MS TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (17:04): I, like others, would like to acknowledge the very heartfelt contributions that this chamber has seen today and thank all of the members for their research and the conversations that they have had leading up to today. Can I also pay specific and special attention to those that have been heavily involved in having their voices heard, whether they have been loud voices that have been wanting real reform—cultural change and changes to attitudes on gender in this society—or whether indeed they belong to another group within the victim or victim family group that are quieter and want options about how they have their stories told, and indeed are also often wanting guarantees around privacy as well.
I thank all of the people who have been very active in this space in letting all of us know what their positions and what their families’ positions are in respect to the issue before us. Can I also say that the issue that Ms Terpstra and Ms Patten raised about the importance of the agency of how a victim’s story is told is very central to this debate. Indeed whilst there is a degree of a need to get victims’ voices heard absolutely—and this bill does recognise that—there is also I think some measure in here that ensures that there is greater responsibility taken by media outlets to actually get the story out without it having elements that obviously do not sit well with most people in this community and in particular do not sit well with the loved ones that have been left behind. I hope that this bill is instructional to those in the media to play a very, very responsible role into the future when it comes to these horrific crimes that are perpetrated against women in our community.
Going to the summing up from the government, this we believe is an important bill. We do believe that it does protect the rights of victims. I will ask the clerks to circulate the government’s amendments to the bill.
Government amendments circulated by Ms TIERNEY pursuant to standing orders.
Ms TIERNEY: The house amendments the government is moving have the effect of sunsetting the clauses that relate to deceased victims by September of next year. This is to solidify the commitment of the government to come back next year, following extensive consultation, with a more nuanced process for deceased victims.
One of the main reasons for this bill was the powerful stories of victim-survivors of sexual offending telling the government how important it is to be able to tell their stories on their own terms. Accordingly, this bill allows victim-survivors of sexual offending to tell their stories without the need of court permission. The bill makes clear that victim-survivors can self-identify, for example, online, and it allows for child victim-survivors to be identified in certain circumstances. These are important measures to enhance the autonomy and the dignity of victims.
Now, a lot of the discussion today has centred around deceased victims. I acknowledge that there are strong views on this issue and that many members of this Council today have shared their very personal stories about their own experiences or the experiences of others. I thank all of those that have engaged in the issues raised by the bill so passionately. While we may not agree on what the law says or should say, I think we all agree that victims must be at the forefront in our minds as policymakers when considering reforms such as these.
The government recognises that this is an extremely sensitive and complex issue, but there have been a number of views expressed about what this bill does and does not do. At the outset I want to make it clear that the government supports families who wish to share stories of their deceased loved one’s experience of sexual assault. We recognise that for many families speaking publicly about the abuse of a deceased relative helps to honour their memory, whether it is by raising awareness of sexual offending or by seeking to ensure that other families do not feel the same pain. We are also conscious that not all victims feel that way or are not at that point just yet. To quote the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kerri Judd, QC:
… in cases involving sexual offending and homicide, some family members do wish for the victim to be identified as a victim of sexual offending. Other family members do not want this information in the public domain. Other family members do not want the information in the public domain until they have had an opportunity to speak to us and be informed in advance of the detail of that information. In some cases, not every member of a deceased’s family will be unanimous.
And we have heard many, many stories like that. There are disparate views and everyone’s story is different, and it is that point which has to be made at the heart of our approach to the identification of deceased victims. For that to be a real, meaningful choice their privacy must be protected as the default.
Before I go on to deal with the specific issues I just want to clear up a few matters to put the government’s position on the effect of this bill. First, it is important to clarify that the expert legal advice, including from the DPP—and she has taken the unusual step of making a public statement—is that the current law in Victoria prohibits the public identification of victims of sexual assault who are deceased and provides no clear pathways for families or the media to have that prohibition lifted. That means that this bill does not change the prohibition on identifying sexual offending against a deceased victim, which has been in place for almost 30 years. The government’s position on this issue is very clear: you should not lose your right to privacy and anonymity as the victim of sexual offending once you are deceased. That is just not right.
Removing that prohibition altogether—and I will come to the amendments which would do that in a moment—would cause terrible distress to the many silent families across Victoria whose deceased loved one was the victim of sexual offending. Put simply, many of those families do not want the media and others to be able to publish details about the sexual offending perpetrated against their loved one. Many victims want their experiences to be kept under wraps forever, including when they are dead. That offending is a deeply personal and deeply private matter to many victims and their families, and the government will not allow that privacy to evaporate once a person is deceased.
Equally, just because a victim is no longer with us, their right to anonymity should not be taken away. If they have said during their life that they do not want the world to know what has happened to them, it is important that their wishes are absolutely respected. As there is no process currently to have the prohibition on identifying deceased victims lifted, the bill contains interim measures to firstly clarify how these laws apply to deceased victims and provide a mechanism for families to seek court orders to tell their story while maintaining the protection of victims. We recognise that these are interim measures while a more permanent solution is found in consultation with victims’ families. These consultations will look at how to ensure families of victim-survivors are not required to take steps immediately after death, while they are grieving, so that their anonymity can be retained; whether long-term court involvement could create further distress; and also how to balance the public interest in exposing sexual offending against the rights of victims and their families, including religious and cultural beliefs. The position we have adopted in respect of deceased victims is supported by the victims of crime commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions and legal stakeholders such as the Law Institute of Victoria.
I would now like to address some of the points that have been made by members in this house in the debate this afternoon. Some members have raised concerns about the costs and time frames for families of deceased victims who go through the court process. First, as the Attorney-General said today, this is a new process and an interim process. It is put in place temporarily to give families an option to lawfully identify the deceased where no other option currently exists. We recognise it is not a complete solution, and we have committed through a sunset clause to revisiting it in coming months. Nevertheless, we share the concern of others to make sure that this process is as fast and as low cost as possible while it remains in place. The courts have developed and published clear processes for court authorisation, which keep the process as streamlined as possible. There is no application fee for seeking court authorisation, and court staff are available to assist victim-survivors in making applications. The Department of Justice and Community Safety is in constant contact with the courts over the implementation of these changes, and I would encourage any members who hear of difficulties with the court process to relay them to the Attorney-General’s office so that they can be followed up.
Some have stated that there is a need to engage costly legal representation to obtain an order. As I have mentioned, we have worked hard with the courts to streamline processes. It is a matter for individual families to decide whether they wish to engage a lawyer to act for them. In addition, Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Victoria Legal Aid are providing a dedicated legal advice service on the operation of publication restriction to assist victim-survivors and their families with queries about obtaining court permission under current laws.
There has also been a claim that the legislation exposes people who do not want to be named. That is the opposite of what this bill does. It protects victim choice. It puts the right to be identified in the hands of the victim. A living victim who does not consent to being identified will not be mentioned in the media—as a result of this bill. It is very important that we clear that up.
I also want to clarify for the chamber how the government will look to publicise these changes to help the public understand their rights and obligations. The courts have already published guidance on the application process. The government will work with the courts to ensure these materials are updated to reflect the changes in the bill once the reforms have commenced. The government is also developing guidance material for victim-survivors and others to assist them to understand their rights, including to self-publish and to navigate the process of providing permission to another person to publish information about their identity and experiences. These guidance materials will be published on the Department of Justice and Community Safety website. We will also work with key support agencies and providers, including community legal services and the centres against sexual assault, to ensure that these guidance materials are made available to victims accessing those services.
There have also been members who have referred to the claimed disagreement on the law, arising from the comments of a County Court judge last week on these issues. These comments were made by a single judge in passing when considering an application made by a living victim. The clear view of the DPP, which she has taken the unusual step of sharing publicly, is that the law applies to deceased victims, and we are acting on that basis.
The Justice Party has queried the age at which children are able to provide consent to publication with a supporting statement. On this issue of consultation, as I have stated already, the purpose of providing a holding position that gives a pathway for deceased victims, albeit a flawed one, is that there is a need to speak to families sensitively and carefully. That takes time, and we will not rush this through. We have put forward house amendments that will give effect to this approach.
My time has almost expired. I was about to raise issues that the government has in relation to the Liberal Party’s house amendments and the Greens house amendments, but clearly we will deal with that in committee. I will leave it at that.
House divided on motion:
Ayes, 18 | ||
Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Taylor, Ms |
Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
Meddick, Mr | Symes, Ms | Watt, Ms |
Noes, 17 | ||
Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | Maxwell, Ms |
Barton, Mr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
Bath, Ms | Grimley, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
Bourman, Mr | Hayes, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
Crozier, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
Cumming, Dr | Lovell, Ms |
Ayes, 18 | ||
Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Taylor, Ms |
Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
Meddick, Mr | Symes, Ms | Watt, Ms |
Noes, 17 | ||
Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | Maxwell, Ms |
Barton, Mr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
Bath, Ms | Grimley, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
Bourman, Mr | Hayes, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
Crozier, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
Cumming, Dr | Lovell, Ms |
Ayes, 18 | ||
Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Taylor, Ms |
Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
Meddick, Mr | Symes, Ms | Watt, Ms |
Noes, 17 | ||
Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | Maxwell, Ms |
Barton, Mr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
Bath, Ms | Grimley, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
Bourman, Mr | Hayes, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
Crozier, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
Cumming, Dr | Lovell, Ms |
Ayes, 18 | ||
Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Taylor, Ms |
Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
Meddick, Mr | Symes, Ms | Watt, Ms |
Noes, 17 | ||
Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | Maxwell, Ms |
Barton, Mr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
Bath, Ms | Grimley, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
Bourman, Mr | Hayes, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
Crozier, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
Cumming, Dr | Lovell, Ms |