Thursday, 20 February 2025

Bills

Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:03): Acting President Broad, as I do rise to continue my remarks on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024 may I also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new role as Acting President.

Prior to the question time break I was discussing in broad terms this government’s investments into our justice system – including the new, already opened law courts in Bendigo, the Dandenong Children’s Court and of course the new courts in Wyndham – as well as outlining the broad-based rationale for why these changes are before us today. I am sure members have been very anxiously anticipating the rest of my remarks, but I will continue into more detail as to some of the statistics that have gone into the rationale for this case and why the Law Reform Commission indeed made several proposals to us, including that we enact changes along what has been proposed today. I think it also will be valuable to quickly go through the backgrounds of the committal process. Committals emerged at a time when, because there were not independent police or prosecutors, it was necessary to have an independent third party look at the evidence and consider whether it had merit.

This was designed to filter out the sort of private prosecutions that did not go through the careful decision-making that we typically expect today through DPP and other relevant agencies when they evaluate whether or not to proceed with a prosecution. The test applied by magistrates requires considering whether the evidence is of sufficient weight to support a conviction for an indictable offence. This is a relatively low bar, because the intention of course was to exclude only the weakest cases.

Currently the committal process looks a lot like a mini version of the trial. The prosecution lays out the case against the accused, parties are able to examine and cross-examine witnesses and the magistrate undertakes a lot of the same work that will then be completed in court if the matter does indeed proceed to trial. This duplication is naturally a cost for the justice system but also it is a cost for all the parties that have to go through the process. Indeed for witnesses and victims of the kinds of serious indictable crimes that go through the committal process, being repeatedly interrogated on the same issue, as I was outlining earlier, on the same material and about the same often traumatic experiences can be a retraumatising factor.

As I mentioned before, only around 1 to 2 per cent of all trials are found in the committal stage to have a different outcome than what was proposed at the outset. For the benefit of the chamber I think it is worthwhile to look at the last four years of data when it comes to cases dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court system. Of the approximately 9935 cases held over the four years from 2021 to 2024 inclusive there were just 70 knock-outs. In 2021, out of 2624 cases there were 241 charges withdrawn by prosecution and 18 charges discharged or struck out by the magistrate. In 2022, of all the committals initiated – there were 2422 of them – 196 were withdrawn by prosecution and 22 struck out by the magistrate. In 2023, out of the 2264 committals initiated, with 248 charges withdrawn by prosecution, just 17 charges were struck out by a magistrate. Last year, in 2024, out of the 2625 committals, 336 were withdrawn by the prosecution and just 13 were struck out by a magistrate. So the trends and the data points that were identified in that law reform commission report back in 2020 have been seen to have continued. There has not been a dramatic change to what they had observed in the four years following that. That does give us that extra valuable source of data to rest assured that the actions that we are taking based on those thorough and robust recommendations are indeed still supported by current evidence, which I think is an important point to note as well.

We know of course that one of the key reasons for this very low knock-out rate is that we already do have an independent Office of Public Prosecutions, which carefully applies a series of criteria to determine whether charges should be laid. These criteria are set out in the director’s policy, which is of course available online, and it includes considering the strength of evidence, whether there are reasonable prospects of securing a conviction and whether pursuing the charges is in the public interest. Even in a situation where a magistrate considers the bar for committing a matter to trial is not met, this can indeed already be overridden by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the DPP, who can directly indict a matter for trial in a higher court. This happened, by way of example, four times in the previous financial year, seven in the financial year before that, six in the year before that, five in the before that and 10 in the year before that too. So it does still account for the very important role that the Office of Public Prosecutions and Director of Public Prosecutions play and does not take away their right to still nevertheless proceed.

This is a bill that is all about streamlining to make sure we have more efficient processes whilst minimising inefficiency and without compromising just outcomes for perpetrators, for accused and most importantly for victims. We have indeed, as I have said, seen that evolution of the criminal justice system over time to a place where we do have a robust system, and the fact that we have such a low proportion of cases knocked out at the committal stage of a trial really does underscore that point. It really does show why having those robust institutions, such as the DPP and others, is so very, very important. As a result, though, we do have this lingering inefficiency in a large number of cases, and that is what this bill today seeks to address.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, this is all about improving the efficiency and the outcomes from our justice system and reducing the burden on the judges, the hardworking court staff and others who work in the system. But as my colleague Mr Bourman said, it is also about reducing the workload on police as well. Another benefit, though not explicitly part of this bill, is one that will inevitably flow from the reduced workload that is on them, freeing them up to do the very important work they do in all of our communities. I know for my local police we have a new police station opening quite soon, just next year, in Clyde North, which will be a resource centre for them to support other police stations, as well as of course a new station being built to replace the existing one in Narre Warren. So just as we are investing in new courts for the court system, for all those reasons I outlined before the lunchbreak, we are of course also investing in our police. One of the secondary benefits, if you like, of this bill, if enacted, is that it will also contribute to supporting our police by reducing the workload pressures on them so that they can focus on the core work that we all expect them to do, and that is undoubtedly a good thing.

I look forward to seeing this bill progress through committee stage and hopefully passing later today. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:12): Acting President Broad, I too would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Acting President role. I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. This bill makes several important changes. These include abolishing the committal test, streamlining committal processes and allowing for the use of audiovisual links to conduct committal hearings. While I understand that some stakeholders oppose these changes, on balance this bill will go some of the way to improving efficiencies in the court system and bring us in line with several other jurisdictions in Australia. In my contribution today I would like to focus specifically on the changes this bill makes to strengthen protections for victims and witnesses at the committal stage.

This bill prohibits cross-examination at the committal stage of any witnesses in sexual offence cases, family violence cases and stalking cases. It also amends the test for granting leave to cross-examine witnesses in all other cases and extends special hearings to certain complainants in family violence cases. When thinking about the importance of these changes I would like to reflect on the stories of victim-survivors and their often incredibly difficult journey to accessing justice through our court system. Some of these stories were told in a recent article written by Melissa Cunningham and published in the Age. This powerful piece shared the author’s firsthand experience of attending the Specialist Family Violence Court. They wrote of the many different people who interacted with the court and the important measures in place to reduce the need of victim-survivors to be in extended, unpredictable and direct proximity to their alleged abusers. One of these people described in the article was a mother desperately trying to protect her teenage daughter from an abusive partner. Another was a woman who attended the court via video link seeking to extend an existing family violence intervention order. She was so frightened that she had sought special permission to remain off camera. That fear was very real, and the article describes how her estranged husband entered the courtroom demanding to speak to her and yelling at the video link.

During what is clearly a deeply traumatising experience, specialist courts ensure that victim-survivors like these are kept as far from alleged perpetrators as possible and ensure that safety is paramount. These specialist courts are so vital. Even simple measures like a privacy screen for people giving evidence, so that they have the option not to see their abuser while doing so, make a huge difference. Perpetrators will harass and intimidate the victims, at times weaponising the legal system to do so.

For the victims, giving evidence and being cross-examined are some of the most intimidating parts of bringing their case before the court. The existing system allows most complainants and witnesses to be cross-examined multiple times. Every time they are put under the microscope they are questioned about every aspect of their deeply traumatic experience and brought back into contact with their alleged perpetrator, and often it is in the back of their mind the very real prospect that they will lose their case and this will all have been for nothing. This is why the proposal in this bill to prohibit cross-examination before trial to include all complainants in sexual offence, family violence and stalking proceedings is so important. There will still be the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses in the trial court before appropriate cases. This change simply goes some of the way to reducing the burden on victim-survivors, recognising the unique challenges faced when giving evidence in these cases.

When you hear story after story of sexual assault victims being asked during cross-examination about the colour and the cut of their underwear, you are left appalled and asking yourself how these practices have been allowed to continue. Aside from changes to reduce the quantity of cross-examinations in these cases there needs to be better education and ongoing professional development for all members of the court on how to treat victim-survivors and dispel deeply harmful rape myths. The question ‘What were you wearing?’ must end. Without broader changes victim-survivors will suffer in silence, understandably unwilling to face a court system that is still grappling with how to unlearn victim blaming of survivors of sexual assault and family violence.

The law reform commission’s report Improving the Response of the Justice System to Sexual Offences made these shortcomings glaringly clear. The laws as they are, at the time were not written to protect victim-survivors. It found that criminal trials should be less traumatic for victim-survivors and that there was a need for better directions for judges about rape myths. It acknowledged that victim-survivors can feel alone and made recommendations to ensure they are supported every step of the way.

Thankfully, the Victorian government has put in the work to overhaul the justice system’s response to sexual offences. Things are changing, and I await the further reforms this government intends to make in the family violence and stalking space later this year. There is still more work to be done, but this bill goes some of the way to improving victim-survivors’ experiences with accessing justice. Legalise Cannabis Victoria will be supporting this bill.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (14:17): Acting President Broad, I would also like to congratulate you on taking the role.

I stand to support the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. It was introduced in the Legislative Assembly at the end of October 2024, of course when our colleague here Minister Symes was minister, and now continues on with Minister Kilkenny.

I want to follow on from some comments that some of my colleagues have made as I go through my contribution, but I think it is important to recognise that this is a very good, commonsense approach to ensure that people engaging with the system are getting better outcomes and getting a better experience, and that we are getting better results that are more cost effective. The committals process was developed before we had independent police and prosecutors and is designed to filter out matters that should not be pursued to trial. However, in practice the process as is is duplicative, lengthy and resource intensive and can expose victims and witnesses to an unnecessary level of retraumatisation, and of course none of us want that occurring.

A 2020 Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) report found that the rate of discharge, that is, the proportion of matters where any of the charges are knocked out at the committal stage, is very low, and we are talking somewhere between 1 and 2 per cent, so it is minute. Additionally, the report identified a range of duplications in the current approach and recommended further reform to reduce delays. It will yield financial and process efficiencies and improve victim and witness experience. I think we want to ensure that victims, as I said before, are not experiencing any further trauma than what they already have or what is absolutely necessary.

Significant funding and resources are needed to implement the recommendations made by the VLRC. This bill focuses on the forms that will streamline the process by maximising the use of existing resources. Specifically, it will abolish the test for committal, require committal case conferences in most matters to ensure appropriate disclosure, enable the accused to know the case against them, support narrowing and early resolution of issues and promote trial readiness. It will ensure the accused’s right to a fair trial by clarifying the need to disclose material that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case; reduce duplicative cross-examination by strengthening the test; prohibit cross-examination of witnesses and victims in sexual offences, family violence and stalking matters at the committal stage; allow children and people with cognitive impairment to give pre-recorded evidence; fast-track the most serious matters to the Supreme Court for management and faster resolution; enable the appropriate use of audiovisual appearances for persons in custody; and allow certain officers and investigators to witness statements.

The bill is about making careful changes to modernise Victoria’s committal process, and these changes will preserve the important benefits that the committal process provides while minimising the duplication of processes which will occur in the trial court as well. Reducing the duplication, as I touched on before, is going to reduce costs for parties and the justice system, which is a good outcome for everybody engaged in the process, and it will speed up the resolution of matters. We know that when we can get these dealt with in a more timely manner everyone benefits and it will protect victims and witnesses from the trauma of repeated cross-examination. As Mr Galea touched on earlier, at the time when committals emerged there were not independent police or prosecutors. It was necessary to have an independent third party look at the evidence and consider whether it had merit. This was designed to filter out private prosecutions that did not go through the careful decision-making that occurs today before deciding whether to proceed with a prosecution.

The bill makes a series of considered adjustments to update committals in Victoria. For the modern context, it will ensure that the benefits are retained whilst unnecessary duplication is reduced, victims and witnesses are protected, and the right of all accused persons to a fair trial is maintained. With the evolution of our criminal justice system over time, the key benefits of committals are an opportunity for issues in dispute to be narrowed and for matters to be resolved where possible, and to ensure that appropriate disclosures of evidence are made so the accused knows the case against them. But it does not make sense for all indictable criminal matters to require duplicate costs and time, repeatedly retraumatising victims and witnesses through a process that sees only between 1 and 2 per cent of matters disallowed. We are doubling down on the benefits by removing the duplicative committals test in the Magistrates’ Court but requiring committal case conferences, except where it would not be in the interests of justice. This is an opportunity for parties to take advantage of the magistrate’s expertise. They can ensure that all appropriate disclosures have been made and the accused understands the case against them; that issues in dispute are narrowed to those that genuinely need to be litigated in the trial court; that issues capable of early resolution – for example, by guilty plea or discontinuation of prosecution – are finalised where appropriate; and that parties are ready and prepared for trial.

We will codify disclosure requirements clarifying that the prosecution is required to disclose materials that undermine their own case or support the defence case. This is an important change that will promote the right of accused persons to understand the case against them. We will also be reducing duplicate cross-examination by strengthening the test for allowing cross-examination at committal, limiting it to matters that are directly and substantially relevant to an issue that is capable of early resolution and that is in the interests of justice.

We will go further to protect witnesses and victims in sexual offence, family violence and stalking matters by shielding them from potentially being repeatedly cross-examined on the same matters. For witnesses and victims that are children or have cognitive impairments, we will also be giving them the option of prerecorded evidence. This is less intimidating and stressful, and the by-product of the environment that our witnesses are in will see a higher quality of evidence that is to be considered. We will also be expanding a successful fast-track pilot for the most serious criminal matters to be committed as early as possible to the Supreme Court. This will mean that justice is served faster and the parties will have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s specialist expertise in managing these complex matters, ensuring that matters progress more smoothly. We will also be making some commonsense changes to support the appropriate use of audiovisual appearances for persons in custody and to ensure that certain officers and investigators are able to witness statements when carrying out their duties.

Prohibiting cross-examination at committal for sexual offence, family violence and stalking matters will reduce retraumatisation of victims and witnesses. Currently most victims and witnesses in indictable proceedings can be cross-examined multiple times on the same evidence, first at the committal hearing, then in a higher court during trial and sometimes before trial. We know that cross-examination is one of the most challenging parts of the criminal trial process and the experience of being repeatedly cross-examined can be significantly retraumatising. We know it is already very challenging for victims of sexual offences, family violence and stalking to come forward, and the prospect of having to repeatedly tell and defend their story and experience can further deter them from engaging with the criminal justice system. That is why we are protecting victims and witnesses in sexual offence, family violence and stalking matters from cross-examination at the committal stage of the process. Instead, their evidence will be given and tested at trial, as is appropriate. This approach is not novel. Children and those with a cognitive impairment are already shielded from giving evidence twice in sexual offence matters. We are simply expanding this protection to cover all sexual offence, family violence and stalking matters. To ensure a fair trial, the defence will still be able to make an application for limited pre-trial cross-examination in the trial court of witnesses other than the complainant.

We will also be strengthening the test for cross-examination more generally at committal to reduce duplication between the Magistrates’ Court and the trial court. Currently cross-examination is permitted if the accused identifies a relevant issue and cross-examination on that issue is justified. The bill will narrow the allowed topics of cross-examination to matters directly and substantially relevant to an issue and where there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the witness should be cross-examined on that. This will ensure that cross-examination at committal only occurs where it serves the interests of justice and directly goes to supporting disclosure, ensuring a fair trial or resolving issues in dispute. Limiting cross-examination will reduce the time taken up in the committal process, reduce unnecessary questions on peripheral issues and help minimise stress and trauma for victims and witnesses in all cases.

We currently have a scheme in place to support sexual offence complainants by allowing them to give prerecorded video evidence. This has worked well, and we are now looking to extend this option to victims and witnesses in family violence matters who are children or who have cognitive impairments. A special hearing has a number of benefits, including that prerecorded evidence can be used in a subsequent trial following an appeal or mistrial. The environment of a special hearing is less intimidating and stressful for the complainant and can be conducted less formally, which benefits the complainant and generally results in better quality evidence, and a special hearing recording can be edited, in case the complainant gives evidence that cannot be put before the jury, to avoid a mistrial.

The current committals test is whether the evidence is of sufficient weight to support a conviction for an indictable offence. Magistrates are required to make this assessment before committing an accused to a higher court for a trial or plea. The purpose of the committal test is to act as a filter and for the magistrate to provide independent scrutiny of an indictable prosecution. However, significant time is spent and costs incurred. Prosecution witnesses can be cross-examined, and the accused can call their own witnesses and make submissions as to the strength of the evidence. A lot of these processes duplicate proceedings that will then be repeated in the trial court. Additionally, the Director of Public Prosecutions is able to directly indict an accused for trial even if a magistrate discharges the case at committal.

Abolishing the test and refocusing the Magistrates’ Court on case management – unless contrary to the interests of justice – to expand the role will enable magistrates to work with parties to achieve a number of things. It will ensure appropriate disclosures have been made; disclosure is a key part of the legal process, and the conference is an opportunity to raise and resolve disclosure issues, ensuring that the accused understands the case against them. It will narrow issues in dispute; the expertise of a magistrate can assist parties to understand the matters that need to be litigated at trial. It will support appropriate early resolution; the conference process can reveal weaknesses in both prosecution and defence cases, particularly with the benefit of the magistrate’s experience, and help identify issues that can be resolved, including through guilty pleas or by discontinuing prosecution. And it can promote trial readiness; magistrates can support parties, ensuring they are as ready and prepared for trial as they can be.

As I have touched on throughout my contribution, this bill is going to see careful changes that will modernise Victoria’s committal processes. They are going to preserve the important benefits that the committal process provides while minimising the duplication which will occur in the trial court. The fact that we are able to look to reduce costs for parties and the justice system and speed up resolution of matters is why I stand here and commend the bill to the house.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (14:33): I rise today to summarise the bill, but before I do that I want to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to what have really been quite considered and thoughtful contributions from all sides in relation to this important matter of the way the justice system and the criminal justice system operate.

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024 will streamline Victoria’s committal proceedings to minimise trauma for victims and witnesses and improve criminal justice efficiencies by reducing duplicative court procedures. The bill will amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to (a) abolish the test for committal for indictable cases and strengthen case management in the Magistrates’ Court, preserving the core functions of the committal proceedings; (b) allow for early committal in cases before the Supreme Court; and (c) strengthen the protections for victims and witnesses at the committal stage by prohibiting cross-examination of any witness in sexual offence, family violence and stalking cases, amending the test for granting leave to cross-examine witnesses in all other cases and extending special hearings to certain complainants in family violence cases.

Currently the committals process looks a lot like a mini version of the trial. The prosecution lays out the case against the accused, parties are able to examine and cross-examine witnesses and the magistrate undertakes a lot of the same work that will be completed in court if the matter proceeds to trial, where most of these matters do end up, I might add. This duplication is obviously a cost for the justice system but also for parties that have to go through the process. For witnesses and victims of the kinds of serious indictable crimes that go through the committal process, being repeatedly interrogated on the same material, often about terrible experiences, can be significantly retraumatising.

I did listen to the contribution of the shadow minister on this bill and particularly the remarks regarding the amendments put before the house. I wish to state that the government will be opposing those amendments. I will just say a few words and share some of the reasons why we will be opposing them in relation to the discharge test. Careful consideration has been given to replacing the committal test with a discharge test, essentially moving the bar on the assessment the Magistrates’ Court would have to take from ‘sufficient weight to support a conviction’ to ‘reasonable prospect of conviction’. This would make it easier to meet the test, meaning even fewer matters would fail to meet the discharge test than the current committal test. In theory the discharge test would only be engaged where the accused person applied for it; however, stakeholders and the Victorian Law Reform Commission themselves know that in the absence of a cultural shift, which really cannot be legislated for, it is likely that the application would be made as a matter of course, which means that basically the discharge test would just be rebranded ‘committal test’, with magistrates needing to hear and analyse evidence. This would erode the efficiency benefits of these reforms in terms of reducing duplication in order to retain a test that would knock out even fewer matters than the committal test we are removing.

Basically the government has weighed up the marginal benefit of adding a discharge test against the likelihood that it would minimise the benefit of these reforms overall and decided not to include it. In effect it would affect a very small number of cases, and that would affect the efficiency of these reforms. But also, looking at the process more broadly, the proposed discharge test would be harder to clear than the no-case submission, which can be made at trial, and it would overlap with the DPP’s criteria for commencing proceedings. The DPP reserves the right to go straight to trial as well in these matters.

The shadow minister Mr Mulholland has also outlined, I might add, that in New South Wales similar reforms were implemented and in the end we have seen they have not had a dramatic effect because there are safeguards in place. We obviously keep similar safeguards in place as a general process that we are proposing, and that has been acknowledged. The government will closely monitor the effectiveness of these changes and consider further reforms as needed. On that point, I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (14): 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, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, 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

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (14:44)

I referred to this in my second-reading speech, and I know that the minister was watching. Minister, can you guarantee there will not be less-worthy cases going to trial after these changes – or any increase in unworthy cases?

I thank Mr Mulholland for his question and his interest in this matter today. I did listen to your contribution earlier, and I thank you for your support for the bill overall. I think that it is important on issues such as this that we do have bipartisan support for matters that affect the justice system and in particular people’s right to fair hearings.

In relation to the specifics of your question about the worthiness of cases going forward, I do understand that these are matters that are important. It is about efficiency, because that is the heart of this bill, really. It is about making sure that the committal stage can focus more on case management so that we can prepare people and so that at the other end workloads are not necessarily increased at trial as a result. What I will say is that it is important to note that it is highly unlikely because the numbers are so small. At the moment we are talking about a handful. I did ask this question of the minister’s office, and I can say that last year, for example, there were over 2600 cases of which only 13 had all charges discharged or struck out at the magistrate stage. So you can understand we are talking very small numbers; it is 1 per cent of cases that would be potentially affected. But we do have strong safeguards at the moment already with the Office of Public Prosecutions. It does have a rigorous process for ensuring prosecutions are viable, and that is part of the reason why there is such a high success rate in matters moving from committal stage to trial stage.

I think it is very unlikely that less-worthy cases will go to trial, very highly unlikely, and it is important to note the vast majority of matters are committed to be heard because the Office of Public Prosecutions does that work in the lead-up. They will not be charging unless they believe they have a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. We are talking about 1 per cent of matters. That is not just me saying that; that is what the Victorian Law Reform Commission said. In short, the answer is: it is highly unlikely to occur. In New South Wales, where they have had reforms – not the same, their criminal justice system is a bit different – we have not seen a big uptick or an increase in unworthy cases going up to trial unnecessarily.

Given your supportive comments on the work of the Victorian Law Reform Commission, why didn’t the government adopt that the VLRC recommendation to give the Magistrates’ Court a type of reserve power to kill off cases that have no prospect of success?

That is very good question. I remember when I was reviewing this legislation it was a question that I had in my mind, but basically we weighed up the marginal benefit of adding a discharge test. There is always an argument in that regard, and I know that was something that the VLRC was pushing for, but we were also concerned that it would minimise the potential benefits of these reforms in terms of efficiencies. Currently the way it works is with the committal test. We believe that the discharge test would effectively replace that test and magistrates would spend a lot of their time effectively duplicating and having mini trials and that outweighed the potential benefit that this discharge test would bring. So obviously it was a balancing act, but we have decided overall not to include it because that would minimise the potential benefits of these reforms to streamline so we are not duplicating the same processes.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 63 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (14:50): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (14:50): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY 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.