Justice & Related Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No 2) 2025 (No 39)
Thursday 20 August 2026
Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Thank you, Mr President. Just make sure I have all my bits here. I believe I have.
Mr President, I rise to make some brief remarks on this bill. While it contains minor, mainly minor and uncontroversial amendments, it's important that we, in this place, ensure that we provide proper context and input so it is properly understood why it's necessary.
Firstly and importantly, this bill makes several amendments to the Criminal Code to make the definition of sexual intercourse retrospective. As the honourable Leader mentioned, this provides for an expanded definition of sexual intercourse to be taken to have applied in relation to a crime since April 1924, when the Criminal Code commenced. Moreover, this change does not criminalise any conduct that was not otherwise unlawful.
I thank the honourable Leader for providing a list of offences to which this will be relevant. It's important to place on the record here the importance of ensuring our laws fit and reflect a modern and contemporary understanding of crimes of a sexual nature and the effect they have on victims and survivors. This includes naming such crimes for what they are, and using appropriate and relevant language, reflecting community expectations and attitudes towards criminal conduct and abuse, particularly for children and vulnerable people, ensuring that Tasmanian criminal law effectively responds to these crimes when they occur, and adequately penalises those who commit them, and properly facilitating the administration of justice.
As has already been noted, these changes have come about from consultation with those who work in the sexual and family violence sector. I therefore wish to note that ultimately these changes are as a result of recognising the effect these crimes have on victim/survivors. You are seen and you are heard. I believe that every step we make towards updating and modernising Tasmanian criminal law matters and the steps in the right direction.
Mr President, this bill further amends the Dangerous and High Risk Offenders Act 2021, which I recall being a significant and watershed bill at the time. It's yet another piece of legislation which requires updating from time to time. This amendment enables the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply for a High Risk Offender order, or HRO, in relation to serious offenders who do not meet the threshold for being declared a dangerous criminal, but who may nevertheless pose a risk to the community if no supervising conditions are in place when they're released.
Further, while the current act allows for an interim HRO, the amendment in this bill clarifies the criteria to be relied upon when making one. Essentially, this bill acknowledges that an interim HRO is different to a final assessment and so should have a different set of criteria with different standards. This simply makes sense and I understand has come about from a request made by the Chief Justice, who I know would have provided good quality advice on the matter.
A very important change is also being made by this bill to the Evidence Act 2001. As the honourable Leader has said, the Evidence Act precludes adducing or eliciting evidence that discloses or implies a sexual reputation of a complainant, and this leave is granted by the judge or magistrate where certain requirements are met. This bill amends the act to include a reference to the crime of persistent family violence in the Criminal Code in order to avoid negative implications for victims of persistent family violence. In other words, as the honourable Leader said, this bill extends the operation of section 194M of the Evidence Act 2001 to include the crime of persistent family violence.
Additionally, this bill seeks to amend the Family Violence Act 2004. The act contains a serial family violence perpetrator declaration framework which identifies serial perpetrators of family violence offences. Currently, the act provides a review of declarations to take place only when upon application to the relevant court by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the declared offender.
What this bill seeks to do is expand this review capability by extending it to Tasmania Police being able to make applications for review of declarations in the Magistrates Court. Obviously, anything that eases the workload on our courts and justice system is a welcome development. I know that this is a provision which has been taken on the advice of those who work in the justice system and family violence sectors and believe it's a good step forward.
Mr President, in an entirely different legislative sphere, I also note that this bill amends the Electoral Act 2004. As the honourable Leader has said, as it currently stands, the Electoral Act 2004 provides that it's an offence to vote at an election in a division after having voted in an election in respect of another division held contemporaneously with the first mentioned election.
The apparent intention of this offence provision is to preclude an elector from voting in more than one division at either a House of Assembly election or a Legislative Council election. If I understand it correctly, Mr President, if there's a House of Assembly election held contemporaneously with the Legislative Council election, as has happened in the past, an elector who votes in both of these elections, despite voting being compulsory, will have committed an offence.
Obviously, this is a legal absurdity, and it's one thing to have laws on the books which go unenforced. It's obviously good practise for those to be clarified and repealed where necessary. I wonder if the honourable Leader for interest could clarify that and perhaps provide some context to why this provision exists in the first place. Perhaps, there are some historical reasons for it, but I believe it would be good to understand why it exists and state clearly why it's necessary to change.
Mr President. I move to clause 23, which refers to section 23 of the Integrity Commission Act. I see this amendment allowing six or eight members of the integrity committee as problematic. On the face of it, it sounds okay. You can have six or you can have eight. However, there really is more to it. I note that section 23 of the act states -
Of the members of the Joint Committee referred to in subsection 2(b), at least one member of any political party that has three or more members in the House of Assembly is to be a member of the Joint Committee.
Personally, I believe that's probably the clause that should have been amended and taken out, because it really should be up to the Houses to determine who serves on the committees, as opposed to members from a party. However, this is obviously subject to interpretation and, as it stands, the integrity committee - and I am on the integrity committee - has members of both the Labor and the Liberal parties from the House of Assembly, a member of the Greens Party from the Legislative Council, and three independent members. We meet the requirements, half from each House.
With the changes in the bill, it would be suggested that it's likely the other place could seek and appoint a fourth member, which would in turn necessitate this House needing to seek a fourth member, given the change to the act that half of the members must be from each House. It doesn't leave the possibility that the Legislative Council could have three members and the House of Assembly four, because the actual amendment and the bill, or the access, say that half must be from each House. If there are four from the House of Assembly, there must be four from the Legislative Council.
While I appreciate equal representation on a committee is intended to ensure parity between the Houses, maintaining an equal number of committee members can place a disproportionate burden on this House with fewer members available. This House has a more limited pool of members from which to fill committee positions and would therefore experience difficulty in providing members without repeatedly appointing the same members to multiple committees. When we actually get to the clause, I ask members to consider voting that clause down.
Mr President, there are a number of additional technical amendments that this bill makes to a suite of further acts, but I think these were the important ones to comment on, particularly as we continue to expand and modernise our understanding of family, domestic and sexual violence. The way we legislate regarding these offences matter. They matter to our communities and their expectations. The language we use matters. Restorative, rehabilitative and victim/survivor‑centred justice matters. Context matters.
What we thought we knew about family and relationship dynamics in decades past aren't necessarily what we know to be true now. Our laws need to reflect that. That's why I'm always happy to support bills that seek to modernise criminal law, even on matters which might be reasonably technical. I thank the honourable Leader for bringing the bill forward, and I support the majority of it, with the exception of clause 23.
Clause 22 -
Principal Act
Ms ARMITAGE - This is the one with regard to the Integrity Commission, and obviously that's the principal act. Probably the best course of action from members that might consider voting against this would be to vote against 22, 23 and 24. I was interested to hear the Leader, and if she could confirm or clarify a comment made in the summing up that the request came from Michael Easton, the previous CEO.
I find that really hard to imagine that the CEO of the Integrity Commission would make a comment about the makeup of the Integrity Committee. I was on the committee for many years when Michael Easton was there, and I don't recall him ever mentioning it at a committee meeting. I'm sure I would have remembered had he actually said that. I'd love to see an email or something from him with regard to that. Obviously, we can't ask him now as Mr Easton is no longer the CEO.
It would also be very interesting to know, Leader, when the discussions first started about this bill and about that amendment. That would be really good.
As I've mentioned in my second reading, the changes to this make it very difficult for our House. I know that the Leader also said in the summing up that the other House could make changes without affecting this House. It actually can't because in the bill in clause 23, section 23(2) of the Principal Act is amended, and I go to (b) by omitting from paragraph A '3' and substituting 'half'.
If I look at the act, 2A, where we're substituting 3 to 'half', it says: 3 are to be members of the Legislative Council and 3 are to be members of the House of Assembly. If we change '3' to' half', it's '"half" are to be members of the Legislative Council and "half" are to be members of the House of Assembly'.
We can't have one House having 4 and our House having 3 because then we wouldn't have half of each. If the other House changes to 4, then our House really needs to change to 4, too.
It's quite difficult in this House, and I think many members would appreciate that with ministers and other problems that we have to find members to go on that - I really would like to know where it's come from. It's almost like the question I've heard asked before: where's the problem? I accept that they're saying 'futureproof', but there doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment. Perhaps the Houses should make the decision about who goes on the committees; that people put their hands up and they're voted in, as is the case in the upper House. I'd appreciate the answers to the questions, Leader.
Ms RATTRAY - Seeking responses, Madam Chair, to the honourable member's question.
CHAIR - I'll let her get the answer so that her advisers can concentrate and not perhaps have to listen in case you've got a really important question that requires a response, too.
Ms RATTRAY - In response to the honourable member's question: yes, it was the former head of the Integrity Commission, Mr Michael Easton, who proposed the amendments. As then he was the head of the Integrity Commission and Mr Easton was responsible for considering how the Integrity Commission Act 2009 operated. It was understood that he would pass on any issues he thought there were with the practical operation of the legislation. When the composition of the parliament shifted considerably to include an additional party, and with three or more members, it was noted the provisions regarding composition of the committee did not necessarily anticipate this. Unfortunately, we're unable to provide a specific date when it was raised, but I believe it was after the 2024 election when -
Ms Armitage - Mr Easton resigned in December 2023.
Ms RATTRAY - I can seek some further clarification around that
Ms Armitage - If you could read out his email or his letter, that would be really good.
Ms Webb - I reckon it was after the restoration of numbers. He anticipated it. Could have happened.
Ms RATTRAY - Unfortunately, there isn't the information that you're asking for in regard to a specific e-mail request. That's not available here, but we could give an undertaking to seek to find that.
Ms Armitage - Through you, Chair, I'd like to know whether he actually requested it or whether it was a comment or actually how it came about. Considering that he's no longer with the integrity commission, I find it very difficult to imagine.
Ms RATTRAY - Again, my information is that, regrettably, we are unable to provide a specific date of when it was first raised, but this came about after the 2024 election.
Ms LOVELL - I'd also be interested in when that suggestion was made by Michael Easton and whether he made that suggestion proactively or was he asked to give some comment on the operation of the act?
I have a question about the operation of this new clause and understanding that from what the Leader has said, the suggestion was regarding having the integrity committee better reflect the makeup of the parliament. I can't see anything in this new clause that would prevent having parties that have three or more members in the House as outlined in the clause. I can't see anything in this clause that would prevent parties having more than one member on the Joint Standing Committee for Integrity. It says they must have at least one.
I share the concerns that other members have raised and accept that the House of Assembly has been restored to 35, but our Chamber was not restored and we still have limited numbers up here. Therefore, in terms of this clause, I'm looking at it from the perspective of how does it impact on our Chamber and our ability to participate fully in the committee. I do also have a concern that this would leave us with an act that does nothing to better reflect the makeup of a larger crossbench, or a more diverse parliament in the House of Assembly, because we could end up in a situation - there's nothing, as far as I can see, from all four members being from the Labor Party, or all four members being from the Liberal Party, or two Labor, two Liberal, three Greens, one Liberal - however - whatever the makeup is, there's nothing in this clause, as far as I can see, that would mean that any of those members needs to be an independent member or a member of a minor party, or any restriction on who.
To be fair, I think that should be up to that House to determine who's a member of their committee, in the same way that we determine up here. If I want to nominate as a member of the Labor Party, I can do that. I can be elected by my colleagues in this place, in the same way that any one of us can. To some degree, how those elections happen, and how those positions are filled is a matter for the other place. But if the reason for this amendment is to try and futureproof or better reflect the makeup of the parliament, I'm not convinced that it does in its current form.
Ms ARMITAGE - I would just clarify something else with regard to Mr Easton, just to get all our dates right, because while it did say December in one area, it looks like his resignation was announced, and I might say Michael Eastorn was an excellent CEO, I was on the Integrity Commission while he was there and I just think it's worth actually putting on the record that he was a really great CEO of the Integrity Commission. So he did announce his resignation in January 2024; his end of his active leadership was the 29th of April 2024, and his official departure was July 2, 2024.
Just so we actually get all that correct, but just a question - and I still have that question - and I hear what you're saying about how you can have four in the other place and three here, and I do accept - and it's always been a little bit of an anomaly - the fact that we don't quite meet the requirements of the act, section 23. So it's not a requirement then to meet the act. So the act is there and, as I said, I know that we have a little bit awkward with having a member of each party on our committee and we're well aware of the fact that it does say it probably should be three members from one House. But the fact that, in the bill before us, it does say that you have to have half from each House. I heard what you said, Leader, but we either have to follow the act - and I realised that we have got a little bit of conflict and confusion with the other part, but it does say half are to be members of the Legislative Council and half are to be members of the House of Assembly. You didn't answer that question previously. I know you've just said now, that's not the case. But now there is or it isn't. It's in the bill here that it is. But you're telling me on the floor that it's not.
