A duty to prevent a person from harming others? The latest from the High Court

On 12 November 2014 the High Court handed down judgment in Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna, unanimously allowing an appeal against an award of damages arising out of the deliberate killing of a man by his severely psychiatrically disturbed friend. While the Court's judgment only directly concerns the liability in tort of medical practitioners who exercise statutory functions relating to the involuntary hospitalisation of psychiatric patients, it is likely to have significant implications for statutory bodies charged with the exercise of public functions.

The Facts

Early in the morning of 20 July 2004, Mr Stephen Rose became concerned about the mental state of his friend Mr Phillip Pettigrove, who suffered from schizophrenia. Mr Rose took Mr Pettigrove to Manning Base Hospital in Taree. Upon his arrival at the hospital, Mr Pettigrove was admitted as an involuntary patient under the former Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW).

During the afternoon of 20 July 2004, hospital staff examined Mr Pettigrove and discussed his condition with Mr Rose. It was determined that Mr Pettigrove would be discharged into the care of Mr Rose, who would take him by car to his mother's home in Echuca. On the morning of 21 July 2004, Mr Pettigrove and Mr Rose departed Taree for Echuca. That night, while in a delusional state, Mr Pettigrove strangled Mr Rose to death.

Mr Rose's mother and his two sisters alleged that they had sustained psychiatric injury as a result of Mr Rose's death and commenced proceedings for damages against the hospital authority. They alleged that hospital staff had been negligent in failing to order the continued involuntary treatment of Mr Pettigrove and that this negligence had been a cause of Mr Rose's death and of their subsequent psychiatric injuries. At trial, the plaintiffs were unsuccessful. However, they successfully appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The hospital authority then appealed to the High Court.

The NSW Act

Central to the case were the provisions of the NSW Act. Section 21 provided for the involuntary detention of a person in a hospital if a medical practitioner certified that he or she was mentally ill. However, the Act contained numerous safeguards to protect the rights of patients. In particular, it provided that a decision to involuntarily admit a patient was subject to multiple stages of internal review by specialist medical practitioners and that the involuntary admission of a patient pursuant to the order of a medical practitioner could not exceed three days' duration. Thus the Act manifested a strong bias against involuntary detention. This policy was reflected in the express terms of section 20 of the Act, which provided that involuntary admission was not to be ordered where a less restrictive treatment option was reasonably available.

Judgment

The High Court held that staff at the hospital owed no duty to take reasonable care in determining whether or not to order the continued involuntary treatment of Mr Pettigrove. The Court considered that this conclusion was mandated by the express terms of s 20 of the NSW Act and by other provisions which 'reinforced' the policy enunciated in s 20. The Court determined that to impose upon hospital staff a common law duty to take reasonable care in determining whether to order the continued involuntary treatment of Mr Pettigrove would be inconsistent with the strong presumption against involuntary treatment manifested in the Act.

Implications for Decision Makers

While the judgment of the Court directly concerns only the specific provisions of the (now repealed) NSW Act, it will be welcomed by parole boards, quarantine authorities and other decision makers whose powers require them to balance the interests of individuals against the interests of the wider community. The imposition of a duty to take reasonable care in the exercise of such powers has the potential to act as a potent incentive to a decision maker to make the decision that he or she considers least likely to result in an award of damages, rather than the one he or she considers to be correct or preferable. It thus may place a decision maker in an impossible situation in which the proper performance of a statutory function carries with it a risk of incurring liability in damages, while minimising the risk of liability entails neglecting the performance of a statutory duty. The judgment of the High Court contributes to a body of authority, which includes such cases as Sullivan v Moody, Regent Holdings v State of Victoria and X v State of South Australia, that holds that a duty of care will not be found to exist in such circumstances.

If you are in the Victorian Government and would like further guidance on decision-making, risk and liability, we can help.

Jonathan Bayly
t 8684 0223
jonathan.bayly@vgso.vic.gov.au

Show us the documents - a precursor to show us the money?

Settling claims prior to the issuing of court proceedings saves time and money, and complies with the State's model litigant obligation to pay legitimate claims without recourse to litigation.  But does the State have an obligation to provide a claimant with documents pertaining to the claim during pre-litigation settlement negotiations, or when a Generally Endorsed Writ (GE Writ) has been filed with the court?

Pre-litigation settlement negotiations

At its commencement, the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (the CPA) included 'Chapter 3 - Before a Civil Proceeding Commences'.  Chapter 3 contained pre-litigation requirements, including that each person involved in a civil dispute (defined as a dispute which may result in the commencement of a civil proceeding) must take reasonable steps:

•  to resolve the dispute by agreement; or
•  to clarify and narrow the issues in dispute in the event that civil proceedings were commenced. 

This included the exchange of documents critical to the resolution of the dispute.

However, Chapter 3 of the CPA was repealed in 2011 and there is now no obligation under the CPA for the State to provide documents to a claimant prior to a civil proceeding being commenced.

Filing of a GE Writ

Recently we have encountered matters where pre-litigation settlement negotiations have commenced, but claimants' solicitors have subsequently filed GE Writs with the court in order to protect their clients' rights in respect of time limit provisions under the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (the LAA).  This effectively safeguards claimants from having to bring an application for an extension of time to commence a proceeding, if settlement negotiations ultimately prove unsuccessful. 

The claimants' solicitors have provided us with a copy of the GE Writs on an informal basis, rather than formally serving them on the State, on the basis that settlement negotiations would continue and that no action was required with respect to responding to the GE Writs. 

 What is a GE Writ?

Usually when a proceeding is commenced, a Writ and Statement of Claim (SOC), pleading the causes of action and particulars of the claim, is filed with the court and served on the State.  However, a plaintiff has the option of filing a GE Writ, which the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 and the County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2008 (the Rules) define as a writ containing an indorsement of claim comprising 'a statement sufficient to give with reasonable particularity notice of the nature of the claim and the cause thereof and of the relief or remedy sought in the proceeding'. 

A GE Writ typically does not plead detailed particulars of the claim as in a SOC, and is generally followed by the filing and service of a SOC at a later stage.

Request for documents

Notwithstanding that in many circumstances the filing of a GE Writ was not intended to 'formally' commence proceedings, claimants' solicitors have requested that the State provide them with copies of documents pertaining to the claim in order to progress settlement negotiations.  Such requests have been made under the auspices of the CPA.

Section 26 of the CPA

Section 26 of the CPA provides that a person to whom the overarching obligations apply (being a party to a civil proceeding and their legal representatives) must disclose to each party the existence of all documents which the person considers, or ought reasonably consider, are critical to the resolution of the dispute.  Such disclosure must occur at the earliest reasonable time after the person becomes aware of the existence of the document; or such other time as a court may direct.

Is the filing of a GE Writ the commencement of a civil proceeding for the purposes of s 26 of the CPA?

The CPA defines civil proceeding as 'any proceeding in a court other than a criminal proceeding or quasi criminal proceeding'.  'Court' is defined as the Supreme, County or Magistrates' Court.

The Rules define 'proceeding' as 'any matter in the Court commenced by writ or originating motion'.  The Rules further provide that 'a proceeding shall be commenced by filing the originating process' and that 'a writ shall be valid for service for one year after the day it is filed'. 

Accordingly, notwithstanding circumstances where a GE Writ has not been formally served on the State and that its filing was intended only to preserve a claimant's rights in respect of time limit provisions under the LAA, its filing constitutes the commencement of a proceeding and consequently s 26 of the CPA applies in respect of requests for documents. 

Are there any grounds to resist a request for documents?

As noted previously, a GE Writ must provide 'reasonable particularity' about the plaintiff's claim and causes of action.  If the Writ fails to provide satisfactory detail about the claim and does not accurately identify or particularise the causes of action with any precision, we consider that it is possible and reasonable to resist a request for documents under s 26 of the CPA on the grounds that the State:

•  has insufficient knowledge about what the 'dispute' is alleged to be; and
•  is unable to identify whether documents are 'critical to the resolution of the dispute'.

If you are in the Victorian Government and would like more information about this area of law, please contact:

David Ryan

Managing Principal Solicitor

t 8684 0417

david.ryan@vgso.vic.gov.au

Andrea Robinson

Senior Solicitor

t 8684 0232

andrea.robinson@vgso.vic.gov.au

Victoria one step closer to one stop shop for environmental approvals

The Commonwealth Government has proposed to overhaul environmental approvals in Australia, by creating a 'one stop shop' approval process in each State and Territory.

In short, the Commonwealth proposes to transfer some of its current responsibilities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) to the States.  It plans to do this by creating bilateral agreements under the EPBC Act.

Bilateral agreements under the EPBC Act can do two different things.  An agreement may declare that actions assessed under State law do not need to follow an EPBC Act assessment process.  An agreement may also declare that actions that have been approved by the State do not need separate Commonwealth approval at all.

In a number of other States and territories, draft approval agreements have already been published.  Those agreements propose to implement the 'one stop shop', by removing the need for Commonwealth approvals under the EPBC Act for some actions where those actions can be and have been approved under the agreement.

On 27 October 2014, the Commonwealth and Victoria entered into a bilateral agreement, as part of the implementation of the proposed reform in Victoria.  The agreement is a step along the path towards creating the 'one stop' approval, following the steps identified in the Memorandum of Understanding between Victoria and the Commonwealth.  The agreement itself is reasonably modest.  It mainly updates and extends existing arrangements between Victoria and the Commonwealth, which allow expanded Victorian environmental assessments to stand in for assessments that would ordinarily be completed under Commonwealth legislation.

The new bilateral agreement will affect Victorian departments and agencies when taking actions with environmental impacts, when preparing environmental assessments under various Victorian Acts, when acting as decision makers, or when advising the Minister responsible for the Victorian Acts.  It is important for Victorian entities to be familiar with the updated process in the agreement.
This newsletter explains what the new agreement does, how it fits within the proposed 'one stop shop' policy, and what it will mean for Victorian departments and agencies.

If you are in the Victorian Government and would like more information about these changes, please contact:

Juliette Halliday

Acting Managing Principal Solicitor
t 8684 0299
juliette.halliday@vgso.vic.gov.au

Mark Egan
Principal Solicitor
t 8684 0489
mark.egan@vgso.vic.gov.au

Victoria reins in vexatious litigants

The Victorian courts have far greater powers to manage troublesome serial litigants since the new Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Act) came into effect as of 31 October 2014.  More courts will be able to make vexatious litigant orders, more parties will have standing to apply for orders, and the threshold for making orders will be much lower.

How did the old system work?

Previously, the Attorney-General could apply to the Supreme Court under s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 for a person to be declared a vexatious litigant.  The Court had to be satisfied that the person had 'habitually, persistently and without any reasonable grounds' instituted vexatious proceedings.

Vexatious proceedings include those that are commenced to annoy or embarrass the person against whom they are brought, or are so obviously groundless as to be utterly hopeless.

Vexatious litigants sometimes sue the same people repeatedly and sometimes sue a series of different people.  A vexatious litigant order can severely restrict a person’s access to the justice system.  It may prevent that person from commencing or continuing any legal proceedings in any court or tribunal without leave of the courts.

Vexatious litigants can cause a significant strain on the legal system, wasting courts’ valuable time and causing genuine stress to affected parties.  In 2008, the Victorian Law Reform Commission reported that the threshold for making orders against vexatious litigants was too high and resulted in the system being of limited utility and effect. In the past 85 years, only 21 people have been declared vexatious in Victoria.  The cost of defending or responding to such litigation can be significant for those drawn into such litigation, including on the public purse.

What are the major changes under the new system?

In addition to the Supreme Court, the Magistrates' Court, County Court, Children's Court and VCAT are now able to make vexatious litigant orders.

The Act also introduces a graduated system whereby courts can choose from one of three 'litigation restraint orders' (LROs) – a limited LRO, an extended LRO or a general LRO (the last of which is similar to the order currently available to the Supreme Court).  These orders range in restrictiveness based upon the litigant's history and pattern of behaviour.

A person who is sued by a vexatious litigant, and other persons with a sufficient interest in the matter, may now apply to the court for an LRO to be made against a person.  Only the highest-level order, a general LRO, restricts standing (to the Attorney-General) and jurisdiction (to the Supreme Court).  As a result, it is likely that a far greater number of applications will be brought under the new Act.

Will it be easier for the courts to declare someone vexatious?

Yes, both generally and with regards to the new graduated system of orders.

'Vexatious' proceedings and applications have been defined for the first time in Victoria and expand on common law principles.  Such proceedings and applications now include those that are conducted or pursued to harass or annoy, cause delay or detriment, or for another wrongful purpose.  Therefore, courts can now look beyond the merits of a litigant’s legal actions to their actual conduct.

The courts can now take into account all Australian legal proceedings and applications relevant to a vexatious litigant, not just those commenced in Victoria.  Importantly, 'relevant proceedings' include interlocutory applications and appeals, two legal avenues commonly utilised by vexatious litigants.

The tests for the lowest and mid-level LROs are also much easier to satisfy than the previous vexatious litigant order available through the Supreme Court.  All Courts and Tribunals are now empowered to make a limited LRO where a person has made at least two vexatious interlocutory applications in a given proceeding.  This order can prevent a person from continuing or making further interlocutory applications in the proceeding without the leave of the court.

Alternatively, courts and tribunals may make an extended LRO where a person has frequently commenced or conducted vexatious proceedings against a specified person (or entity) or in relation to a specific matter.  Such an order can prevent a vexatious litigant from continuing or commencing any proceedings against that person (or entity), or in relation to that matter, without the leave of the court.

Further information on vexatious litigants

Make sure to check out the Department of Justice's very useful legislative guide on the new regime. The ABC's Law Report  program has also recently uploaded an interesting episode on vexatious litigants from both the legal and health perspectives.

If you are in the Victorian Government and would like more information about these changes, please contact:

Stephen Lee
Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor
t 8684 0410
stephen.lee@vgso.vic.gov.au

Alison O'Brien
Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor
t 8684 0416
alison.o'brien@vgso.vic.gov.au

Joanne Kummrow
Special Counsel
t 8684 0462
joanne.kummrow@vgso.vic.gov.au 

Dr Adrian Hoel
Principal Solicitor
t 8684 0244
adrian.hoel@vgso.vic.gov.au

High Court upholds broad anti-consorting laws (is it time to "unfriend" your bikie mates on Facebook..?)

New South Wales had a win on 8 October 2014, with the High Court upholding laws making it a crime to 'consort' with convicted offenders are valid (Tajjour v NSW; Hawthorne v NSW; Forster v NSW [2014] HCA 35). You can read the full judgment here.

The anti-consorting legislation empowers police to give people a notice to not 'habitually consort' with named persons.  'Consorting' is quite widely defined under the relevant legislation and includes consorting via electronic media, for example via Facebook or Twitter.  Breach of the notice is an offence.  The case involved a challenge by three plaintiffs (two of whom were members of the Nomads bikie gang) who had each been given a notice, and were subsequently charged with consorting.

The plaintiffs all argued that the legislation breached the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.  Two also argued that it breached a constitutionally implied right to freedom of association, and that it was invalid for inconsistency with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

All of the grounds raised by the plaintiffs failed.

The laws are appropriate for stopping crime

A majority of 6:1 found that the anti-consorting provisions burden the implied freedom, but that the provisions are appropriate and adapted to serve the legitimate end of the prevention of crime in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government (see below for Justice Gageler's distinct approach).  The High Court noted that the provisions do not unduly limit all political communications, or occasions for such communications, and that the proscribed consorting would need to be 'habitual' for the prohibition to apply, which again limited the scope of the prohibition.

But such laws could be read down in future

Justice Gageler, reaching the same conclusion via a different route, found that the provisions are not appropriate and adapted to the purpose of preventing crime, where they limit communications on political matters.  However, he found that the provisions could be read down to exclude 'consorting which is or forms part of an association for a purpose of engaging in communication on governmental or political matter', and the legislation was saved on this basis.  If this approach finds favour in future, it could lead to different results, with laws being held to not apply to political communication.

Only Chief Justice French dissented, in finding that the legislation was not appropriate and adapted because it applied to what he referred to as 'entirely innocent habitual consorting'.  The Chief Justice therefore found the provisions to be invalid.

As for the other grounds, the Court found that the freedom of association was either unnecessary to consider or could not be implied into the Constitution, and unanimously rejected the proposition that a treaty which has not been incorporated into Commonwealth law could circumscribe the legislative power of State Parliaments.

What does this mean for Victoria?

If similar legislation were introduced in Victoria, its interpretation and application would be affected by the processes required under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which expressly protects rights to freedom of expression and association.  The approach to determining any challenge to hypothetical similar Victorian laws may involve different considerations depending on how the legislation is framed and the nature of the dispute between parties. In determining whether Charter Act rights are limited in such a case, the court would need to engage in a balancing exercise that may involve similar considerations as those considered in this case.  Ultimately, the outcome would depend upon whether any limitation of Charter Act rights could be shown to be lawful and justified.

If you are in the Victorian Government and require advice on constitutional or human rights issues, we can help.

VGSO will be presenting a seminar, open to all Victorian Government client agencies, on this case and its implications.  It will be held on Wednesday, 19 November 2014, from 12:30-2:00pm at Level 33, 80 Collins Street, Melbourne. Please register your interest in attending by emailing marketing.team@vgso.vic.gov.au

For further information about the topic contact:

Adrian Hoel
Principal Solicitor
t: 8684 0244
e: adrian.hoel@vgso.vic.gov.au

Nahal Zebarjadi
Solicitor
t: 8684 0401
e: nahal.zebarjadi@vgso.vic.gov.au

Changing Times: Sex discrimination damages on the rise as the 'old range' debunked by 'community standards'

The Full Court of the Federal Court has blown the lid off what key commentators have been calling the discrimination damages time capsule. In Richardson v Oracle an award at trial of $18,000 for pain and suffering caused by sexual harassment at IT company, Oracle, was increased to $100,000 on appeal. The decision has some lawyers quoting Bob Dylan's 'the time's they are a-changin'. So, what happened, and why the revolutionary tenor?

The Full Court did two main things - both are critical for public sector employers who could be liable for unlawful conduct by their employees.

1. 'Unofficial range' rejected

Justice Kenny (with whom Besanko and Perram JJ agreed) held that the $18,000 awarded by the trial Judge was 'manifestly inadequate' compensation for Ms Richardson's pain and suffering. In doing so, the Court rejected a long-standing unofficial range of between $12,000 and $20,000 within which damages for all but the most extreme sexual harassment injuries have previously been awarded.

While her Honour accepted that the trial Judge fixed a sum squarely 'within the range', this was not, as her Honour put it, 'the end of the matter'. The Court identified a 'substantial disparity' between Ms Richardson's compensation and the amounts now awarded outside the sex discrimination space to victims of workplace bullying and harassment (especially in Victoria). After highlighting the dangers of relying too heavily on an unofficial range at all, the Court rejected it. The range had, her Honour stated, 'remained unchanged' for over a decade 'notwithstanding that the community has generally gained a deeper appreciation of the experience of hurt and humiliation that victims of sexual harassment experience'.

Once the range was cast aside, the Court assessed Ms Richardson's loss by reference to 'general standards prevailing in the community' regarding the value of her pain and suffering: In this case, the amount was determined to be $100,000.

2. Damages awarded for Ms Richardson's 'choice to leave'

Perram and Besanko JJ (with whom Kenny J agreed) also overturned the trial Judge's finding that Oracle was not liable for Ms Richardson's financial loss upon leaving the company. Although she was not constructively dismissed or demoted, Oracle was still liable for Ms Richardson's loss. The clincher here was causation. Even though Oracle had not 'forced her out', it was liable once she 'chose' to leave because this 'choice' was itself caused by the sexual harassment. Such an analysis is not entirely new, but in Richardson the Court applied these principles to what may be a very common series of events where sexual harassment is proven.

TAKE HOME POINTS

So what does this mean for the public sector? In short, it seems the times are a changin'.

This decision confirms that, as always, employers must take sexual harassment in the workplace seriously. A failure to do so can now amount to higher damages than traditionally awarded against employers who are held to be vicariously liable for an employee's discriminatory conduct. The impact of the sexual harassment in this case, although significant, was not considered to be traumatic. Nevertheless, Ms Richardson was awarded $100,000 in recognition that 'community standards' and expectation have altered.

It is also important to bear in mind that these principles could be applied more generally in cases involving unlawful discrimination on the basis of other attributes, such as disability, race or age discrimination. The decision, therefore, has significant implications beyond cases involving sexual harassment.

Richardson is a timely reminder to review your agency's anti-discrimination policies and provide appropriate training to ensure that all employees are aware of the law and their obligations under it.
For further information about the case, advice on your agency’s anti-discrimination policies or how to keep up with the law involving anti- discrimination, please contact:

Vicki Moulatsiotis
Principal Solicitor
t 9032 3012
vicki.moulatsiotis@vgso.vic.gov.au

Katherine Francis
Senior Solicitor
t 9032 3014
katherine.francis@vgso.vic.gov.au

Hollie Kerwin
Solicitor
t 8684 0241
hollie.kerwin@vgso.vic.gov.au

White Paper on Reform of the Federation - what's in it for the States?

Australians want good services and infrastructure with minimal red tape, but accountability is important, and dividing up responsibilities and duties in our constitutional system isn't always easy. While the States have significant responsibilities for service delivery, the Commonwealth is more able to raise revenue to pay for those services. 

There are some areas that are better dealt with locally. There are other areas where a coordinated national approach is appropriate. But which approach is best and when? What does our constitutional system allow? 

The White Paper on Reform of the Federation will hopefully shed some light on these questions.

Just what is a white paper anyway?

A white paper is a report or guide helping stakeholders understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision. White papers tend to present a finished outcome, and so there are often green papers along the way. Green papers are usually more open-ended, presenting a range of options to facilitate consultation and help government reach a decision. And before the green papers, there may be issues papers as high level backgrounders on discrete topics. 

What's happening when?

The terms of reference for the White Paper on the Reform of the Federation were released on 30 June 2014. The first Issues Paper, "A Federation for our Future", was released 12 September 2014, and includes a detailed history of Australia's federal system. 

The Commonwealth will prepare further Issues Papers on health, education, housing and homelessness. The White Paper process will also consider transport and infrastructure, Indigenous affairs, justice, disability, welfare services, settlement services, family and parental support, disaster recovery, environmental regulation, adult and community education, and youth transitions. 

A Green Paper setting out options for reform will be released during the first half of 2015. The final White Paper setting out the Commonwealth's position is to be released by the end of 2015.

Why is the White Paper on Reform of the Federation important?

The White Paper has lofty aims: to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each level of government, to improve fiscal sustainability, and in turn help the public understand the federal system better and make interacting with government easier. 

In recent years there has been an accelerating trend towards centralisation of policy and funding in many areas, due in part to the High Court's broad interpretation of Commonwealth powers under the Constitution. 

The Commonwealth has indicated an intention to apply the principle of "subsidiarity" (or decentralisation), whereby responsibility for government services lie with the lowest possible level of government, closest to the beneficiaries of the services. 

How this might happen in practice is where it gets interesting. Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has limited power over subject matters but broad power to tax. The States have been left with few independent revenue sources but have broad responsibilities, meaning that they are reliant on Commonwealth funding for key areas of service delivery. With funding comes the need for accountability.

As part of the White Paper process, the 2008 Inter-Governmental Agreement on Federal-Financial Relations will be revisited. That Agreement was executed with the intention to improve autonomy for States, but over time, funding agreements with restrictive conditions (also known as "tied grants") have increased. 

This time around revenue will also be on the agenda, with the White Paper on the Reform of the Federation to be closely aligned with the White Paper on the Reform of Australia’s Tax System (for which the terms of reference are yet to be released).

Will the Commonwealth propose constitutional reform? If it doesn’t, how will the Commonwealth resist the urge to impose restrictive conditions on the States receiving federal funds, just as it has since 2008? If it does, will there be bipartisan support for the proposal so that it stands a chance of satisfying our rigorous constitutional amendment process?

Where to from here? 

A Steering Committee will oversee the White Paper process, chaired by the Commonwealth and with representation from the State and Territory representatives First Ministers’ departments and the Australian Local Government Association. It will be a standing item on the COAG agenda. Details on the public consultation process to be released soon on the website at www.federation.dpmc.gov.au. 

VGSO's experts in constitutional law and intergovernmental relations can help Victorian government bodies if you require advice on engaging with the White Paper process. 

VGSO contacts:

Sky Mykyta 

Managing Principal Solicitor

 t 8684 0220

sky.mykyta@vgso.vic.gov.au

Rachel Amamoo

Managing Principal Solicitor

t 8684 0899

rachel.amamoo@vgso.vic.gov.au