will not release these points – has been signed over in agreements in the death knock before the election in 2022. We are now in 2025, and the government is still fighting and fighting and fighting to stop the release of this basic information. The brief says:

All funds are held in central contingency and can be released subject to approval of final offers by the Treasurer and yourself.

…

1.4 Settlement packages are within approved envelopes

…

2.1 Both packages commit to negotiating LUAAs …

These are land use activity agreements specifically, and those details are also redacted. Now we know in this case that some of those land use agreements relate directly to Mt Arapiles and the Grampians. We know that those land use agreements have actually seen the restriction of access to important climbing areas. It is clearly in the public interest for that sort of information to be available for the broader community to see. It is clear, for example, that the recommendations here should have been able to be seen, and it is clear too about a number of these points. It says:

The Attorney-General has written to the Treasurer and yourself seeking your agreement to final offers of an interim settlement package –

for those particular groups –

… Packages are interim as some outstanding matters are intended to be negotiated further in 2023 … that includes an Interim Community Benefits Formula, which is being reviewed in the context of compensation principles …

Make no mistake about what is going on here: this is an attempt to deny the community the right to see what is happening with its land – with the land that is owned by all Victorians and is in trust for all Victorians. It is not right that secret deals are made and the full details are not available. The reasons that the government made these deals are not available either, whether it was by Daniel Andrews or in the case of that earlier brief that I pointed to, where Gabrielle Williams would not come clean on the basis for decisions that she made on this very bill and the decision to support a particular set of recommendations by the Yoorrook Justice Commission.

As I say, I have a clear view that there should be support for those in need and particular Indigenous communities, but at the same time there should not be legal arrangements that really divide one Victorian from another. In the case of places like Mt Arapiles this is becoming a very, very divisive outcome. I have had a number of conversations with key rock-climbing groups. There is really significant tourist impact that is occurring. There is significant impact on towns like Natimuk. You have got to ask the question: what does the government have to hide? Why will it not come clean on a number of these points? Why will it not come clean? The community is entitled to know. Taxpayers are entitled to know. Voters and people in our democracy are entitled to see open government rather than secret government. Secret government sees information locked away, information blocked and freedom-of-information requests dealt with. I mean, the government is meant to be a model litigant. The government is not a model litigant in this state; the government fights tooth and nail to prevent the release of embarrassing information. I can only conclude that this information is detrimental to the government’s arguments and detrimental to the government’s position and that that information is embarrassing in some way to the government. And in that sense I think the community has a right to be very angry with this government and its secret approaches.

The nature of this bill, though, I believe actually strongly mitigates against the ability to do proper family and other history. It will prevent a number of people actually seeing parts of their history and their communities’ history. I think that these decisions are much more complex than has been made out by the justice commission, and I think that the coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, have taken the right position in opposing this bill.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:31): I also rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024. Before I begin my remarks I just want to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, whose land we are gathered on today. I wish to pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging and to any elders who may be with us today and also those who perhaps may be watching us via the live stream. I also just want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Sheena Watt, the fantastic member for Northern Metropolitan Region, as a proud Yorta Yorta woman. I am really proud to be a colleague of hers and to be working with her in this place.

I have had the benefit of listening to some of the contributions in this chamber, and we have had a lot of discussion about things that have nothing to do with this bill today. It is always a shame that some of the contributions from those opposite are all about hatred and division. Even though this bill is actually something to do with information and who controls it, they will always take the opportunity to go low, which is very predictable. Nevertheless, I am going to talk about what this bill actually does rather than going to different areas to try and whack the government about ridiculous things.

What this bill does is it amends the Inquiries Act 2014 and the Public Records Act 1973 to ensure that the Yoorrook Justice Commission can fulfil its obligation under its letters patent to uphold Indigenous data sovereignty principles in relation to First Peoples’ evidence at the commission. It also makes other minor amendments to the Inquiries Act to clarify the requirement for the treatment of records of a royal commission, board of inquiry or formal review that has ceased to exist in accordance with current practice. The Allan Labor government and predecessor Labor governments have done a lot in working with First Nations people to give voice and effect to what they deemed appropriate.

The Yoorrook Justice Commission has done a significant amount of work in coming to the conclusions it has about what it needs and what it recommends should happen with information that is brought forward as part of any truth-telling process. Consequently what needs to occur is for people to feel confident and comfortable in coming forward to speak openly and honestly about their experiences of injustice and colonisation. The commission engaged with First Peoples about their choices on how the information that they provide during any processes is to be treated by the commission after its life. The Yoorrook Justice Commission defined Indigenous data sovereignty as a right of Indigenous Peoples to own, control, access and possess data which derive from them and which pertain to their members, knowledge systems, customs, resources or territories. That is significant because this has come from our First Nations people themselves, and again you got to remember the information that has been provided has come from a place of trauma arising from colonisation and other traumas that they have experienced – dispossession – and it is important that they have a level of control over the information that is provided.

The commission under its letters patent is required to uphold Indigenous data sovereignty via the following principles: (1) accommodating to the extent possible First Peoples’ choices in how they wish to participate, including their rights to free, prior and informed consent at all stages of participation; and (2) upholding the sovereignty of First Peoples over their knowledge and stories by consulting with them on how the information they provide should be treated and ensuring adequate information and data protection. To me, as somebody who is not an Indigenous person, certainly those principles seem pretty clear and also enshrine principles of an approach that is trauma informed, and we need to recognise the significant trauma that has been carried for many, many decades by our Indigenous people.

Consequently, as a result of this extensive engagement, the commission has sought legislative changes so that those choices are upheld by the state of Victoria once the commission ends on 30 June 2025. These changes will ensure adequate protections for First Peoples’ evidence so that the commission can guarantee definitively that First Peoples who have shared their truth will have their choice about access and the use of their evidence and that that is respected. So not only is it trauma informed, it also gives a sense of control, because there is nothing worse than having information or evidence that has been provided in good faith being weaponised and used against people, and what we have seen in this current political environment is that in fact that does happen. It is very sad. It is very disappointing that, as I said, those opposite and their federal counterparts, state counterparts and other friends choose to go low, disregarding the trauma and the loss of control felt by those people who have given evidence with the best of intentions. To then have that weaponised against them really is despicable, and those opposite deserve to be condemned for doing so.

The bill relates to the treatment of records created by First Peoples and submitted to Yoorrook after the commission winds up, as I have said, and currently under the Inquiries Act 2014 the commission is required to transfer records to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, who will then transfer them to the Public Record Office Victoria. Under the Public Records Act records are open for public access unless they are closed by the relevant minister. Existing legislation contains protections for personal and private information, which will apply to all records of evidence provided to the commission, but under the Public Records Act the Minister for Government Services can declare records to be personal or private and not available for public inspection. So this provides a level of protection for those people who may be giving evidence or have given evidence. For instance, at the moment these existing protections under the Public Records Act are discretionary and revocable or dependent on the administrative decisions of individual decision-makers employed by the government. For instance, under the Public Records Act, section 9, the Minister for Government Services is able to declare records to be personal or private and not open for public inspection for a specified period. However, this is again a discretionary power, and a declaration can be revoked at any time. It also does not prevent access through FOI. So under these current arrangements there is no guarantee that First Peoples’ choices regarding future access and use of their evidence will be respected once the commission ends. As I said, there is a propensity from those opposite to weaponise any information that may have been provided, and again those who have already been traumatised will experience further retraumatisation, loss of control and weaponisation over these issues, which is shameful, and this is why our government needs to act. Again, this is being done on the recommendation of First Peoples.

To uphold the aspirations of the Aboriginal community members to control access to their evidence, their data and their information and the commission’s ability required to comply with Indigenous data sovereignty requirements under the letters patent, the commission has made two recommendations to the government. Recommendation 2 of its Yoorrook with Purpose report recommended legislative reforms to protect First Peoples’ confidential information provided to the commission, and that was to:

… urgently progress the necessary legislative changes to enable the implementation of First Peoples’ choices about how the information they provide to Yoorrook is to be stored, accessed and used in the future

Also recommendation 45 of its Yoorrook for Justice report recommended further reforms to extend these protections to all confidential information provided to the commission. It was to:

… legislate to create new statutory protection for public records that ensure that information shared on a confidential basis with Yoorrook will be kept confidential for a minimum of 99 years once Yoorrook finishes its work and its records are transferred to the Victorian Government.

The reforms contained here in the inquiries amendment bill address the Yoorrook with Purpose recommendation in full and the component of the Yoorrook for Justice recommendation which relates to First Peoples’ evidence.

Now we need to progress with this bill to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to protect First Peoples’ records and uphold First Peoples’ choices prior to the commission ending on 30 June 2025, so it is timely that we have this bill before us today and that we act in order to give effect and give force to the recommendations of the Yoorrook commission. It is something that they have sought because they have undertaken extensive consultation with those people who have provided evidence to the commission but also to provide self-determination to First Peoples over their information, their evidence and their data that is being gathered as a consequence of the royal commission. It takes a Labor government to do that.

We know those opposite, and I said earlier in this speech I have listened to the contributions made by Mr Davis and Ms Bath and others. Again what we see is a focus on division rather than coming together to promote social cohesion. We are proud to be able to give effect to the voices of our First Nations people, and it takes Labor government to do that. Those opposite should be ashamed – absolutely ashamed.

As I said, this is the first time in Victoria that we are legislating protections of this kind for Indigenous data sovereignty. The Inquiries Act will be amended to provide the commission with the power to make two types of orders: to either close or restrict access to certain records. That is a power that can be exercised by the commission and by our Indigenous peoples. Firstly, there is a record order to close certain records once the commission ends; that is a power that they will have. A record closure will prevent First Peoples’ evidence being publicly available within the Public Record Office Victoria or via a freedom-of-information request. We know it is a favourite of those opposite to continually lodge freedom-of-information applications or other ridiculous applications to get access to information so they can weaponise it. This is thereby preventing secondary access and use of a record without the consent of the record’s author.

John Berger: That’s true.

Sonja TERPSTRA: That is absolutely true. I know Mr Berger would absolutely agree with me. How many days do we come in here and every other day there is some kind of production of documents recommendation or talk about an FOI application? It happens every day.

A record restriction order will provide for some records to be made available for restricted viewing within the public records office subject to terms and conditions set out therein by order of the commission in line with the wishes of the record’s author. It is a great process, because the commission will consult with the owner or the creator of that data or that information, thereby consulting directly with the person who is affected and protecting them from the weaponisation that we know comes from those opposite and those who want to continually make First Nations issues ones of division.

Record orders are for a period of 99 years – this is something that the commission will have power to do – in line with other provisions for personal and private information under the Public Records Act. This is a protection for First Nations people who have given evidence at Yoorrook that records subject to closure or restriction orders will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The power to make record orders relates to First Peoples’ evidence. It relates only to their evidence, and the commission will not be able to restrict access to evidence from non-Aboriginal people, government representatives or organisations. Again, that is something that is lost on those opposite. They will complain about not being able to have access to information for the sole purpose – what they want over there is to weaponise it, and it is a disgrace. It is a thorough disgrace. Again, this is due to the sensitive and personal nature of many of the accounts provided in the evidence by Indigenous people to the Yoorrook.

At their centre these reforms are about authors retaining access to their records in full even after a closure or a restriction order is made. The author will also retain the right to share, publish, copy or use the record in any way consistent with Victorian law, and again, the bill gives the author, the publisher and the owner of the information power over the information that they have created.

I think I have got about a minute left on the clock, so I might conclude my remarks there. I know there will be a few other speakers on this matter. But just before I do, it is a proud moment that I as a member of the Allan Labor government can speak on this bill today. It may be seen by some as a small thing in giving people power and, I guess, ownership over how they create their information, but it is important. We have listened to the Yoorrook commission. Consequently, I will conclude my remarks there, and I commend this bill to the house without amendment.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:46): I rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024. The bill takes important steps to futureproof how information gathered through the commission is sorted, accessed and used once its inquiries are concluded. Data sovereignty is the right of a group to own, control, access and possess information or data that has derived from them, and for First Nations people in particular data sovereignty acknowledges the importance of sovereignty over knowledge systems, customs and resources within the context of colonialisation. Because for a long time data on First Nations people has largely focused on narratives of deficit, building a picture of disadvantage and difference rather than uniqueness and strength, inevitably these datasets have spurred paternalistic policies that ignore Indigenous agency and work against efforts towards self-determination. I would echo the sentiment of my colleague Anasina Gray-Barberio’s contribution and congratulate the government on implementing this important commission recommendation.

But the Yoorrook Justice Commission requires that the government fulfils more than just one of its recommendations every 12 months or so. While the commission is a platform for truth-telling, its ultimate aim is to build a foundation for a new type of relationship between First Peoples and all Victorians, one that does away with the paternalism of dominant Western systems. In order to achieve this we need to move away from solely speaking of self-determination and towards taking action – action that is determined by First Nations, like the 45 unprogressed recommendations of Yoorrook. There is much to be said about what was handed down by Yoorrook in 2023 on the child protection and criminal justice systems and the disappointment that was felt by many when the Victorian Labor government refused to accept all but four recommendations in full.

I will not rehash these disappointments. Instead I want to quickly touch on what we heard during hearings last year with the hope that the government will not repeat its mistakes. Over the first part of last year Yoorrook heard from witnesses regarding injustices faced by First Peoples in land, sky and waters. For those who witnessed the land, sky and waters hearings, whether online or in person, the testimonies were incredibly powerful. In 1834 Edward Henty landed on the coast near what is now Portland, thereby commencing the illegal occupation of Victoria. From that time on, First Peoples endured massacres, the forcible removal of land and the denial of culture and ancestral relationships that are intimately linked to country. The commission also heard that despite the brutality of occupation, many First Nations retained a strength in culture and country, a bind that has been uncut to this day. We heard of the ancient waterways of Tae Rak, the songlines of Gariwerd and the ecosystems of the Birrarung. This enduring connection to the country has been a source of strength, despite the profound impacts of land injustices on First Peoples. While colonists gained their wealth from illegal occupation, precious ecosystems were destroyed and First Peoples received very little in the way of land returned.

I was particularly captured by the testimonies of Dr Katie O’Bryan, Dr Erin O’Donnell, Will Mooney and Karmen Jobling with regard to water rights. We heard testimony of the Echuca declaration, a groundbreaking document released as part of the Water is Life framework. The declaration sets out each nation’s relationship with water and the local impacts of aqua nullius, the theft of water without acknowledgement of existing Indigenous sovereignty. When contrasted to the Water Act 1989, the Echuca declaration shows us just how far Western uses for water, which is treated like a resource to be extracted for human use and exploitation, have come from water understood as a life force for First Nations. The commission also heard that the water market is completely inaccessible for First Nations looking to realise their right to water ownership. The commodification of water through Western systems has resulted in a steep increase in water prices to the point where an investor no longer needs to own land to own a water share. Instead superannuation companies and overseas investors are buying big in the water market to secure their fortunes. Across Victoria traditional owner organisations own a mere 0.18 per cent of water entitlements, despite the fact that entitlements across the whole Murray–‍Darling Basin account for $35 billion of settler wealth. There is no clear pathway to surface water access rights for traditional owners, and direct funding to purchase these rights via the water market is long overdue. The current position of this government is that it will not establish a direct water entitlement purchase program for traditional owners, and this clearly needs to change.

Finally, I want to take a moment to touch on a key theme from the testimonies on health as part of hearings into social injustices. Colonialisation and forced displacement denied First Nations connection to country and shattered existing systems of Indigenous spiritual, physical and psychological wellbeing. These initial years of colonisation, often involving the forcible relocation into missions, were the first experiences of what would become a series of injustices now understood as systemic racism. I want to briefly quote from Aunty Jill Gallagher, who explained:

For generations, Aboriginal individuals were subject to a system of healthcare marked by colonial control. Picture the mission hospitals. These institutions were not places of healing … [Mission hospitals] were symbols of oppression where Aboriginal individuals were subject to standards of care and denied dignity that they deserved.

But to this day First Nations communities and the health services that represent them, such as Aboriginal community controlled health services, are still experiencing this colonial control. Aboriginal community controlled health organisations remain under-resourced and under-recognised, despite the essential part they play realising a holistic approach to health and wellbeing in their communities. Funding models are siloed, separating health care from housing and from mental health and parenting support despite the recognition that all are inextricably linked. Some ACCHOs have hundreds of touchpoints with government, resulting in an oppressive system of top-down paternalism despite the government’s outward commitment to self-determination.

Whilst I am not in a position to pre-empt the commission’s recommendations from these hearings, I do understand that treaty will play an important role in enabling much of what will be handed down. I also recognise that many of the mechanisms, such as ACCHOs, already exist to fulfil self-determination; they just need to be properly resourced. So it would be remiss of me not to implore my colleagues in this chamber to consider what Yoorrook and treaty can mean for the shared humanity of all Victorians. It is my hope that this legislation is the first of many on the journey to realising true self-determination for First Nations. It is long overdue.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:53): I would like to acknowledge the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land on which we stand today and pay my respects to traditional owners, their culture and elders past and present. I also want to acknowledge any Aboriginal people here – my colleagues – and any other Aboriginal people that are here in the building today or in the parliamentary precinct and also any Aboriginal people or First Nations people who are perhaps viewing this debate online. In particular I also would like to acknowledge the Indigenous owners of south-west Victoria, where I grew up, the Eastern Maar and the Gunditjmara people. The Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation describe themselves in the following way:

The Eastern Maar are Traditional Owners in south-western Victoria. Our land extends as far north as Ararat and encompasses the Warrnambool, Port Fairy and Great Ocean Road areas. It also stretches 100m out to sea from low tide.

Eastern Maar is a name adopted by the people who identify as Maar: Eastern Gunditjmara, Tjap Wurrung, Peek Whurrong, Kirrae Whurrung, Kuurn Kopan Noot and Yarro waetch, or the Tooram tribe, amongst others.

I also want to acknowledge the Gunditjmara people from Portland and areas including Heywood, Tae Rak and other areas in the south and western parts of the state. The Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation webpage has a really powerful statement, and I think it is very pertinent to this bill that we are talking about today. It says, among other things:

We are committed to Aboriginal self-determination and supporting strong, safe, thriving Aboriginal communities and aim to ensure every individual is treated with dignity, honoring all cultural backgrounds, abilities, ethnicities, sexual orientations, gender identities and spiritual beliefs.

This is exactly the intent of this bill, which applies those values of respect and self-determination to the publication of the Yoorrook commission’s most sensitive and personal stories, which inevitably involve trauma.

I have been uplifted by my colleagues in this chamber, listening to their contributions and their perspectives on why this piece of legislation is so important and admiring the contributions that I have heard. But I also feel really sad to hear contributions that by way of their presentation are nothing other than divisive and demeaning towards Aboriginal people but also completely misinterpreting or mis-telling what this bill is intended to do. So I have had mixed feelings as I have sat in this chamber and listened this afternoon. I think it is incredibly flawed to argue that this bill compromises equality when you had such a brilliant argument from my colleague Mr Batchelor, arguing so clearly that this chamber perpetrated a lot of those inequalities by decisions made with people sitting in these red chairs, as he said, who could only be here because they owned land they took off Aboriginal people. So when we say that every human being is equal in the eyes of the law – everybody is treated equally – we have got a long way to go before we actually achieve that equality. We have a lot of structures and systems that we need to fix within the legal system in order to achieve that. There is nothing better than my colleague Ms Purcell’s contribution on the arrest rates and the number of challenges that Aboriginal people face in this state disproportionately compared to non-Aboriginal people as brilliant evidence of the lack of equality in our current system. That is what we are doing now; we are taking a step-by-step process to redress that. It will be a long journey, and this entire chamber will be long gone before the task is finished, I am sad to say, but that does not mean we should not take that pathway and get on with the job.

In relation to the Yoorrook commission, which is Australia’s very first truth-telling inquiry into historic ongoing systemic injustice experiences for First Peoples since colonisation, that is exactly what the task of this bill is. It is a critical part of this government’s work in its pursuit of treaty. It is also a critical part in achieving equality within our legal system. In November 2024, last year, Victoria’s treaty negotiations began. It was a historic moment and it was a journey of eight years to get to that, to even begin, so that was a fantastic point to get to. Truth-telling is a really essential part of the fundamental principle of the inquiry and taking that journey through to treaty. If we do not fully listen to what happened in the past, how can we actually look at restructuring to be more inclusive and strengthen our whole state? That is what Aboriginal communities tell us. That is what that document on the website that I just quoted tells us that they want: strength for all of us, betterment for all of us in Victoria through the treaty process.

Self-determination comes in so many shapes and sizes and so many forms. Last year we dealt with self-determination from the child protection perspective – again, one step along the way – involving engagement and listening from all of the different perspectives. Here we are with the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s recommendations about the treatment of the very people’s stories that they have bravely come forward to tell, and those stories must be in some cases so horrific and so retraumatising that they do not want to come forward unless they know that they can be safe as people, that they can feel comfortable and protected in telling their stories. That is a familiar scenario for me as a former Centre Against Sexual Assault counsellor, where creating that safe place is very, very important – a sense of trust, in a way, for the commission, which after all is a colonial structure. It is not an Aboriginal justice system structure; it is a colonial or a colonisers or a settlers structure, so it is already generous that they are willing to participate through that, using that structure to tell their stories.

Yoorrook was set up by agreement between the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and the Victorian government but does operate independently of both and is led by five commissioners, and I would like to acknowledge the work of those commissioners and all of the staff in the Yoorrook commission, because like many royal commissions, not dissimilar to a royal commission, the stories that you hear in these hearings can be incredibly traumatic. It is the work of the commissioners to listen to those stories and ensure that they are documented and analysed and then recommended about appropriately. That can be incredibly draining and exhausting work, so I do appreciate the work that is being done in that space.

The Yoorrook commission has a number of tasks. It is to establish an official public record of the impact of colonisation on First Peoples of Victoria – which is one line, isn’t it; it is just one simple line but incredibly complex – develop a shared understanding among all Victorians of the impact of colonisation as well as the diversity, strength and resilience of First Peoples cultures; and make recommendations for healing, system reform and practical changes for laws, policy and education as well as matters to be included in future treaties. Yoorrook could not achieve its purpose without evidence from First Peoples. In these circumstances First Peoples’ evidence to the commission has shown to be much more likely to contain traumatic information than evidence from non-Aboriginal people.

As I said, we first need the confidence of Aboriginal people to come forward and tell their story. For these reasons the commission engaged with First Peoples about their choices on how the information they provide will be treated by the commission during and after its life. As a result, the commission will extend First Peoples’ control over their own stories and evidence shared with the commission beyond the end of the commission’s term. To do this the commissioners called for legislative change so that those choices are upheld by the state of Victoria. They have asked us to back them in in telling their story. This will be achieved in line with the Indigenous data sovereignty principles, which have already been debated in this chamber today. The commission has articulated IDS as the right of Indigenous peoples to own, control, access and possess the data that derive from them and which pertain to their members, knowledge systems, customs, resources or territories. Everybody has a right to control information about themselves in most circumstances. This is one way that we can show respect to our First Nations people during a period in history where the trauma of the past is being relived. The least we can do is provide some level of protection that they themselves have asked for.

The practicalities of a traditional commission where information goes to premiers and then goes to Information Victoria are part of a sequence of issues that this bill proposes to change. It further amends the Public Records Act 1973 to ensure the keeper of public records complies with these commission record orders. It has been informed by extensive consultation through the Yoorrook Justice Commission to ensure that the bill meets the expectations of the commission and First Peoples, but there has also been consultation with the Public Record Office Victoria and the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner.

In closing I just want to say how proud I am that this is the next step in the journey towards treaty. I think that our whole state and all of the communities across our state will be stronger for this bill going through and the treaty process continuing, unlike the flipping from those opposite for political purposes. I find it very, very sad and a real low point for me in this chamber to see that kind of political game playing.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:09): Legalise Cannabis Victoria supports this bill. The bill is seeking minor amendments to the Inquiries Act 2014 and the Public Records Act 1973 to enable the Yoorrook Justice Commission to make orders to close or restrict access to certain records once the commission delivers its final report and wraps up. It is very simple. When a royal commission ceases to exist all of its records are transferred to the Department of Premier and Cabinet unless the Premier, by instrument, determines that they are to be transferred to another public office. Legislation already exists to protect the personal or private information of records of evidence provided to a commission. The Minister for Government Services has the power to declare records to be closed, and under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 certain documents that may disclose someone’s personal affairs can also be exempted from public access. These protections apply to evidence given to Yoorrook by non-Aboriginal witnesses. The only difference with Aboriginal witnesses is that rather than the minister having powers to close records, it gives the commission that power. It enables the author to retain full access to their records and provides for further instructions on the author’s death. This is a minor and fairly straightforward change, and it was a necessary condition for many of the Aboriginal people who gave evidence to be able to come forward and share their truths at the Yoorrook Justice Commission hearings.

I cannot see what the issue is. I reviewed the contributions from the opposition in the other place, and anyone would think that this minor change is going to cleave the state asunder. They say it is divisive and discriminatory – that it is one law for us and another law for them. What palaver. The bill is not talking about creating two laws. It is a small change within one law. There is nothing controversial in saying that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have had a very different experience of living in this country to non-Indigenous people.

I do not need to catalogue the injustices and disadvantages that our First Peoples have experienced. One need only look at the evidence gathered at the Yoorrook hearings, not to mention the host of other royal commissions, inquiries, coroners findings, statistics and the evidence of our own eyes to appreciate the many harms our First People have suffered since European settlement and the specific ongoing traumas associated with colonisation that non-Indigenous people have never had to experience.

Historically, there have been many barriers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being able to tell their stories. This is a fact. The protections afforded by these amendments are a recognition of that fact. Aboriginal Victorians appearing before Yoorrook have rightly sought certain protections in order to tell their stories. In the past they have not been afforded these safeguards. Their stories have been misused or misrepresented or, all too often, simply disregarded. And the laws and customs of our First Peoples have not been considered much in the creation of the laws that govern this state.

I believe that this bill is a very small way that we can begin to redress that imbalance. As I mentioned, I spent a bit of time familiarising myself with the opposition’s contributions to this bill, and at best, their indignation about the division that this bill creates is I think a laughable notion, suggesting that it discriminates against and disadvantages non-Indigenous Victorians. Such an assertion is disingenuous at best.

Interestingly, though, I also did a bit of digging in Hansard on the introduction of the treaty process and the First Peoples’ Assembly. Those opposite opposed advancing the treaty process with Aboriginal Victorians back in 2018. They were very nervous about the whole idea, but in due course the opposition noticed that the state had not collapsed as a result of the First Peoples’ Assembly, an independent body operating within the Parliament. Certainly a few years down the track they were far more on board and expressed their support of the idea. I can even quote the honourable member for Northern Victoria, Ms Lovell, who stated:

The Liberals and The Nationals have publicly committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians to advance the treaty process in a way that supports self-determination and reconciliation while strengthening community and connection to country.

It was admirable, wasn’t it, to say that? I guess the question that then arises is: what could have possibly happened to now give the opposition the jitters and make them walk back from that commitment made only three years ago? The cynic in me believes that it perhaps has something to do with the results of the referendum, when their federal leadership successfully turned a 69 per cent approval of an amendment to the constitution to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice in the federal Parliament to a resounding no vote. Methinks the state opposition may have come to some realisation that stoking division and pandering to bigotry could be a vote winner – the old ‘Divide and rule.’ We have had a royal commission to investigate historical and ongoing injustices experienced by First Peoples in Victoria. We have had a First Peoples’ Assembly in operation for nine years now. We have been in the process of negotiating a treaty with our First Peoples since 2016. The state is still standing.

The arguments being advanced against this bill are, I fear, no more than fearmongering. Many non-Indigenous people submitted their views to the commission and requested that their submissions be private, and their wishes must be respected. A royal commission made up of Aboriginal people has been investigating systemic injustices against their people and has asked First Nations people to contribute to truth-telling, and it has asked for this small change in order to facilitate that truth-telling process. So what is the big deal? This is a small but important change and should be supported for the sake of those witnesses who bravely came forward and shared their experiences. Legalise Cannabis Victoria supports the bill and commends it to the house.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:16): I would also like to make a few comments on the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024. I will go through a few different subject areas. The first one I would like to address is around the concept of data sovereignty, which has been mentioned by many speakers. There is an entire framework embedded into the work of the Yoorrook Justice Commission related to what they have called Indigenous data sovereignty. There are aspects of this that sound good – around data and its use, respect, empowerment, self-determination and self-governance. As a Libertarian I like the sound of that. But let us on reflect on the actions of this Parliament in early 2023 when I tried to amend the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. I was not even able to introduce a requirement that consent should be required for a person’s own medical records. The government owns them, shares them as it deems fit, and you have no say, no opt-out – nothing whatsoever. The federal Parliament just last week passed reforms to the My Health Record system. While it is not as bad as the Victorian medical records scheme, it is not much better.

This goes to the heart of a concern that I have with this legislation. I agree with some of the arguments that have been made by the opposition in regard to this legislation. It is narrowly applied to only one group in society. I have seen this before in other areas of policy. Occasionally the government gets some things right in regard to laws and policies related to Aboriginal affairs, but my frustration is that the parts that work well are frequently not replicated for other communities or society as a whole. The ideas of sovereignty, privacy and empowerment of individuals or discrete groups are great principles, and I would love to see more respect for individual privacy for data transparency across the board. If these are values that the government want to prosecute, then I will cheer them on. But the idea of selectively applying rights to particular groups is not that at all.

With regard to the Yoorrook Justice Commission and their work, there is important work being done by the Yoorrook Justice Commission. Indigenous Victorians have a long history of activism and advocacy, historically to prevent harms by the state or individuals and then later to ensure equal rights to full participation in society and combat racism, discrimination or historical disadvantage. Another key aspect was to establish a truth and reconciliation commission to examine the full history of Victoria’s colonisation. This is a reasonable thing to examine, especially for Indigenous Victorians, and one would hope that this kind of thing could lead to true reconciliation. There are significant challenges though, and I will come to them shortly.

It does seem like we have ended up in a position with this legislation, however, because the commission made promises that the law at the time does not appear to have empowered them to make. Their second recommendation in the first interim report was essentially for the legislative changes that are before us today. But their fact sheet on protections for people who share information with Yoorrook, published after the interim report, states that Yoorrook could make orders restricting access to information that is shared – seemingly not unless the chamber passes this legislation before us today. I would also like to make a few comments on Indigenous affairs more broadly in this state. We have a problem. The direction of the First Peoples’ Assembly and Indigenous affairs more generally in Victoria is increasingly coming into conflict with the desires, access and practices of other members of the Victorian community – for example, around land access currently playing out at Mount Arapiles. This is a bit of a theme. Self-determination for Aboriginal Victorians seems to be interpreted as the ability to control aspects of other people’s lives – which rocks they can climb, where they can fish or hunt – thereby limiting the self-determination of other Victorians. At Mount Arapiles this involved the local Aboriginal land council celebrating the fact that a draft management plan had effectively handed over control of the majority of Australia’s most popular rock climbing site to them. I do not see this as self-determination at all; it is simply using the government to get your way.

Self-determination is at the core of my party’s philosophy. As Ayn Rand famously stated:

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Everything that I do and say in this place is in defence of individual rights. It is the reason I am here. If there are laws and policies that are preventing Indigenous Victorians from exercising individual rights that they feel are important, as long as they do not deprive anyone else of their rights or property, then I will be happy to advocate for them to change, not just for Aboriginal people but for any Victorian who might be suffering from the same imposition of the state.

How do we get to true reconciliation so that Victorians, including Aboriginal Victorians, can feel proud to fully participate in society and be valued for their contribution? Well, I do not think we will get there through secret negotiations and stitching up deals with the government. The Barengi Gadjin Land Council have seemed incredibly reluctant to participate in discussions with other stakeholders in Natimuk to figure out a way for everyone to feel satisfied with an outcome where everyone can flourish. I went down to visit this community. I could not imagine a community more willing to work on a solution that respected Aboriginal culture and the deep connection that rock climbers have to Mount Arapiles. This is probably a test case for reconciliation and collaboration. If the government cannot make it work there, then it is hard to imagine that it will be easy to make it work anywhere else in Victoria.

The First Peoples’ Assembly is supposed to be a voice to this Parliament. Well, I am a member of Parliament, and they do not seem to want to talk to me. I have not had so much as an email this term of Parliament and only a couple of contacts in my whole time here. It is not that I am disinterested in the wellbeing of Aboriginal Victorians. I have met with the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service many times. I consider them a critical stakeholder on many issues and read their frequent emails. It is not surprising to me that Victorians voted against a Voice to federal Parliament. We have something similar here already, and it is not really clear that they are doing much to highlight issues. They certainly do not write to me about them. As far as advocating for the needs of Aboriginal Victorians, from where I sit the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service does a far better job.

In regard to the bill that is before us today, I am sympathetic to what it is trying to do. From what I can tell, it fulfils a commitment related to information that the Yoorrook Justice Commission made around data, but I have concerns about the idea of legislating special rights for groups, especially when the track record around data for the rest of us in this state is so poor.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:23): I am proud to stand to speak in support of this bill today, the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024.

I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we are gathering and pay my respects to traditional owners, their culture and elders past and present. I acknowledge their strength, resilience and continued connection to their country. I particularly want to acknowledge Gunaikurnai and Bunurong peoples. I have a great relationship with them across Eastern Victoria, and I appreciate the time that they share with me and the positive and proactive contributions that they make to our communities.

As part of those contributions, some of the projects that the Gunaikurnai are involved in at the moment are across jobs, environment, tourism, native foods or clean energy. There is so much going on. There is currently a trial in Gippsland Lakes to reintroduce oyster farming. It reinvigorates culture. It is great for our marine environment and also for food tourism. We have also got the management of national parks across traditional lands, with the opportunities for work and the use of traditional practices. Recently the Wangun Amphitheatre has been built, which is a great meeting place at Forestec. I appreciate Daniel Miller and others there showing me and talking me through various projects they are working on.

The Victorian government is committed to true reconciliation, truth-telling and treaty with First Peoples. This can only occur by empowering and supporting Aboriginal people through self-determination. The Allan Labor government knows that true reconciliation begins with self-determination. That is why the Allan Labor government is bringing forward this legislation to ensure Aboriginal people who have bravely told their individual and family stories before the Yoorrook Justice Commission can self-determine what is done with that evidence and information.

The Yoorrook Justice Commission is a historic process, the first truth-telling inquiry of its kind in Australian history. Established by the Victorian government and the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria in 2021, the commission has been investigating historical and ongoing injustices experienced by First Peoples from the beginning of colonisation to the present day. The commission is being led by five commissioners, chair Professor Eleanor Bourke AM, Adjunct Professor Sue-Ann Hunter, Travis Lovett, Distinguished Professor Maggie Walter and the Honourable Anthony North KC. The commission has so far produced two interim reports, Yoorrook with Purpose in 2022 and Yoorrook for Justice in 2023. It will deliver a third and final report, which will include an official public record of the experience of First Peoples from colonisation to the present day by 30 June 2025, when the inquiry will conclude.

A fundamental principle of the inquiry has been that First People must be able to engage with the truth-telling process on their own self-determined terms. We know from other inquiries, particularly the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and Bringing Them Home, how challenging it is for First Peoples to tell their truths. Many of the stories that have been shared by First Peoples before Yoorrook have never been heard in such public forums before. Evidence from First Peoples is especially important to Yoorrook’s work. Yoorrook is investigating systemic injustices experienced by First Peoples and is required to produce an official public record based on First Peoples’ experiences and testimonies. It could not achieve its purpose without evidence from First Peoples. In these circumstances, First Peoples’ evidence to the commission has been shown to be much more likely to contain personal or traumatic information than evidence from non-Aboriginal people. For people to feel confident in coming forward to speak openly and honestly about their experiences of injustice and colonisation, the commission engaged with First Peoples about their choice on how the information they provide is to be treated by the commission during and after its life.

The Yoorrook Justice Commission has defined Indigenous data sovereignty as the right of Indigenous people to own, control, access and possess data that is derived from them and which pertains to their members, knowledge systems, customs, resources or territories. The commission is required under its letters patent to uphold Indigenous data sovereignty principles by accommodating, to the extent possible, First Peoples’ choices in how they wish to participate, including their rights to free, prior and informed consent at all stages of participation; upholding the sovereignty of First Peoples over their knowledge and stories by consulting with them on how the information they provide should be treated; and ensuring adequate information and data protection. As a result of this extensive engagement, the commission has sought legislative change so that those choices are upheld by the state of Victoria once the commission ends on 30 June 2025. These changes ensure additional protections for First Peoples’ evidence so that the commission can guarantee definitively that First Peoples who have shared their truth will have their choices about access and use of their evidence respected.

The bill relates to the treatment of records created by First Peoples and submitted to Yoorrook after the commission winds up. Currently under the Inquiries Act 2014 the commission is required to transfer its records to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, who then transfer them to the Public Record Office Victoria, PROV. Existing legislation containing protections for personal or private information will apply to all records of evidence provided to the commission. Under the Public Records Act 1973 the Minister for Government Services can declare records to be personal or private and not available for public inspection. These existing protections under the Public Records Act are discretionary, revocable or dependent on the administrative decisions of individual decision-makers employed by government. For instance, under the Public Records Act the Minister for Government Services is able to declare records to be personal or private and not open for public inspection for a specified period. However, this is a discretionary power and a declaration can be revoked at any time. It also does not prevent access through FOI. Under these current arrangements there is no guarantee that First Peoples’ choices regarding future access to and use of their evidence will be respected once the commission ends. To uphold the aspirations of Aboriginal community members to control the access to their evidence and the commission’s ability to comply with Indigenous data sovereignty requirements under the letters patent, the commission has made two recommendations to government. Recommendation 2 of its Yoorrook with Purpose report recommended legislative reforms to protect First Peoples’ confidential information provided to the commission, and stated:

That the government urgently progress the necessary legislative changes to enable the implementation of First Peoples’ choices about how the information they provide to Yoorrook is to be stored, accessed and used in the future.

Recommendation 45 of its Yoorrook for Justice report recommended further reforms to extend these protections to all confidential information provided to the commission and to:

… legislate to create new statutory protection for public records that ensure that information shared on a confidential basis with Yoorrook will be kept confidential for a minimum of 99 years once Yoorrook finishes its work and its records are transferred to the Victorian Government.

The reforms contained here in the inquiries amendment bill address the Yoorrook with Purpose recommendation in full and the component of the Yoorrook for Justice recommendation which relates to First Peoples’ evidence. We need to progress with this bill now to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to protect First Peoples’ records and uphold First Peoples’ choices prior to the commission ending on 30 June 2025.

This is the first time in Victoria that we are legislating protections of this kind for Indigenous data sovereignty. The Inquiries Act will be amended to provide the commission with the power to make two types of orders: to either close or restrict access to certain records. A record order to close certain records once the commission ends will prevent First Peoples’ evidence from being publicly available within the Public Record Office Victoria or via a freedom of information request, thereby preventing secondary access and use of a record without the consent of the record’s author. A record order to restrict access to certain records once the commission ends will provide for some records to be made available for restricted viewing within the PROV, subject to terms and conditions set out in the restriction order by the commission in line with the wishes of the record’s author. For example, a condition may be that the person viewing the record must not make a copy of the record. Record orders are for a period of 99 years in line with other provisions for personal or private information under the Public Records Act. Records subject to closure or restriction orders will be exempt from the FOI act. The power to make record orders relates only to First Peoples’ evidence. The commission will not be able to restrict access to evidence from non-Aboriginal people, government representatives or organisations. This is due to the sensitive and personal nature of many of the accounts provided in this evidence.

At their centre, these reforms are about authors retaining access to their records in full, even if a closure order or restriction order is made. The author will also retain the right to share, publish, copy or use the record in any way consistent with Victorian law. The bill also allows the author to provide inheritance instructions which specify that certain people or groups of people may have access to their records when they pass away – that is, access to their stories within those 99 years for their families and communities.

It is important to note that these are pieces of evidence of First Peoples’ experiences provided to the commission. They are often harrowing accounts of dispossession and injustice. All Victorians, all individuals and all organisations – even all of us – have had an opportunity to provide a submission to the Yoorrook Justice Commission. The commission is due to provide two more reports and has a collection of evidence from community members, elders, ministers and leaders from across Victoria and Australia, all public, on its website. What we are talking about here is a cohort of personal stories that are so sensitive and deeply traumatic for people that they need to determine who sees their deeply personal stories. We all need to respect their wishes, and this bill does that.

Records subject to closure orders will be withheld from public access for 99 years. Only authors or specified inheritors may access them. Authors, or specified inheritors after an author has died, will be able to access their records at any point. For records subject to restriction orders, members of the public will be permitted to view the records on a standalone PC at PROV’s archive centre in North Melbourne. However, these records will not be able to be copied or shared. The bill allows for an author’s inheritance instructions to be included in a record order. Authors may allow access by their immediate family, extended family, community et cetera. These instructions will be included in the commission’s record orders. PROV is then required to comply with these instructions in determining who may be entitled to access records following the death of an author. In the case where a record has multiple authors, inheritance instructions will only be applied when all the authors of the record are deceased. PROV has worked with the commission to develop an agreed approach to determining proof of entitlement to access a record. The agreed step-by-step process will enable PROV to manage requests for access from inheritors sensitively and effectively.

The bill also includes some minor amendments to section 124 of the Inquiries Act, which governs the transfer of records of royal commissions, boards of inquiry and formal reviews to PROV via Department of Premier and Cabinet. The current Inquiries Act requires that all inquiry records are to be transferred to PROV via DPC. However, DPC and PROV’s historical practice for handling inquiry records, which predates the Inquiries Act, may not be consistent with DPC’s obligations under the act because PROV, in accordance with the Public Records Act, only accepts records which are considered permanent – for example, of permanent value and suitable for retention as part of the state archive. Section 124 is therefore being amended so that this requirement to transfer all records to PROV as soon as practicable after their receipt is expressed as subject to the relevant standards issued by the keeper under the Public Records Act. This would mean that records identified as temporary do not need to be transferred to PROV and may be kept and disposed of by DPC in accordance with the relative standards issued by the keeper and any requirements specified by the inquiry. It should be noted that these provisions are in no way intended to be used for First Peoples’ records of evidence to the commission, which are of obvious permanent historical value. The legislation is being updated to align with current practice when distinguishing between permanent and temporary records. These changes to the Inquiries Act are emblematic of how the Victorian government is working with First Peoples, listening and taking real action, and with that I will close my remarks.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:38): It is only right that this Parliament, at the start of every sitting, acknowledge the traditional custodians as the first people of this land, and at the beginning of my contribution today I once again acknowledge them. I pay my respects to their elders past and present. I acknowledge their strength, their resilience and their continued connection to country, skies and waterways. I acknowledge that now is our time of truth being told – a long time coming after a long time of waiting. I also acknowledge the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples in the other place, the Honourable Natalie Hutchins, for her dedication and leadership. The work that she has led and her genuine engagement with me is something that I deeply value and that I will forever hold and treasure.

I stand here today with deep reverence for my own mob, who along with many other mobs across Victoria have carried the weight of history and the hopes of our future. Our ancestors paved the way for truth-telling and reconciliation, and I honour them for their sacrifices and I honour their strength. It is through them that I stand here today with a foot in both worlds: an elected member of Parliament and a First Nations person. I hear your truths because so many of them are mine too. The Allan Labor government is committed to truths and committed to reconciliation and self-determination for First Peoples. That is why we are progressing this bill, ensuring that Aboriginal people who have courageously shared their truth with the Yoorrook Justice Commission retain their right to self-determine how their evidence is treated now and into the future. The Yoorrook Justice Commission is the first truth-telling inquiry of its kind in Australia. It is historic, it is groundbreaking and it is long, long overdue. It was established in partnership with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, and the commission has been investigating the historical and ongoing injustices suffered by First Peoples from the time of colonisation to today. It has given voice to those whose stories were silenced for far too long.

The importance of this inquiry cannot be overstated. I just need to take a moment to acknowledge and honour everyone who has shared their story, shared their truths and dug up some histories in their family and in their community that were hard to tell. I thank you for changing the very fabric of our understanding of what it means to be a Victorian and to live here. I know that it is a bold thing, and to you, I say thank you. You are not alone in this. You follow the footsteps of so many before you. We have seen truth-telling processes right across the world, from South Africa to Canada. They pave the way for healing, reconciliation and systemic change in Victoria. While we are taking that step now, we have heard some harrowing, some powerful and some deeply personal stories through Yoorrook. Many of these stories have never been shared in public forums before. They are the sorts of stories that are spoken in hushed tones in quiet rooms, kept secret from anyone other than family. These are the stories of the lived experience of First Peoples. They are our stories, they are our pain and they speak to our resilience.

This legislation, the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024, provides some protections to ensure that First Peoples’ evidence is treated with the respect and care that it deserves. It is no small thing to make a contribution to a royal commission. It is no small thing to speak up and speak truth to generations and generations of suffering and pain. With this bill we are allowing for the commission to make record closure and restriction orders for a period of 99 years, preventing public access to evidence provided by Aboriginal people if it is their wish. For too long our histories were written by, well, not us – by governments, by institutions, by those who had never walked in our shoes.

Our stories so often are not our own. They are owned by government, by researchers and by anthropologists. This bill changes that. It ensures that the stories shared with Yoorrook remain on our terms, honouring the choices of those who have bravely come forward. This government is acting now and must do before the commission concludes its work on 30 June this year to ensure that these protections are in place. Without it, we are breaking the trust of those who have shared their stories. It is simply not an option.

For many who have already shared their stories, so much has already been taken. It is crucial that your own story, your own truth and your own family remain yours – the story of how you came to be there on the witness stand. As a First Nations person I know that sovereignty was never ceded. Sovereignty is not just about land or governance. It is about self-determination. It is about our identity. It is about control over our own stories. It is about ensuring that our voices, our experiences and our histories are told and preserved on our terms. This bill affirms that sovereignty. It acknowledges that Aboriginal people have the right to control their own information and how it is shared. It is a fundamental step in the process of truth-telling and treaty.

First Peoples can only thrive when they have the power to determine their own future. Truth-telling is a pillar of treaty. It is essential to addressing the systemic injustices that have plagued our people for generations. The Yoorrook Justice Commission has laid the foundations and the work must continue. Treaty negotiations, which formally began in November 2024, are the next step in the journey. It marks a decisive step towards Victoria’s treaty era, where First Peoples are the true experts in their own lives. They are placed firmly in the driver’s seat to make the decisions on the issues that matter most to them. Treaty is about recognition. It is about ensuring that First Peoples have a say over their health, education, housing and culture. It is about addressing historical wrongs and building a better future for all Victorians. This bill is part of a broader journey, one that demands actions not just words. Last week I visited the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria to discuss the path forward and how Yoorrook’s work of truth and justice creates a path towards treaty.

Can I take a moment now to address what was said across the chamber by those who oppose this bill, and I will start with Ms Bath, who argued that it creates two classes of citizens, echoing her colleague in the other place. Let me be clear, this bill does not discriminate, it provides protections for historically disadvantaged groups whose voices have been marginalised for far too long. These protections are a special measure under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and the RDA or Racial Discrimination Act 1975. It is right there for all to see. We have heard from Ms Bath that this legislation would create two classes of citizens. My people have not been treated as equal in this state in the past. It is true that our trauma is lasting. It has long contaminated government and public worldviews and perpetrated injustice.

The Yoorrook Justice Commission seeks to address this through truth, and this bill brings the principle of self-determination to life by ensuring that First Peoples have control over their own stories and the evidence they share with the Yoorrook Justice Commission. The commission’s power to issue record orders only covers First Peoples’ evidence. It does not constitute discrimination. Sorry, I am just so completely blown away by the falsehoods being spread across the chamber. Some have suggested that it prevents the scrutiny of records by the courts. That is simply not true. The bill contains provisions allowing records to be accessed by courts or integrity agencies where required, and to those that oppose the bill I ask: what is the alternative? What are the deeply held truths of our state that we must confront? Do we allow the deeply personal truths shared by First Peoples to be exposed to public scrutiny without their consent? Do we risk retraumatising those who have suffered already so much?

This bill is about respect. It is about trust, and it is about doing what is right. This bill is about justice. It is about ensuring that truth-telling is not just a moment in time but a permanent part of Victoria’s journey towards reconciliation. It is about ensuring that First Peoples retain the right to determine how their own stories are preserved. The Victorian government is committed to truth and treaty. We are committed to ensuring that this state leads the nation in recognising and upholding the rights of First Peoples. This bill is not just about legal protections. It is about respecting the choices of those who have so bravely shared their truths.

Those opposite might mention one elder or organisation. There are so many more that have a story worth listening to about Yoorrook, and I choose to listen to the 33 democratically elected representatives of the First Peoples’ Assembly. Why listen to one elder when you can listen to the elected representatives of Victoria’s First Peoples? Those opposite also quoted, what was it, the Productivity Commission stating that we are failing to close the gap. Let me assure you as somebody that was in the Parliament when this began – I sat up there in Canberra – that every state is failing. I have read this report every year and I have listened in as prime minister after prime minister gives their reports, and you know what? Failure is happening over and over again. So what happened? The Productivity Commission stood up and said maybe there is an answer here. What did they suggest? They suggested truth-telling and treaty. I think that may have been missed out in some contributions of those opposite, because it was the Productivity Commission that said that it is truth-telling and it is treaty that will help close the gap. I am very much a supporter of that finding, as are all of us on this side, I must say.

It is disappointing to me, so very disappointing, that not a single member of the Victorian Liberals in the Legislative Assembly had the decency to speak on the bill that they opposed. Rather than standing in solidarity with Aboriginal Victorians, the Liberals and the Nationals have chosen to turn their backs on what are really straightforward and reasonable requests. Aboriginal Victorians have shown immense courage in sharing their truths with the royal commission. These are not easy things to do. I cannot emphasise that enough. I think if we had some sort of finding about how many royal commissions Aboriginal people have faced – well, there have been many, and this latest one is a tough one, because you are not only telling your truth, you are telling the truth about your family and your ancestors. Yet the Liberals have denied them the basic respect of explaining why they were rejecting this bill. To me it is truly staggering that you can acknowledge the deep trauma endured by First Peoples in the contributions, yet when presented with a tangible opportunity to address that very trauma through this bill before us, they instead have used their position to block progress. I ask those opposite: if you are not prepared to listen to our stories, hear our pain and protect our people, how can you ever be trusted as an alternative government? You do not always have to agree with what people are telling you, but at least have the decency to hear and to listen, because First Nations people deserve the decency of at least understanding the reasons why you oppose this legislation.

I am going to finish on perhaps a much happier note, and that is quoting an esteemed leader, someone who I have acknowledged and had the great privilege of meeting on one very special occasion, probably the occasion where I first learned about data sovereignty. That was my meeting with the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a leader that I hold in the greatest esteem. He said to the South African truth and reconciliation commission:

We must not only speak about forgiveness and reconciliation, we must act on these principles.

So I ask my fellow members of this chamber to act on those principles. I urge you to support this bill, take a stand on the right side of history, stand with First Peoples and stand for truth, justice and reconciliation. Listen when they tell you what they want, and do not continue to make decisions for them. We have an opportunity today to do what is right. Let us not waste it. I, with that, commend this bill to the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the presence in the chamber of a visiting member of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, Mehmet Rüştü Tiryaki.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (16:53): I rise on behalf of the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples to sum up in relation to the Inquiries Amendment (Yoorrook Justice Commission Records and Other Matters) Bill 2024. I begin – as we do at the start of every day – by acknowledging that we meet on the lands of the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people and pay my respects to elders past and present and to Aboriginal people who may be participating in the proceedings of this house or indeed visiting this house. I acknowledge members of the First Peoples’ Assembly, who are also in the gallery, and I acknowledge the contribution in particular of Ms Watt.

I also seek to reiterate the comments of the members of this side of the house and many of those on the crossbench, that the Yoorrook Justice Commission is indeed a historic process. It is the first truth-telling inquiry of its kind in Australian history. I myself have had the immense privilege of giving evidence at the Yoorrook Justice Commission. A fundamental principle of the inquiry has been that First Peoples must be able to engage with the truth-telling processes on their own self-determined terms. When setting up the commission, we knew from other inquiries, particularly the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and Bringing Them Home, how challenging it is for First Peoples to tell their truths. Many of the experiences and the stories that have been shared by First Peoples before through this truth-telling process had never been heard in such public forums before. Yoorrook is investigating systemic injustices experienced by First Peoples. It is required to produce an official public record based on First Peoples’ experiences and testimonies. It could not achieve its purpose without gathering evidence from First Peoples. In these circumstances First Peoples’ evidence to the commission has been shown to be much more likely to contain personal or traumatic information.

This bill acquits relevant recommendations from the commission, as well as ensuring that relevant protections are in place so Aboriginal people can come forward to tell their truths. The bill does this by introducing a closure or restriction order which the commission can make on relevant records for a period of 99 years. These orders will be made on the relatively small number of records affected before the commission winds up on 30 June 2025. What we are talking about here is a cohort of personal stories and personal experiences that are so sensitive and deeply traumatic for people that they need to determine who sees their deeply personal stories and hears those experiences. We all need to respect their wishes, their self-determination, and this bill does that. There has been extensive consultation on the bill, including with the Public Record Office Victoria and Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, who will operationalise the bill. All of them support the bill.

In relation to some of the issues raised by those opposite, and in particular the issue of dealing with records based on race that has been raised in the debate, let me clarify. The position First Peoples are coming to the commission from is different from the rest of the community. First Peoples have experienced the dispossession of country from their language and culture. They have lived through the stolen generations and are over-represented in our criminal justice systems. This is unique to First Peoples. This is why their evidence may be particularly traumatic and difficult to share and why many may choose for it to be closed from public inspection once the commission closes. It is not a two-race system. We are using the same legislation to ensure equity exists for very sensitive records and that Aboriginal people get a say in how their records are dealt with.

There have been some remarks stating that these changes disadvantage or discriminate against non-Aboriginal people. This is incorrect. The commission’s power to issue record orders only over records of First Peoples’ evidence does not constitute discrimination under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 – the charter; the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 – the EO act; or the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The commission’s power is a special measure within the meaning of those acts. Under section 8(4) of the charter, measures taken for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination do not constitute discrimination. This is in recognition of First Peoples’ serious experiences of trauma and intergenerational trauma that are unique to them. These changes do not take away from non-Aboriginal people. We will all benefit because more Aboriginal people got to tell their stories to the Yoorrook Justice Commission.

Some speakers have put forward that the current measures in the acts being amended are adequate to deal with Aboriginal peoples’ concerns regarding giving evidence at a royal commission. Existing protections under the Public Records Act 1973 and the Freedom of Information Act 1982 are discretionary, revocable or dependent on the administrative decisions of individual decision-makers employed by government. For instance, under the Public Records Act, section 9, the Minister for Government Services is able to declare records to be personal or private and not open for public inspection for a specified period; however, this is a discretionary power, and a declaration can be revoked at any time. It also does not prevent access through FOI. The protections in this bill allow the commission to guarantee that First Peoples’ engagement with this historic truth-telling process will remain on their terms and that their choices as to how their personal information is used and treated will be upheld.

The issue of closing the gap has been referenced in debate. Even the Productivity Commission has told us that truth-telling and treaty are the way for governments to close the gap. The promotion of Indigenous data sovereignty is a priority reform under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This commits governments to change the way they work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and people in relation to data. This bill is the first time we are seeing Indigenous data sovereignty legislated in this way, furthering Victoria’s commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, again leading the way.

The issue of consultation has been raised, and the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, the democratically elected body representing Aboriginal people, have indicated their support for the bill. The truth-telling commission implementing these changes has worked on these changes with government, and these Aboriginal organisations support these minor changes. There have also been questions in the debate around whether these records can be scrutinised by the courts. Let me clarify this point. Courts can still access these records. Even where records are closed the bill provides pathways for access for specific purposes, including to enable the Department of Premier and Cabinet or the Public Record Office of Victoria to respond to court orders or integrity agency proceedings, for example the new section 52I(3)(d) and (g) of the Inquiries Act 2014 and the new section 10AAB(4)(d) and (g) of the Public Records Act.

I also want to restate that existing legislation containing protections for personal or private information will apply to all records of evidence provided to the commission. Under the Public Records Act 1973 the Minister for Government Services can declare records to be personal or private and not available for public inspection. Similarly, under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, documents which unreasonably disclose someone’s personal affairs may be exempt from public access. These protections may apply to personal or private evidence given to Yoorrook by non-Aboriginal witnesses. There should be no doubt that these protections remain.

These changes to the Inquiries Act are emblematic of how the Victorian government is working with First Peoples, listening and taking real action. The work to reform the Inquiries Act is a critical step on our pathway towards self-determination, ensuring that First Peoples’ choices as to how records of their evidence are treated once the commission ends are upheld. These minor but important reforms will ensure that First Peoples’ engagement with this historic truth-telling process is on their terms and that the commission can uphold the commitments it has made to respect their wishes as to how their evidence will be treated.

Whilst this government is looking at how we bring people together, those opposite are backflipping on their support for Victoria’s treaty. They are walking out on Aboriginal Victorians without a care on how it impacts on First Peoples, and they have done the same when it comes to this bill. Not one single member of the Victorian Liberals could even show the decency to speak on this bill that they opposed in the Legislative Assembly. Instead of standing alongside Aboriginal Victorians, the Liberals and Nationals have decided to turn their backs on this simple ask. Aboriginal Victorians have been so brave to share their truth at the royal commission, and the Liberals have denied them the respect to even explain why they are opposing this bill. It is astounding that those opposite will acknowledge the trauma of First Peoples, the trauma that they have endured and that they have spoken to in their contributions, but when an opportunity to address that trauma presents itself, such as this bill, they use their position to oppose progress. Those opposite continually say they want to work together to achieve change and close the gap. Well, where is their plan? In opposing this bill and opposing treaty, which are designed to work closely together, they are not working with us but against us and against Aboriginal Victorians.

We are getting on with delivering truth-telling and Victoria’s first treaty. We are seeking to close the gap and protect Aboriginal cultural heritage for all Victorians so that we can create a Victoria that we are all proud of. Instead of using this very simple and minor bill as an excuse to feed division and foster further inequities, I encourage those opposite to find the courage to support the rights and voices of First Peoples, who have told us what they want – to implement the recommendations through the legislative amendments before us today.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (17:10)

Minister, if it serves you, I will just ask all of the questions that I have in clause 1. Minister, there has been evidence through Victorian royal commissions previously that have covered deeply sensitive information and traumatic information that includes family violence, child sexual abuse and mental health. Why are the laws that protect those individuals in Victoria not appropriate in this situation?

What we are seeking to do here is make amendments that will ensure that the deeply personal evidence that was given by some First Peoples in particular to the Yoorrook Justice Commission is treated with the sensitivity that they self-determine is necessary for each of their own evidence. Ms Bath, what is often the case when we are dealing with great social injustices is that some people require more support and more assistance than others to achieve equity, and these reforms are absolutely about ensuring that the evidence given by First Peoples to this historic Yoorrook Justice Commission is treated with the self-determined approach that it should be and that indeed those who have given particularly deeply traumatic evidence have the right and the ability to ensure that the evidence that they have given is treated respectfully.

Given that royal commissions hear sensitive evidence on a range of matters, such as – and I will put them on record – family violence, child sexual abuse, mental health and the like, how does the government measure what is more sensitive in terms of the Yoorrook commission’s evidence as compared to those from other royal commissions?

Other inquiries have over time raised similar concerns about the adequacy of existing protections for sensitive or confidential evidence provided to royal commissions and other inquiries. Indeed the Beaumaris board of inquiry, for example, raised concerns that existing privacy protections under the Public Records Act 1973 and the exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, which protect certain categories of records from being released, are not sufficient to ensure that confidential personal information is protected from public disclosure. For example, the Beaumaris board of inquiry recommended legislative changes to ensure that personal information identified as confidential, anonymous or sensitive be kept confidential for 99 years and be exempted from the FOI act for the same period. The Victorian government has also accepted that recommendation in principle and has commenced work on that recommendation.

Similarly, at the Commonwealth level there have been concerns about privacy. Protections were raised at the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, for example; the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability – one that I am particularly familiar with; and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In response to that, the Commonwealth has amended the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to provide further protections for certain personal or private information disclosed to the aforementioned royal commissions, including by exempting confidential documents from access under Commonwealth freedom of information legislation. The Victorian government is scoping wider reforms in response to recommendations from Yoorrook and the Beaumaris board of inquiry, but it is progressing these very discrete reforms now due to the need to have them in place prior to the Yoorrook Justice Commission finishing up on 30 June 2025.

So we do accept that there are other circumstances in which deeply traumatic evidence given by people to these types of inquiries or commissions might also be worthy of the same levels of protection – or to choose the same levels of protection, if you like – but the Yoorrook Justice Commission does wind up at the end of this coming June, and it is important for those First Peoples in particular who have given difficult evidence to this inquiry that they have the opportunity, through these discrete and minor reforms, to self-determine which of their evidence does need this level of protection by 30 June.

Minister, it is interesting that we are into the last throes of this debate and yet that is the first time that there has been on record anything about the wider scoping of reforms, which I find quite bizarre.

My question is on the impact on public access. How does restricting access for 99 years align with the principles of transparency and accountability in government inquiries?

What is absolutely critical in government inquiries is the collection of evidence, that the outcomes of any of these types of inquiries are informed by the broadest, most relevant experience, particularly lived experience, which is obviously the case when we are talking about the Yoorrook Justice Commission and the previous example I gave, the disability royal commission. It is absolutely critical that those who have lived through the issues for which the inquiry is seeking evidence have the capacity to give that evidence to that inquiry in the knowledge that their often traumatic evidence will indeed be protected. It is a choice. There will be a self-determined choice that First People who gave evidence can make to have their evidence protected. We are talking about the evidence given by First Peoples to this inquiry. We are not talking about my evidence to the inquiry, for example. We are talking about the evidence of those who shared their deeply personal and often traumatic experiences with the inquiry and that those people have the right to choose that level of protection as they see fit to cover their evidence. What would be a worse outcome was if people did not feel culturally safe – safe in any sense – to present that evidence to the inquiry in the first instance because we could not afford them those protections.

Why were these laws then brought in at the end of the Yoorrook commission’s inquiry rather than the start?

The letters patent clearly set out the parameters of the inquiry. What we are proposing to do here gives effect to those commitments that were made to those people who gave evidence that they could self-determine that their evidence would be protected.

Were relevant public records expert stakeholders consulted on this bill, and if they were, who were they and what were their views?

My advice is that the Public Record Office Victoria as well as the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner were consulted and both support the bill.

What are the projected legal and administrative costs associated with implementing this bill, and how do these compare to the costs of maintaining the current system? What is the cost impost in administering this bill?

My advice is that the public record office will have a single, dedicated computer that First Peoples can use to access their own records. Otherwise, it is not envisaged that there be any additional cost.

In terms of the restrictions imposed by this piece of legislation, how could they affect historical research and the ability of future generations – we have got 99 years of withholding information – to understand and learn about past inquiries. How might these restrictions imposed through this legislation impact historical research which could be of benefit to society?

The reports of the Yoorrook Justice Commission obviously take into consideration all of the evidence that was collected and report on that evidence. So the outcome of the Yoorrook Justice Commission, if you like, is indeed a holistic report that speaks to all of the evidence gathered. But those people who self-determine to have their evidence closed will be able to choose to share their evidence more broadly if they so choose. The report will speak to their evidence in a de-identified way, but individuals could choose to share their evidence more broadly if they so want to.

In relation to the specified relatives of persons who have asked for their records to be closed is there any specification – I could not see it in the bill – to identify the number of generations? Can individuals specify how many generations could have access to it, noting that for 99 years it will be hidden?

Individuals would be able to choose whoever they would like to see their evidence. They can choose to have their record closed for 99 years – which could cover any number of generations in any particular given family obviously – but individuals can choose to share their evidence with whichever generations of their family they so determine.

So I am making that choice, clearly I am not going to live for 99 years, does the person have to specify how many generations – my daughter, my grandchild et cetera? How is that determined?

The ultimate limitation is the 99 years, not generations of families. In the meantime any person whose evidence was closed would be able to choose to share it with generation whichever, but the limitation is closing it for up to 99 years.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 8 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (17:24): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (17:24): I move:

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

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (14): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

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 have agreed to the bill without amendment.