Questions without notice and ministers statements
Parole eligibility
Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (14:01): My question is to the Premier. The families of Paul Denyer’s victims are in the house today. Can the Premier tell them why the government will not support the private members bill to keep Paul Denyer behind bars for the rest of his life?
Daniel ANDREWS (Mulgrave – Premier) (14:02): I thank the member for Berwick for his question. Earlier on today the Attorney-General Ms Symes in the other place wrote to the honourable member for Berwick in his capacity as the relevant shadow minister and offered, to him and to all members of the opposition, an opportunity to work with the government in a bipartisan way to develop proposals and plans that would be far less likely – and in fact it is our intention to draft changes to the law in relation to parole for offenders like the offender that the member for Berwick mentioned. It is the government’s intention to develop changes to the law that would avoid potential, and on some reckoning likely, challenges to the High Court. We do not think that any family, least of all the families in question here, benefits from a potentially long and very, very challenging process in the High Court. We think there is a way forward to limit access to parole for those who have been convicted of these sorts of offences who have already had at least one go before the adult parole board, putting in a time limit and, secondly, for those who have not meaningfully participated in rehabilitation programs, who have effectively shown no interest at all in being rehabilitated whatsoever, making it impossible for them to petition to appear, let alone appear, before the adult parole board.
As is his right, the member for Berwick and the opposition decided to proceed with their matter in the other place. They are perfectly entitled to do that. They essentially indicated that they did not want to take the government up on the invitation that we have extended to them. I again reiterate the government is –
Members interjecting.
Daniel ANDREWS: Well, for the benefit of Hansard it was this morning, and for the further benefit of Hansard I extend again a further invitation to those opposite and indeed to all members of Parliament to work with the government in the development and the drafting of those changes, for the benefit of the families that the member for Berwick mentions and all families, because these changes will be enduring. They will not relate to any one person; they will relate to all such persons if they were to qualify. I will again make the point, as I did yesterday, that the way in which the system has engaged with the families in this matter is not only regrettable but unacceptable, and we will do more and do better to ensure that that does not happen again.
Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (14:05): Given the Premier’s support for the same legislative approach that has kept Julian Knight and Craig Minogue behind bars for life, why is Paul Denyer any different?
Daniel ANDREWS (Mulgrave – Premier) (14:05): It is the considered view of the government that each and every one of these individual specific provisions make it more likely that these matters will not only appear before the High Court but could be subject to an adverse judgement. It is for us to develop a way forward that supports families who are affected and carry the great burden of these evil crimes every day and that does not involve the likelihood – some would argue, the certainty – of a High Court challenge that is long, difficult, painful, distressing. That is our intention, and I again urge the member for Berwick and his colleagues to join with the government in developing these enduring changes – changes that we think will be High Court proof, as it were, and would not give rise to a very painful and long and protracted appeal process. That is my offer: work with us, and we will find a way through.