Tuesday, 26 November 2024

Bills

Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (14:50): I rise to make some comments on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. In 2018 the Victorian government issued a reference to the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review and report on Victoria’s committal system. We have heard from our Shadow Attorney-General the member for Malvern about some of the processes and the need for doing this. One of the overwhelming issues that there has been in our court system is this huge backlog. The management of our courts is certainly in a mess, similar to many other issues that we are seeing in our state, particularly after 10 years of the Allan Labor government. It is a classic case of justice being denied or delayed in many instances and being delayed because of the backlogs in our court system. The Allan Labor government has had many, many years to try and fix that backlog. It largely could be fixed by investing more into our court system, but we are seeing that not happen – quite the opposite – and largely a lot of investment taken out of the court system and our justice system, and ultimately the backlog that we are now experiencing.

The Allan Labor government is seeking to abolish committal hearings following the Victorian Law Reform Commission report that, as I said, was done in 2018. The change is being opposed by a number of people, including Liberty Victoria, the Victorian Bar and the Law Institute of Victoria. Some of the issues that these bodies had with some of the changes include, as the Victorian Bar said:

The committal test – to determine whether there is evidence of sufficient weight to support a conviction for the offence charged – is a fundamental safeguard in our justice system.

So we need to ensure that we do get it right, and the precommittal effectively helps to do that. This will be important, to ensure that there is that safeguard mechanism. It went on:

It ensures that where a finding of guilt at trial is highly unlikely or impossible, charges do not proceed to the trial Court. This saves alleged victims, witnesses and accused from unnecessarily undergoing the trial process.

It is a kind of precleaning process to be able to go through and test the veracity of the evidence prior to going to full trial and putting people through an undue process of trauma, cost and obviously more delays.

Some of the pros of the changes: as I said, it may speed up the trial process and avoid some of the double handling through the committal process followed by a trial dealing with the same kind of evidence. It is likely to lessen the prospect of a complainant being cross-examined twice – once in committal and again during the trial. Again, particularly when people have been traumatised, to have to relive that trauma is certainly something that you want to try and avoid if you can. Especially on our side of the house we often talk about putting victims first and victims’ families first, and that is certainly one of the things that we want to safeguard to help those that are experiencing that trauma as victims of crime. It may reduce the resourcing requirements, which could also assist in reducing the judicial backlog.

But some of the problems with these changes, according to the Victorian Bar, include lawyers worried that a case will be less likely to be resolved prior to a trial unless this model has the prospect of a plea deal – reduced in the absence of a proper test of the prosecution’s evidence of committal, which may see more matters go to trial than otherwise. So what it is trying to avoid invariably may do the opposite. And there is the question of fairness to the accused when there are more barriers being placed in the testing of evidence and prosecution witnesses at the committal and where the committal results in a decision not to go to trial. After the recent Daylesford driving deaths, fairness for victims would be at least having a judicial decision to explain it rather than the DPP simply deciding not to continue based on the weakness of the case. It is effectively putting, again, more of the powers in the hands of the DPP and not allowing the proper judicial process to take its course. So pardon the pun, but the jury is out according to the Victorian Bar when it comes to some of these changes.

Victoria is suffering, as I mentioned, a huge, chronic court backlog because of the government’s mismanagement, and there are lots of examples of that. The Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services examined every Australian jurisdiction’s court backlog for 2022–23 and confirmed a whole range of issues in terms of blowouts of waiting times et cetera.

The Magistrates’ Court criminal case wait times of more than 12 months are worse than any other mainland state at 18.2 per cent. For people waiting more than 12 months, we are the largest of any other mainland state at 18.2 per cent. The Magistrates’ Court civil case wait times of more than 12 ‍months are the worst of any state at 36 per cent – 36.2 per cent in terms of wait times. That is huge in terms of those numbers. The County Court criminal case wait times of more than 12 months are the second worst of any state at 26.6 per cent. The Supreme Court criminal case wait times of more than 12 months are worse than any mainland state at 28.5 per cent. The cost of finalisation of Supreme Court criminal cases is the highest in the country at $63,139 per case. The cost of finalisation of Supreme Court civil cases is the highest of any state at $11,636 per case. Our costs are blowing out, times are blowing out, and certainly there has not been the real emphasis to be able to get those down and to manage that. Ultimately Victorians are paying the price for this in not only a cost which all Victorians bear but also an inadequate service, more delays and all the associated problems that go with a court system that is certainly broken.

Meanwhile we have $272 million in courts in Wyndham, which was a big fanfare announcement. That complex will not open until 2026 because the Allan Labor government has run out of money and cannot afford to staff it. Again we see the government is really quick to cut a ribbon on a building and say, ‘Look at this. We have got all these fantastic courts in Wyndham. Let’s go,’ but unfortunately, when push comes to shove, you cannot fund the staff to run the courts. It is no use having the buildings if you cannot run the staff, and that is why you have a broken system.

This government cannot add up and are certainly very, very basic when it comes to understanding financial responsibility. They are financially reckless. The Allan Labor government, led by Premier Allan, is absolutely financially reckless, and this is a prime example of that. You cannot announce a court system without staffing it and having that accounted for and properly managed. It is little wonder why we have record debt and why our state is going backwards, simply because this government cannot add up. Hopefully over the summer period we might be able to lend the Premier a calculator and a couple of maths books and see how we can get that fixed, because at the moment the state is going backwards under this government.

Ultimately I do support the Shadow Attorney-General’s, the member for Malvern’s, perfectly reasoned amendment, which includes that this house declines to read the bill a second time until, firstly, the government explains why it has rejected the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s recommendation to empower the Magistrates’ and Children’s Courts to discharge the accused on a relevant indictable charge or charges if satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction – pretty self-explanatory. Why would you proceed if the evidence is pretty clear that there is no chance of a conviction? It is just more delays, more cost and more mismanagement. Secondly, important in any new legislation, the government commits to reviewing the implementation of the bill to identify and remedy any demonstrable unfairness to defendants that may be occasioned. That is really important. We have got to get this right. As I said, there are a number of people in the legal fraternity that have issues with this bill. This is quite a big change. We need to ensure that there is fairness when it comes to justice, and in order to ensure these changes do not have unintended consequences that take away that fairness for everybody and every Victorian, this needs to be reviewed. That is why I support the reasoned amendment moved by the member for Malvern.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (14:59): I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024 and acknowledge the work that has been done by the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) in bringing about what are an important set of changes to the house and therefore to the state. I also acknowledge, just before I go to some of the specifics within the legislation before the house this afternoon, the work that is done by all of those within the justice system and the important role of course the courts play and, from a local perspective, some of the work that is being done by organisations, some of which were mentioned earlier in previous contributions – Westjustice and Northern Community Legal Centre (CLC) particularly in my community. They are doing important work, making sure that those within our community who seek and need representation have access to such representation. They go through what are in many instances quite complicated processes but are incredibly well supported.

When it comes to some of those complications within various processes and within the system, Acting Speaker Tak, I am sure that you know and understand and acknowledge this, and members in contributions this afternoon have spoken about this already. This is where the work of the VLRC goes to ensuring that we have a strong, robust and fair system, which is of course very important for not just the system itself but, most importantly, the needs of the community.

This piece of legislation forms what is a broader suite or set of work that has come before the house over the journey. The privilege that we have had to be in government of course goes to some of the work that has been done by way of the report that has been previously mentioned – an important report that looks at processes, efficiencies and, critically, minimising the trauma that can be inflicted during some of these processes, and of course that has been mentioned by others this afternoon. As I mentioned, this bill forms a broader narrative, a larger suite of reforms, that go to both fairness and protection of victims and witnesses. It makes improvements to the system. Making sure, as I mentioned earlier, that we are taking on board that advice for those that are within what is a very complex system – very dynamic, of course – is very important. We know and understand this by way of history, and this has been mentioned earlier.

The committals process was developed before we had independent police prosecution and was also designed to filter out some of those matters that should not be pursued to trial. We know that the 51 ‍reform recommendations that were made by the VLRC were, as I mentioned earlier, the basis of what was contained in the report. The bill before us this afternoon focuses on the reforms that will streamline the processes by maximising our use of existing resources. Specifically – I will just rattle these off – the bill will abolish the test for committal; require committal case conferences in most matters to ensure appropriate disclosure, enabling 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; reducing duplicative cross-examination by strengthening the test; prohibiting the cross-examination of witnesses and victims in sexual offences, family violence and stalking matters at the committal stage; allowing children and people with cognitive impairments to give prerecorded evidence; fast-tracking the most serious matters to the Supreme Court for management and a faster resolution; and finally, enabling the appropriate use of audiovisual appearances for persons in custody and allowing certain officers and investigations to witness statements.

As I mentioned earlier, what is at the heart of a fair, proper and appropriate system is of course people. We on this side of the house, and I hope all members in their reflections and their contributions on this piece of legislation, know that the work that has been done does need to put those that are affected, often in very complex, very dynamic situations, at the forefront of those reforms. What is really important is of course to acknowledge that the work that has been done to get to this stage is on the basis of what has been some very comprehensive work that has been done thus far. We know and understand, though, that that work is ongoing; it certainly is not a matter of closed book, closed case. This is to ensure that we are bringing in these reforms on the back of what has been some very significant and important work and making sure that the careful changes that are introduced to modernise the committals process preserve the important benefits that our committals process can provide whilst minimising the duplication and ensuring that we are able to speed up the resolution of a number of matters and importantly – critically – to protect victims and witnesses from the trauma of repeated cross-examination.

This goes to some of the points made earlier about making sure that both within the justice system and right across all portfolios of government we are working with those experts. I mentioned Westjustice and Northern CLC before, and I will head towards the conclusion of my contribution this afternoon by acknowledging the work that has been done by those agencies and by so many others that I have not mentioned that do extraordinary work within our community and of course make sure that for those that are harmed, often by serious crime but also by less serious crime within the community, the system is as responsive as it can be and does not put those that have been harmed back in harm’s way. It is always important, as I mentioned earlier, to carefully consider the findings and the recommendations that have been made. When a number of these reports are put together, taking the important recommendations, as we have done in this instance, and also making sure that we are working right across the entire justice system and working with both government agencies and non-government agencies and listening to local communities is of course something that is incredibly important.

There are a range of changes that are contained within this bill before the house this afternoon that go to a number of important pieces of legislation and the work that has been done thus far. I do want to acknowledge that work because that is something that is very important for the government and we know and understand the complexities, the challenges and the dynamic nature that exist within our justice system. All members of Parliament I am sure work with local communities and work with those that have been affected, and I want to again send my best wishes and say thank you to all of those people that do extraordinary work. Making sure that we are listening to and working with local communities and taking the important work that has been done by the commission to bring about what is a series of important changes to the committals process is indeed something that, as a local member and a member of this Allan Labor government, is very important. With those comments I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (15:09): I rise today to talk on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024, and firstly I would like to thank the member for Malvern for his lead in guiding us through what the changes mean and how long the processes have been going on for. A little bit of background, going back to 2018 the Victorian government issued a reference to the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review and report on Victoria’s committal system. The commission was asked to recommend any legislative, procedural or administrative changes to Victoria’s committal procedure which could reduce trauma experienced by victims and witnesses – to protect them and short-circuit some of the processes that they need to go through – improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and ensure fair trial rights as they go through. The VLRC reported that each year approximately 3000 criminal cases go through, some from committal proceedings. Around 30 per cent of these resolve in the Magistrates’ Court, around 60 per cent are committed to the County Court, and around half of these go to trial. The other half are sentenced following a plea of guilty in the Magistrates’ Court; a further 4 per cent are tried and sentenced in the Supreme Court. We can see the process there and how the reforms here are trying to streamline that a little bit more.

In March 2020 a report was tabled in Parliament. The report made 51 recommendations, including the test for committal, which involves a magistrate assessing if the evidence is of sufficient weight to support a conviction for an indictable offence. That is always important, whether that process should be abolished to streamline it a bit. In place of an order for committal, the mechanism for transfer of indictable charges from the lower court should be an order of the Magistrates’ or Children’s Court that the accused appear for either plea or sentencing in a higher court on a date to be determined.

The court process, as was explained by the member for Malvern, has been a long process. I note that we do not oppose the bill, but the member for Malvern, rightly so I think, has proposed a reasoned amendment. The reasoned amendment goes along the lines that this house declines to read the bill a second time until the government explains why it has rejected the VLRC recommendation to empower the magistrates of the Children’s Court to discharge the accused on relevant indictable charges if satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction, which makes sense, and commits to reviewing the implementation of the bill to identify and remedy any demonstrable unfairness to defendants that may be occasioned. I think the reasoned amendment that the member has put forward makes sense. As I said, we are supporting what the government has put forward, but we think it could go a little bit further to make sure that we do get it right the first time.

Talking of the court system, today, as people would have seen, from my seat we had the Gordon family come in for the first time to the chamber. The Gordon family lost their son in January, and the court system let them down because the perpetrator of the offence which cost their son his life was out on bail. It beggars belief that in this day and age this can happen, especially if you are out on bail on multiple occasions, which seems to have been the case. We look right around the state, especially in my seat in the Latrobe Valley – and I do not think it matters what seat you are in – and hear the stories of people that may be going through a court process currently or have been through the process that have had people break into their cars or their houses who have been tracked down by the police and charged and put through the court system. But the court system has failed the people, not the perpetrator; it has failed the people that the crime has been committed against. So I think any changes that we can make to actually swing the justice system and the law back in our favour, where it should lie, is a good thing.

The Gordon family had the opportunity today to talk to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Police and also the Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for Police to put their case forward. What they have been through no other family should have to go through: losing a son in his early 30s, who was a doctor in Box Hill, because there were some perpetrators that broke in and stole his stuff. Ash, as he would, was flying the flag to get his stuff back, and to have his life ended on the street in those circumstances is an indictment on our justice system. It really is an indictment as we move through at this time. It is something that continues to happen today.

Many a time since I have been here in the last two years we have actually put bills up to strengthen our bail laws which have been defeated by the government of the day. Then down the track the government has brought in laws or a bill that will tighten some of the laws, but they do not go far enough. Our responsibility in this chamber is to every person – it does not matter whether they are male or female, what race they are or what religion they follow. We have got the police making the arrests, and we need to give them more search powers, not powers to be able to search people when they know hours out where that location is going to be. Getting realistic, we can actually have processes put in place that if someone of suspicion is walking down the street, we want to make sure that the people around them are safe. Police should have the powers to pull them up and search them, because most of the time these days, unfortunately, a person that would get searched on the street is probably carrying a weapon, and that is an indictment of the way we live at the moment. We need to make sure that whatever we do, and especially with our courts, the police are out there arresting people to the full letter of the law that we have at that moment. But it is sometimes like a revolving door when they get to court. By the time the police get back to their car, that individual, whether they be young, middle-aged or older, is back out on the street. That is just wrong, because we need to make sure while we are standing here in this chamber that we are protecting our communities right throughout Victoria. I think you have only got to talk to a person on the street – you do not need to know them – and ask them what their biggest fears are, and it will be safety on the street, people breaking into their house and knowing who that person is walking towards you on the street.

As I said, we do not oppose this bill, but I think the government need to take into consideration the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Malvern. Our job is to make the people of Victoria safe, and we need to make the hard calls.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:20): I am very pleased to speak to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. I am pleased that the opposition have agreed to support the bill, save for the rather obstructive element of a reasoned amendment, which certainly can significantly block – and that is its purpose – the progression of a bill. On that note, I would like to speak to some of the elements that were raised by the Shadow Attorney-General and seek to acquit some of the concerns in that regard.

Firstly, I would say I do concur with the Shadow Attorney-General in characterising committals reform as being complex and far from straightforward. We are absolutely on the same page with that, and that is why certainly as a government we have been very prudent in calibrating this bill to maximise the benefits, reducing duplication and saving parties and courts time and effort and shielding vulnerable victims and witnesses from unnecessary trauma, while making sure – and I think this is a fairly critical element in terms of the reasoned amendment and the elements it is going to – that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure a fair trial.

We carefully considered the merits of adding a discharge test but decided not to, because it would erode the efficiencies gained from abolishing the committals test in terms of saving parties and the court from litigating the same issues in the Magistrates’ Court and again in the trial court. Importantly, the proposed committal case conferences process will provide an opportunity – here is an important safeguard and an important caveat – for parties to discuss the case, evidence and outstanding issues. In the kind of situation the member for Malvern has described, where there is clearly no case to answer, the DPP would be able to discontinue matters. I hope that that goes some way – I would like it to go all the way, actually – to acquitting some of the concerns raised pertaining to the particular reasoned amendment before the Parliament. Even if this does not occur – to further extend that point – once the prosecution has made its case in the trial court, the defence can make a no-case-to-answer submission. If the trial court agrees, they would be able to discharge the matter at that stage. So there you can see that ensuring fairness is of the utmost importance, particularly in this very delicate context, when we are talking about reforming the committals process.

If I go a little further on that premise or concept, which is a very fundamental tenet of a justice system ‍– that is, making sure that we support the fairest possible outcomes in all situations – in relation to the second limb of the reasoned amendment, if the member for Malvern has any examples of demonstrable unfairness that may stem from this legislation, we would certainly be very happy to take that into account. I say that with the greatest respect for the arguments put forward by the Shadow Attorney-General in the chamber. But we have carefully considered competing interests in the criminal justice system and have concluded the benefits that this bill will deliver are proportional and appropriate, and adequate safeguards will remain place to ensure a fair trial. These I think are really important elements when we are discussing the reasoned amendment that has been put forward.

Further to the point of the test for discharge and the Victorian Law Reform Commission recommendation, the proposed discharge test would require a magistrate on application by the accused to assess if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. The VLRC highlighted the risk that discharge applications may be made routinely – thinking about what we are trying to ameliorate with the committals reform here and that risk – and would require cultural change in the legal profession. I do not want to in any way suggest that cultural change in the legal profession is not an element that can be manifested and that it would not happen, but at the same time, maybe the legal profession is not always – you know, you cannot guarantee such cultural change in the time it might take for that to be manifested. And when we are thinking about the fundamental tenets of the reforms that we are seeking to bring about with this committal reform bill, we can see that tenuous point there and the risk that could prevail.

Further, if we are thinking about the fact that legal stakeholders were consulted on the introduction of a discharge test, as with other elements of the bill, their views were mixed – fair enough. Nobody is resiling from the fact that there are different points of view with regard to the discharge test. Stakeholders, though, and I just want to put this before the Parliament, noted concerns with such a proposal. The VLRC test is complex and will involve hearing substantial evidence. What are we trying to do here in terms of creating a more efficient process, reducing costs and also mitigating the risk of retraumatising victims through processes? Considering all the evidence, the reliability and credibility of the evidence continue to be duplicative and may lead to administrative burdens and delays. It may lead to routine applications and delay in the committal stream. And you can see already where this is headed, and you can see that it is running – I will put forward and I will contend – contrary to the purpose for which the reforms are being brought about.

Consideration of credibility et cetera of witnesses may lead to increased cross-examination at the committal hearing. There is overlap between a discharge test and the criteria applied by the DPP for commencing proceedings. Also, although an accused may be committed on all charges, the DPP does not necessarily proceed with all charges in the trial court. It proposes a higher threshold than the no-case submission at trial. A stronger case management model is a better way – I just want to emphasise this point, so forgive my theatrics on that point, but this is a very serious matter – of getting parties to assess cases thoroughly at an early stage. And isn’t that what we are trying to achieve here? Other Australian jurisdictions that have abolished the test for committal do not have a discharge test.

I hope by putting those matters before the Parliament you can see how carefully and how prudently the contingencies have been assessed in proceeding with the current reforms. If we look at the current committal process, it looks a lot like a mini version of a 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 then completed in court if the matter proceeds to trial. This duplication is obviously a cost for the justice system but also for parties that have to go through the process. When we are looking at the imperative for change in this context, you can see what the driving forces are.

It is also very important to note that the vast majority of matters are committed to be heard. A Victorian Law Reform Commission study found that only 1 to 2 per cent of matters have any charges filtered out through the process, and often an accused person faces multiple charges. I think it is really important to factor that evidence in when we are discussing the nuanced elements of this bill and the proposed reforms.

Why is there this low knockout rate? Well, because we have an independent Office of Public Prosecutions which carefully applies a series of criteria to determine whether charges should be laid. This criteria is set out in the director’s policy, which is available online, and 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 that the bar for committing a matter to trial is not met, this can be overridden by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who can directly indict a matter for trial in a higher court.

It has been already stated in the chamber that the bill is about streamlining to maximise benefits while minimising inefficiency. With the evolution of our criminal justice system over time, there are key benefits that we can see here. I am running out of time, so I am going to say on this premise I will commend this bill to the house. I did not quite allow enough time for that final little note.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (15:30): I too rise to address the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024 before us today, and from the outset can I acknowledge the contribution of my colleague the Shadow Attorney-General, the member for Malvern, earlier in this place, thank him for the detailed work he has done on the bill before us today and endorse wholeheartedly the comprehensive remarks he made earlier today in relation to the justice legislation we are debating in the chamber this afternoon.

I note that this bill has its origins back in 2018, some years ago now, in reference to the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s review of and report on Victoria’s committals system. The commission was asked to recommend any legislative, procedural or administrative changes to Victoria’s committal procedure which could reduce trauma experienced by victims and witnesses, improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and ensure fair trial rights. The VLRC came back in 2020 and made 51 ‍recommendations around committal proceeding reform. I note that in that report the VLRC noted that each year approximately 3000 criminal cases go through some form of committal proceeding. Around 30 per cent of these resolve in the Magistrates’ Court and around 60 per cent are committed to the County Court, around half of which are for trial and the other half for sentencing following a plea of guilty in the Magistrates’ Court, and a further 4 per cent are tried or sentenced in the Supreme Court.

Following that finding the VLRC came back and made those 51 recommendations. There has been a view for some time now within the legal fraternity – and I note that this is not unanimously held, but nonetheless – that committal hearings can lead in some instances to a double-handling of evidence in criminal proceedings. There is also a view that reform to the committal procedure and the limitation on the use of cross-examination may help make the criminal justice process less distressing or traumatic for witnesses and victims, and I note that the bill before us today does go to addressing and potentially reducing the traumatic impact of cross-examination on witnesses and victims of crime. As has been raised today, several other jurisdictions in Australia have moved to reform and streamline their own committal processes in similar ways. In that context I note specifically that this bill does remove the test for committal, extends the prohibition on cross-examination to other proceedings and strengthens the test for granting leave to cross-examine.

As the member for Malvern spoke to at some length, there are views from the Victorian Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association that oppose key amendments in the bill before us today, including the removal of the test for committal and the extension of the prohibition on cross-examination. They assert that the committal process is a fundamental safeguard in our justice system and ensures that charges where a finding of guilt at trial is highly unlikely or impossible do not proceed to the trial court. This saves alleged victims, witnesses and accused from unnecessarily undergoing the trial process. Regarding the changes to the rules governing cross-examination, they argue that the strength of any prosecution case only becomes apparent once witnesses are required to face cross-examination. It is at that crucial point that deficiencies in the evidence become apparent. Given these concerns expressed by key members of the legal fraternity, I do suggest that the government seriously consider the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment and commit to reviewing the implementation of the bill to identify and remedy any demonstrable unfairness to defendants that may arise as a result of the changes contained within this bill.

I note the member for Malvern spoke about the VLRC report and the fact that with the bill before us today the government does appear to have cherrypicked from the recommendations in that we are looking at removing the test for committal. But the review also recommended that the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 should be amended to provide that the accused may apply to the Magistrates’ or Children’s courts for an order that the accused be discharged and empower the Magistrates’ and Children’s courts to discharge the accused on the relevant indictable charge if satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

That recommendation, a very important safeguard that was included in the VLRC’s report, is not included in this bill, so I do support the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment that goes to addressing that very issue to explain why it has rejected the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s recommendation to empower the Magistrates’ and the Children’s courts to discharge the accused on a relevant indictable charge or charges if satisfied there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. That does provide a safeguard to the complete removal of committals as this bill prescribes.

The member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment is especially prescient given the government’s track record when it comes to criminal law reform. Let us not forget that at a time when alleged offender incidents by 10- to 17-year-olds increased – between June 2022 and June 2024 – and youth crime was at its highest in a decade the Labor government pushed ahead with their plans to actually weaken Victoria’s bail laws. At a time when we have seen youth crime spike by 20 per cent, we have seen criminal incidents in Victoria increase by more than 10 per cent. But the youth crime figure is at 20 ‍per cent, and we saw this government in March this year weaken Victoria’s bail laws.

I have spoken about these issues at length in this place, and that is because I have local shop owners in the electorate of Kew that have been held at knifepoint too many times. I have residents in the electorate of Kew that have had their homes broken into at night, when their children were asleep, and who are afraid to be in their own homes. I have had local small businesses with their shopfronts smashed in – they have had their fronts rammed by trucks and ATMs stolen. It is unacceptable that this government continues to see youth crime in this state rise and rise and rise and their answer to it is to weaken Victoria’s bail laws and pretend there is not a problem with youth crime in this state.

I have met with many local residents in the electorate of Kew. In fact not a day goes by when someone does not contact me about the issue of the rising crime rates. When we look at the City of Boroondara, shop theft is up 31 per cent and aggravated robbery is up 65 per cent. As I said, every week I hear about residential break-ins and thefts. This is not surprising given that residential aggravated burglary is up 23 per cent in our area. Just recently I met with a group of very concerned local residents in the area of North Balwyn. Now, North Balwyn is a beautiful part of Melbourne. Unfortunately, though, it sits very high on the leaderboard in terms of the number of aggravated break-ins for a suburb in Victoria. It is completely unacceptable that Victorians do not feel safe in their own homes because this government fails to actually put in place laws that prevent crimes and prevent offenders from reoffending. If you speak to the local police, who work so hard in our local communities with a lack of resources, they will say that they will arrest an offender overnight and by morning they have been bailed – they have been bailed again after they have been arrested, time and time again. The pendulum has swung too far towards protecting the perpetrator and not protecting the victim, and this Labor government refuses to even acknowledge there is a problem, let alone do anything about the problem.

I have to acknowledge the incredible work of Boroondara police, particularly Inspector Sandy McIver and her team at Boroondara police station. They have a very tough job, and at the moment they do have a lack of resources and a lack of support from this government. I will be joining them on Thursday morning as they take 30 minutes out of their day to send a message to the government that they do need more support. They deserve a government that is going to come to the table and actually negotiate and sit down with them and understand their concerns and make sure that they are being heard. At the moment that is simply not happening. We have a government that has found itself, by its own incompetence over 10 years, in financial ruin and now cannot afford to actually pay our frontline workers what they deserve to be paid every single day when they are out protecting our community.

I return to the bill and how it deals with our criminal justice proceedings. I thank the member for Malvern for his reasoned amendment. The coalition will not be opposing the bill before us today, but we do encourage a review to make sure we actually get this right.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (15:40): I also rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024, and I beg to differ with the previous speaker. This amendment that we are looking at here in terms of committal procedure is in fact something that is about further protecting victims of crime and in this case in particular victim-survivors of family violence. So this piece of legislation is very important, and it is about looking at supporting those that are victims of crime as opposed to the perpetrators of it.

This legislation has come about really as it has been seen that there is a need to make some changes to the committal process. Originally, the intent of committal hearings and procedures was really to test the merits of a case to determine whether or not that case ought to go to trial. In a sense it was a mini trial, a sort of lower hurdle to cross, and then it would be determined by a magistrate as to whether that case then continued on to the full trial and there was enough evidence in order to at least believe that it had merit to get a conviction. Since the introduction of committal hearings there has been a lot of change in terms of the way police and the prosecutor’s office operates, and now it really is seen that this is a bit of a duplicative process. It is just going over the same thing, so it is really a trial before the trial rather than a short, defined event in which to determine the merits of a case. I think I read somewhere that the Victorian Law Reform Commission actually advised or provided a report that talks about how only 1 to 2 per cent of matters that go to committal hearing do not proceed to the next stage of trial, so it is a very small number where that does not happen.

While we are still going to have the committal hearings, this is about ensuring that the process is a little bit different and that there is not the same duplicative work done. While it is still necessary in some cases, this reform would ensure that it is done in a better way. It would still ensure that the accused have rights and the right to a fair trial, but also, going through the legislation, it talks about strengthening protections for victims and witnesses by prohibiting cross-examination at committal stage of any witness in sexual offences, family violence and stalking cases and also 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.

The state Labor government’s Royal Commission into Family Violence and the acceptance and implementation of all recommendations really did demonstrate some of the ways that the justice system does not support and assist those victim-survivors and is used and manipulated by perpetrators of that family violence and other sexual violence. In my mind the really important aspect of this amendment is to give better protections to those victims and victim-survivors.

I have had a number of women coming to see me as their member of Parliament to talk about some of their experiences and the terrible things that happened, and one of them is really the way that perpetrators – in these cases men, husbands, ex-husbands – have manipulative the legal system in order to make it difficult, make it hard and further upset and distress families. A recent example was when a woman had orders and prosecutions and all sorts of things against her former partner yet went off to take her children overseas for a trip to see family, only to get to the airport and be told that her partner had taken out an order to stop those children leaving the country.

Of course she forfeited the cost of her flights and was feeling very upset, distressed and embarrassed. She was unable to go ahead with that family trip when she had done nothing wrong, but she was made to feel as if she had done something wrong. She had to explain to her family overseas, who did not quite understand how it all works and why such a thing could happen. These are the things that it is great to get up here in this Parliament to talk about along with the changes that we are making in order to make things better for people rather than worse.

In the test that applies in the Magistrates’ Court for committal processes, when considering whether the evidence is of sufficient weight to support a conviction for an indictable offence, there is quite a low bar because the intention is to exclude only the weakest cases. Currently the committal process is really just a mini version of a trial – the prosecution lays out the whole case against the accused, the parties are able to examine and cross-examine witnesses and so on – and then the magistrate undertakes a lot of the same work that is completed by the court if the matter proceeds. This duplication is a cost to the justice system both in time and money, and it really also costs the parties that have to go through these long and extended processes.

It is important to note that the vast majority of matters are committed to be heard. The Victorian Law Reform Commission, as I said earlier, found that only 1 to 2 per cent of any charges are filtered out through the process, and often the accused person faces multiple charges. This is the reason why we think there needs to be some changes to the committal proceedings in order to stop this sort of thing from happening. The bill will abolish the test for committal for indictable cases and strengthen case management in the Magistrates’ Court, preserving the core functions of the committal proceedings, and it will also allow for early committal in cases that are before the Supreme Court, so some of the most serious of crimes.

The bill will also amend the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958, and this will allow for the default use of audiovisual links to conduct committal hearings and make consequential and technical amendments. These are changes that on one hand are strengthening and supporting our laws in terms of supporting victims of crime, but they are also adapting to the new technologies and new ways of working. This was all sped up during, dare we say it, the COVID period when there was more audiovisual conferencing and much better work done to really ensure that these sorts of systems would work and were as authentic and worked as well as in-person interviews and so on. This is particularly important for victims, particularly children and others where it is not the best thing to have them in the court with the accused in person when it can be done in a much safer way and in a way that is much more supportive of them and what they need rather than treating all cases the same, all victim-survivors the same and all offences the same.

Most of these changes are common sense and based on needs that have arisen, trying to reduce waste, make the court process more efficient, and of course we would all like to see these processes speed up. Some of the tweaks around the committal hearing process in this legislation are about doing this. I think this is legislation that should be supported. It is yet another step in supporting particularly those that have been victim-survivors of family violence and other terrible sexual crimes.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (15:49): I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. As some of the speakers before me have pointed out, it is a step in the right direction, but as the Shadow Attorney-General the member for Malvern has also stated, there are some things that could direct us in a stronger direction. I am very, very passionate in this space, and I have spent a bit of time in briefings and debriefings and discussions with the Shadow Attorney-General this week. I do appreciate the time that the member for Malvern takes in cases like these. Like I said, it is a step in the right direction, but with the reasoned amendment that the member for Malvern has moved, it could certainly be stronger. One of my mantras is: if you are going to do something, do it right the first time. Let us save time and money and try to get things as right as we can the first time. There is no silver bullet here, but this will certainly help to streamline the process in terms of safeguards and protection for victims of and witnesses for indictable offences like family violence, sexual violence and stalking. And maybe one day we will be able to add coercive control to that list of offences, when that becomes an offence in Victoria, because that is also something that I am very, very passionate about.

While we are on the subject, I think it is an opportune time to pay tribute to the Mildura Rural City Council, who the Friday after last sitting week held their walk against family violence. That is an event in Mildura that starts in the Langtree Mall, and then we walk down as a group to the Powerhouse precinct down on the beautiful Mildura riverfront. I especially want to pay tribute to Kim O’Reilly, who was the speaker. She is a force of nature. She is a victim-survivor of a horrific incident of intimate partner violence. She is still recovering, but she is a force of nature, and the tribute that she conducted at Mildura Rural City Council’s walk against family violence was really powerful. I did actually invite Kim here today to be part of the event in Queen’s Hall, but given that she does so much work and advocacy in this space, she could not be here because she was supporting some other victim-survivors. So I did really want to take a moment to pay tribute to her today.

One other thing I want to point out is when talking about family violence and sexual offences, the term I hear – not often, thankfully, but consistently – is ‘low-risk offenders’. Now, the question in my mind, again, given my experience in the matter, is: is there such a thing as a low-risk offender, or is it someone at the beginning? I think that is another term to be discussed. Again, there is no silver bullet here, but again in my experience, a low-risk offender is an offender nevertheless. I wanted to get that on the record.

But getting back to the bill, this bill obviously comes about after the Victorian government issued the Victorian Law Reform Commission a reference to review and report on the committal system, which brings us to today’s bill. We have heard other members in this place today speak about some of the statistics. Approximately 3000 criminal cases go through some form of committal in the courts every single year. Around 30 per cent of those resolve in the Magistrates’ Court and around 60 per cent are committed to the County Court – half of these for trial, the other half for sentencing following a guilty plea in the Magistrates’ Court – and a further 4 per cent are tried or sentenced in the Supreme Court.

If you have not been to Mildura, this may be hard to imagine. I learned this last weekend. I thought there was a tunnel system just under the justice and police precinct; but apparently those tunnel systems run right throughout the whole town. I am not even joking. I got to have a look in a historic building last week and there are tunnels that run in and out of there. But the tunnel system around the justice precinct is there for obvious reasons – for safety reasons and all that kind of stuff. Talking to our Victoria Police members who are continually frustrated with the weakened bail laws in this state, they call it a very visible wash and repeat. It is like a washing machine spin cycle, where they come in through the police station, they might be held or whatever, they go through the court system or they go see a bail justice. I have a bail justice who is a friend of mine, and it is the same thing. Everyone that is involved and working in this space is so frustrated by the very visible – sometimes it is underground, but it is still very visible – wash and repeat cycle. The bail laws are not there to keep those low-risk offenders – and again what is a low-risk offender when we are talking about violence of any kind? It is a ridiculous term. It is a continual frustration.

I also want to thank our Victoria Police members, and I have been speaking to those in Mildura. I know there is rolling industrial action for police right around the state at the moment. I have offered my support. If it gets up to tropical northern Victoria, I am more than happy to go and stand with them, because it is those frontline workers like our nurses and like our Victoria Police that should be the priority of this government, a government that cannot manage money, and now because of that financial mismanagement they cannot afford to pay our frontline workers and our most essential workers. They have not even come to the table to negotiate. That is having your priorities in the wrong place. I have reached out to some of our police members.

In fact I got pulled up the other day – not for anything, just for a random breath test and police check. It was a great opportunity – mind you, it was 11 o’clock at night. Coming home from an event in Mildura across outback New South Wales and back into Victoria, they pulled me up for a random check and got chatting about things. Although they did not want to give too much away, the size, the heaviness, the melancholy in their voice and the frustration at their employer, who will not even come to the table to negotiate a better pay deal for them, was very, very evident in their voices and in their conversations. Luckily, it was under the cover of darkness and they could have those conversations, because I do not know if you have ever been to Robinvale where I got pulled up, but there is not a lot of traffic around at 11 o’clock at night, which is probably why they pulled me over even though I was not doing anything wrong. Let me get that on the record: I was not doing anything wrong; I had my children in the car.

As we finish up, I have referred to the member for Malvern and Shadow Attorney-General’s reasoned amendment, and this is what we think could strengthen this bill. The reasoned amendment is:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government:

(a) explains why it has rejected the Victorian Law Reform Commission recommendation to empower the Magistrates’ and Children’s courts to discharge the accused on a relevant indictable charge or charges if satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction; and

(b) commits to reviewing the implementation of the bill to identify and remedy any demonstrable unfairness to defendants that may be occasioned.’

Again, we are not opposed to this bill. We are supportive of any measures that might help to strengthen legislation in this area, which is terribly weak at the moment, but it could be stronger. I strongly encourage the government to support the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment, and that may get us to where we need to be.

Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (15:59): I rise today to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. This bill represents a significant step forward in modernising our criminal justice system, ensuring it is both efficient and fair while also protecting the rights of victims and witnesses. At its core this bill is about preventing trauma while also improving efficiencies within the justice system. This law seeks to minimise trauma for victims and witnesses in cases that relate to a sexual offence, a family violence offence or stalking. This bill seeks to remove the need for victims and witnesses to give evidence at committal hearings, reducing trauma for victims from repeatedly being cross-examined and removing duplicate court proceedings. The changes are based on recommendations from the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) in its 2020 committal support and have taken a balanced position based on input from all stakeholders, including both defence and prosecutor stakeholders.

It is important to note that the nature and purposes of committal proceedings have changed over time, and it is appropriate that the law reflects this. The way committal proceedings are currently legislated is from a time before independent police forces and prosecution agencies, when magistrates had the role of reviewing evidence by private prosecutions. This does not reflect the current prosecution system for cases that relate to a sexual offence, a family violence offence or stalking. Committal proceedings are now more focused on narrowing issues in dispute or achieving a resolution of charges, allowing the accused to better understand the prosecution case and making them more prepared for trial in the event it is not resolved with a plea.

Currently complainants and witnesses can be cross-examined multiple times, which can include before the trial and during the committal hearing as well as at trial. Cross-examination, particularly for victims of traumatic cases, is one of the most challenging parts of the court process. As a clinical psychologist I have seen firsthand the devastating impact that trauma can have on individuals. Victims of crime often experience significant psychological distress, and the process of repeatedly recounting their experiences can exacerbate this trauma. It is important that we put protections in place for witnesses and victims to make court a less traumatic and more accessible place. The impacts that cross-examinations can have are many, and they include impacts on physical health; we know stress and anxiety associated with cross-examination can lead to physical health issues. It also includes social support. Victims may feel isolated or unsupported, especially if their credibility is questioned during cross-examination. This in turn can strain relationships between friends and family. And of course withdrawal from prosecution: the fear and anxiety associated with cross-examination can lead many victims to withdraw their support for prosecution, which can impact the pursuit of justice. On a personal note, I have seen in my previous work as a school psychologist a number of young people who have decided not to pursue cases and not to go ahead with reporting sexual offences because of this fear of cross-examination and the retraumatising aspect of it. This bill will prohibit cross-examination of victims before trial for these cases, in recognition of the particular difficulties of providing evidence during family violence, sexual offence or stalking cases. This will bring cross-examination protections in line with current protections for complainants who are a person who is cognitively impaired or a child who has experienced sexual offences.

In 2020 the VLRC published its report on improving Victoria’s committal system. The VLRC identified a number of inefficiencies with the current system and in response made 51 ‍recommendations for reform. A number of these recommendations are included in this legislation, such as abolishing the test for committal, explaining the meaning of relevance for the purposes of an informant’s disclosure obligations and expanding the prohibition on pre-trial cross-examination in certain family violence matters.

The Allan Labor government has made sure to consult with a variety of legal stakeholders who hold a diverse range of views. This bill will also commence after a longer than usual time period to ensure that key stakeholders like the courts have the time they need to prepare for the implementation of these reforms.

The removal of the need for victims to provide evidence at committal will increase efficiency and minimise duplicate court proceedings. Victims of family violence, sexual offence and stalking cases will not have to spend as much time within courts as we are replacing the committal process with a new and improved case management process. While significant time is required for committal hearings, there is already a low threshold for committing a matter, and most of those who are accused are committed by the magistrate. This is why the new case management system will emphasise identifying issues and finding steps for resolution at an earlier stage, as suggested by the Victorian Law Reform Commission.

Another aspect of these reforms will surround the use of audiovisual links. Committal hearings for adults will now allow for those adults who are in custody to use an audiovisual link to appear at committals. This will reduce court delays, as it will minimise tardiness surrounding appearing in court, as well as minimise the number of staff and resources needed to monitor and transfer the accused. These reforms will also mean the nature of committals will be far shorter, removing the need for the accused to appear physically during a courtroom trial and rather focusing on the procedure itself. Through removing the resource-heavy and often duplicate court procedures and changing audiovisual link rules, the burden will be lessened on courts, with less staff resources being needed to be put towards committal hearings.

This bill will also ensure that in cases of homicide there will be mandatory early committal for adults. Committal hearings will be bypassed and the cases will be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. This is based on a successful pilot which has resulted in earlier resolution of cases, again creating a more efficient system than the previous committal system.

Another key element of this bill is the changes around the use of prerecorded video in family violence cases to bring them in line with sexual offence cases. For child victims and witnesses and those with cognitive impairments, the use of prerecorded video will be committed in family violence cases. This will directly reduce the amount of stress and pressure experienced by children and those with cognitive impairments during lengthy hearings and the need to repeat traumatising testimony in a very intimidating environment.

The Allan Labor government is undertaking a number of different law reform activities, and I would like to highlight another very important part of the Allan Labor government’s law reform changes. Just last week the Allan Labor government further supported those who are victims of crime – like we are with this bill today – through making it easier to access financial assistance through the new financial assistance scheme. This scheme will be replacing the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT), which was the previous court-based tribunal established to acknowledge and provide financial assistance to victims of crime.

We recognise the effects that court can have and the at times retraumatising elements that it can have on victims of crime themselves. This is why we are making it possible to have trauma recognised outside of court through the new financial assistance scheme, reducing the number of times a victim may have to attend court or face perpetrators. Whilst not a part of this legislation, the changes to VOCAT show the Allan Labor government’s commitment to the victims of crime, as well as our commitment to efficiency through moving the process away from the courts and our commitment to reducing trauma for victims by minimising the financial burdens and potential family infighting and reducing court confrontations.

The most important part of this bill is reducing unnecessary trauma for complainants and witnesses. If we find that we can do more, we will do more. It is very important that we strengthen protection for those who are vulnerable and who need it and that we continue to reduce the backlog in the courts, which is why this bill is so vital. On day 2 of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence, I see this bill as fitting in supporting victims of crime, and I commend this bill to the house.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (16:09): I am pleased to rise today to talk on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. I will give a shout-out to the Shadow Attorney-General and member for Malvern for the extensive work that he has done on this bill, the extensive consultation that he has done on this bill and his contribution today. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to reform the process for committal proceedings, including by removing the test for committal, extending the prohibition on cross-examinations to other proceedings, strengthening the test for granting leave to cross-examine and providing for early committal for trial in the Supreme Court, and to make other miscellaneous amendments.

Right from the outset I will say we do not oppose this bill one bit. The member for Malvern has put forward a reasoned amendment, which I will get to a bit later, but my gut feeling is any bill that can expediate criminal proceedings is a good bill and any bill that puts victims number one and less trauma on victims is a good bill. I think it is incumbent on everyone in this chamber, when we are debating bills or producing laws or anything around that, to always remember that the victims are the most important people in all of this. Everyone deserves a fair trial, I understand that, but we cannot forget about the victims. The trauma that it puts on victims if they have to go through, let us call them, repeat trials – they have to go through a committal and then they have got to go to trial – can be really, really mentally devastating for them. This bill streamlines that process and makes it more efficient, and that is a good thing, because too many times we hear, especially around sexual assaults and those types of heinous crimes, that they have to sit through the committal hearing and then it goes to trial and then they have to sit through it again. It would be absolutely heartbreaking to have to sit through that constantly and hear the same things over and over again, so any bill that actually, as I said, makes this more efficient we should support.

The member for Malvern did put forward a reasoned amendment. The member for Malvern, being the Shadow Attorney-General, does not put forward things out of malice or spite or even try to pretend to be the smartest person in the room. The member for Malvern has done this because he sees the benefit in the bill – that is why he took a ‘not opposed’ position – and he is doing this to strengthen the bill so we can get it right the first time and so we do not have to come back into this chamber maybe with amendments in maybe two years time. I think the government should listen to it, and I will read it out again. I know it has been read out quite a few times today, but I will read it out again to reinforce the message:

… this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government:

(a) explains why it has rejected the Victorian Law Reform Commission recommendation to empower the Magistrates’ and Children’s courts to discharge the accused on a relevant indictable charge or charges if satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction; and

(b) commits to reviewing the implementation of the bill to identify and remedy any demonstrable unfairness to defendants that may be occasioned.’

As I said, the member for Malvern does not do this out of spite or malice; he does this seeing the benefit of the bill but also seeing how we can add something to this to make it a better bill. I think when we come to the divisions at the end of this week it would be nice – I might be in a utopian society here – if the government actually supported it. It would be quite a different thing to happen. But they need to consider it, because it has been done for a good purpose.

When we are talking about trauma and victims of crime, we cannot go past talking about bail and bail reform. It has been brought up in this chamber today that back in March the government weakened the bail laws in this state, and that has had a devastating effect on communities around Victoria – not just Narracan; it will be every community in this chamber. I am not going to name all 88 seats, but it has had a devastating effect around the state.

We heard in question time today about a young offender that has offended 50 times. He has been released on bail and has gone out and done it again and done it again and done it again. The police must be so frustrated to turn around and keep arresting the same person 50 times, and it has become a revolving door for him. He does not care; he just reoffends. There is nothing there stopping him doing this anymore. The point was probably missed a little bit in question time today, but I am going to reinforce it: if he has had 50 offences, he has probably had more than 50 victims. So as we are in this bill, why aren’t we putting the victims first when it comes to bail reform? Why aren’t we doing that? I think this is what the government got wrong when they weakened the bail laws in March.

Even in my electorate crime has gone up 14.8 per cent. We heard earlier from the member for Kew that youth crime has gone up 20 per cent. These are statistics that Victorians are getting worried about. Victorians are very concerned about the crime in our community. Even the machetes are still out there. I heard this story today, and it is so disturbing, about a man who was in his house and had I think nine kids – quite a lot of kids – break in. They held a machete to his throat, and he had his one-year-old in the bedroom with him. They held a machete to his throat. Why are machetes on our streets? Unless you live in Far North Queensland and are bashing through a jungle, you do not need a machete. I have been in building my whole life; I have not even seen landscapers use a machete in Victoria. There is no need for them. We do not need them in our society at all. They should be banned, they should be destroyed and they should not be able to be sold in this state for any reason. There is just no valid reason. No-one can say to me here that anyone needs a machete.

A member interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: It is a controlled weapon, but there is a difference – there is a big difference. They should be prohibited. We do not need them, and if any policeman sees a machete, I hope they take them off people straightaway and I hope they get melted down into something useful.

This is where the government is failing on youth crime. We are failing on youth crime and we are failing on bail laws, and Victorians are scared. Even my electorate officer the other day came back from Melbourne to find her car broken into, and nothing has been done about it. The police are sick and tired of arresting people, putting them into court and seeing them just released straightaway. It is a problem. It is a problem in this state and in my electorate, where I have very limited police resources. You might have heard my constituency question today. You have got Warragul and Drouin, which are the fastest growing areas in Australia over the last decade. Drouin does not have a 24-hour police station. It needs it. I have the community of Rawson up in the very top end of my electorate. Their single-man station is now closed, so it would take at least an hour to get there if there is an incident, which is problematic for that community. I have got the community of Trafalgar, which, again, has limited police resources. Not only do we need to fix up the policing resources, we also need to fix up their wage structure, hence why they are having stop-work meetings for the first time in 25 years.

But this is where the government needs to look. We do not oppose this bill. As I said, there is a reasoned amendment from the member from Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General. But the government has to strengthen the bail laws in this state so every community in Victoria can start to feel safe again – because they do not feel safe. This government have failed Victorians with bail reform, but at least they are trying to fix this.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (16:19): It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise and make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. I would just like to go to the first part of the member for Narracan’s contribution before it trailed right off into the abyss. The member for Narracan spoke about the importance of putting victims first, and that is exactly what this piece of legislation goes to. It is to help reduce the emotional trauma experienced by victims and by survivors. I think everybody in this place, irrespective of what party they belong to, would love to see the complete eradication of domestic violence here in Victoria. I think every single one of us would, despite our differences on a whole bunch of issues. But to be frank, domestic violence, family violence, is as much of an issue in our community today as it has ever been. We have done a lot here in Victoria, but we know that there is still so much more to do. By debating this legislation in this chamber today and moving it through, fingers crossed, towards the end of the week, we continue the significant work that we have done in this space since coming to government 10 years ago.

This legislation is about modernising a part of our justice system that has caused significant amounts of pain and significant amounts of trauma for victims over the journey. It is about building a system that will better serve victims, that will better serve witnesses and that will also better serve the broader community. Its core goal, as I said, is to reduce the trauma experienced by those victims and the trauma experienced by those witnesses and to maintain a balance between justice and fairness. The reforms also address longstanding inefficiencies and bring the system into line with modern expectations.

As has been explained by many of the previous contributions, the most significant part of this bill is the prohibition of cross-examinations during committal hearings for victims of family violence, sexual violence and stalking. I have some level of experience with this through a female friend that I went to high school with who, unfortunately, was a victim and went through this process, but we know that too often this process and how it has been conducted has caused significant amounts of trauma. Having to relive, through both the committal process and the trial, what has been probably the worst experience in your life when you have already had to relive it through the process of the person being charged and everything that goes with that and then to face cross-examination is an incredibly difficult thing for any ordinary human being to go through, regardless of the issue. But to have to relive that on multiple occasions, speaking about, as I said, probably the most horrible and traumatic experience of your life, is just not good enough, and it is not up to current community standards. So the fact that we are changing this is a significant reform.

If you go through the criminal justice system for an issue such as this, as a victim or a survivor, it is always going to be a bad experience. But if that experience is made worse because the system that you are trusting to bring to justice somebody or multiple people who have perpetrated family violence or sexual offences fails you or that system leads you to having significant trauma or PTSD – all of those things – then you are going to be far less likely to or, dare I say, you are just not going to re-present to that system if this is an ongoing problem or if something of this nature were to happen to you again. That is something that we must avoid here in Victoria.

As I said earlier in my contribution, ensuring that victims only testify once is prioritising their emotional wellbeing, which should be an absolute priority throughout any of these processes. It is the justice system; it is a priority to bring somebody to justice. There are obviously principles around presumption of innocence et cetera. Making sure that people are brought to justice is absolutely one priority, but the emotional wellbeing of the victim should be a significant priority as well. That is what this legislation seeks to do: prioritise that emotional wellbeing first and foremost and, as the member for Narracan said, put victims first.

I should not conclude my contribution without mentioning my local area of Wyndham. I will say it, and I have before, Wyndham unfortunately is well over-represented in stats relating to family and domestic violence. It is an issue in my community. It has been an issue in my community for some time, and I am hoping it is an issue in my community that can be made far better and that my community is far less represented within those stats. But what we do have in Wyndham and the west more broadly is an amazing network of providers and support agencies. It is a support network that can help when people fall victim to domestic violence. For me it is essential to highlight the crucial role that some of those services play. Those services – GenWest, Westjustice and of course Orange Door in Werribee – provide amazing services to local women that have been victims of domestic violence. I do not think it would be right for me to leave this chamber and to finish this contribution without mentioning the fantastic work that they do. The organisations offer vital assistance to individuals experiencing family violence. They provide safe spaces, counselling and of course support services.

I will reiterate again: this piece of legislation is about putting victims first. It is about prioritising the emotional wellbeing of people that have gone through the most traumatic experience of their life. It is a fantastic piece of legislation. I know it means a lot to my community, and I commend it to the house.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (16:29): I rise to make a contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. The purpose of this bill is to reform the process for committal proceedings and for other purposes. The bill seeks to improve criminal procedural laws to enhance efficiencies, reduce delays and protect victims and witnesses, reducing trauma and strengthening protections.

In my former career I predominantly worked with women every single day of the week, and as you can imagine, I heard many, many stories of domestic violence, of crime and of trauma when women had to go and face the court. One of my closest friends had an incident where she was sexually assaulted on a train just heading home from the city, and the will for her to want to speak up was paramount. She felt violated, she felt traumatised, but she also felt very, very scared. Should she go to the police or should she just sit back and say that was yesterday and tomorrow is another day? It played on her mind; what if that had been her daughter or her niece, where this guy had put his hands on her and she had just walked away? So she went straight to the police and she did a report. It was interesting; she actually took a photo of this guy because they moved from a train onto a bus and he sat in front of her. The vision of her coming off the train when she had been assaulted – she got off the train in Seymour, and you change from a train to a bus when you get to Seymour. When she walked out, the vision they had was of a petrified woman who had been assaulted. You could tell by her body language. You could tell by the way she was moving and the way she was looking to see where her perpetrator was. As I said, by the time she got to Shepparton she took a photo. He sat in front of her. She took a photo of him, and she messaged one of her other friends to say, ‘This guy literally has just put his hands on me in the train and sexually assaulted me.’ They went to the police and she made a report, and the process began.

What was really interesting was that they ended up finding out who this fellow was. He was a local lad that worked in a local business. To begin with he denied it, but there were a lot of things that she did very cleverly. She texted her sister, she texted her friends, she had photos, so it was very real, what had happened. Then of course the perpetrator changed his position. Initially he said he did not do it, and then he said she was asking for it – can you imagine? A woman in her 50s, this guy was in his 20s, and suddenly you are turned on and you are told that this person asked for that to happen. She was sort of toing and froing about it and thinking, ‘Should I just leave it? Do I have to go through this court case and defend myself, defend that I’m a decent woman and that I did not do anything wrong?’ So she did. She decided she would follow through with this.

It was very interesting because, as you can imagine, none of us want to be put in that position, and none of us should be. It is very rare, actually, although not so rare as perhaps we think. When I look at my network of friends, particularly my closest friends, this friend is the only person we have ever experienced something like this with so closely. We were rallying around her because we wanted to really stand up for her and help her through the process because she was going to be interrogated and accused of being an awful woman who was asking for it. Do you know what happened the night before the court case? He pleaded guilty because there was so much evidence against him. It is probably just one example of it being terrifying to stand up, and a lot of women do not stand up. For her it was her integrity that was in question. Fortunately there was enough evidence to prove that he did do the crime, and she followed through with it.

Did it end there? No. She became petrified about travelling on public transport, and she hated the fact that her confidence and her fear became very real, and it continued for quite a number of years. It was about three years ago that this happened, and it is only probably in recent times that she perhaps has become, as she would say, back to her normal. For a couple of years, as I said, she would look over her shoulder and she would be very, very nervous. This is the type of incident where, when people have to come to the courts and stand up for what has happened to them, they need to be supported. This bill will do that. It will really help victims and witnesses through a process that is, hopefully, more simplified. It will do so by also streamlining committal processes while preserving the core functions of the existing committal system to achieve early and appropriate resolution of cases. In her case fortunately it did not drag out too long, but it was still about four months before it got to court. You can imagine four months of thinking: how are you going to stand up in front of people and defend your integrity and defend that what happened to you was not right? We need to ensure fair trial rights by introducing mechanisms that encourage early and appropriate resolution of cases and reduce inefficiencies caused by duplicated court procedures.

Specifically, the bill will amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to remove the test for committal, extend the prohibition on cross-examination to other proceedings and strengthen the test for granting leave to cross-examine and will provide for early committal for trial in the Supreme Court. Several of the amendments in this bill follow the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2020 committals report. The VLRC tabled its report in the 59th Parliament in September 2020, which made 51 ‍recommendations, including the test for committal to be abolished and cross-examination and case management amendments. As the lead speaker, the member for Malvern, raised during his contribution, this bill only really cherrypicks just some of the recommendations.

On 24 October 2018 the Victorian Law Reform Commission was asked to review the state’s committal system and pre-trial procedures. Committals are the process in which a magistrate decides whether the evidence is strong enough to support a person accused of a serious crime for trial in a higher court. As most indictable criminal cases start in the lower courts, they progress through the committal stream until either the accused is committed by order of the Magistrates’ or Children’s court for trial or sentence in a higher court, the matter is solved summarily or the prosecution is discontinued. The Criminal Procedure Act 2009 sets out the role of the lower courts in managing indictable cases, which includes ensuring a fair trial through a disclosure of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, narrowing the issues in contention and determining how the accused proposes to plead.

In the VLRC’s report in 2020 it was documented that the current committal system filters indictable cases, with roughly a third of all indictable stream cases resolving in the lower courts and another third committed to the higher courts following a plea of guilt. Whilst cross-examination can be stressful, as I have pointed out, delays and failures by the prosecution to communicate what is happening in a case were described as a frequent problem by victims and witnesses involved. Over time in the state justice system’s history committal hearings have served an important role within the criminal justice system and will continue to do so into the future.

Section 97 of the act sets out the purpose of a committal proceeding, and recommendation 3 of the VLRC’s report calls for it to be abolished. Paragraph (b) of section 97 refers to the Magistrates’ Court determining whether there is evidence of sufficient weight to support a conviction for an offence charged. Other jurisdictions across the country have made changes to their committal procedures in recent decades, including New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia. No single committal system is the same, and Victoria’s context presents unique challenges. Following recommendations made by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, the bill will abolish the committal test, allowing magistrates to focus more on active case management in the committal stage.

While we are talking about legislation and talking about changes in crime and legislation, I think it is really important that we also acknowledge the police, who deal with these issues every single day. Last Friday I joined my local police, who did a walkout and stood out the front of the Shepparton police station, taking industrial action calling for a fair and decent wage and increased and improved conditions. It was noted that this was the first time the Shepparton police have ever stopped work for industrial action. Acting Inspector Dean Williams, who has spent 34 years in the force, said working conditions were not enticing new recruits into a policing career and police are under pressure to make up shortfalls in shifts. He said that they sign up for good pay and good conditions, that they deserve better and that members have moved off to Queensland to take incentives that police have been offered, and he said many younger recruits have quickly moved on to different careers when conditions in the force have not lived up to their expectations.

I think it is really important that we know we need to do better. We need to support our police officers. We need to help victims of crime, and we need to make sure the process as we move through the courts is simplified. There is still so much more that needs to be done, and the Labor Allan government are failing to manage crime. Finally, we are not opposing the bill, but we do need to get it right. In the short time I have left, I do support the member for Malvern’s reasoned amendment.

Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (16:39): I rise to give my support to and contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024, which seeks to reform and modernise the committals process in Victoria’s criminal justice system by amending the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and also amending the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958. I might just say that there have been some really terrific contributions in the chamber today, and I would like to thank everyone for their well thought out and reasoned debates – mostly.

This bill is about addressing a process that, while created with a legitimate purpose many years ago, has today become outdated and unnecessarily burdensome. Its impacts weigh heavily on victims, witnesses and the resources of courts. We are here to ensure that our justice system reflects the realities of the 21st century, upholding fairness while prioritising the protection and wellbeing of those impacted by crime, especially victims of family violence and sexual abuse.

Last sitting week the member for Sandringham and I co-hosted the National Survivors Day event. It was a very special day, but the member and I spoke about this idea that in some way by holding a National Survivors Day we were somehow celebrating it, and we felt slightly weird about that. I spoke on the day to all the survivors there, and I said to them that my wife was sexually abused from the age of six to the age of 12 and I celebrate every day that she survives that. She is my hero. At the same time, I said to everyone at that event that I celebrate the fact that they survive and celebrate the fact that they are heroes. They are heroes because they have stood up and told their story and continue to stand up and tell their story. They continue to share their story, their pain, their anger, their shame and their betrayal, but they bravely do that so that we can have a better society.

After that event I posted on Facebook, and I had quite a few friends that got back to me and said how brave I was and how brave my wife Andrea was for talking about her story. They said they were victims of rape as a child and that after that post they had decided to go ahead and press charges against the perpetrator, which is fantastic. But it caused my wife a lot of distress because for years and years and years she has wanted to press charges. I was thinking about this yesterday actually in my office, and I thought my wife wants justice, but she is not prepared to go through the justice system, which means it is broken. I guess that is what this bill is meant to be fixing. You may wonder why my wife and I have not sought to press charges against her father. There was a lot of work that she had to do, an enormous amount of work that she had to do to survive – an enormous amount of work that she still does every day so that she can survive. It has cost a lot of money, and it has taken a lot of time. As I said, her abuse was from the age of six to 12. She is 64. There is not a day that my wife does not have a memory. There is not a day that she does not have to deal with what happened. There is not a day that it does not affect our children.

After this event and after our friend told us that she had been raped and she was going to press charges, my wife – I think I was back here – got on the internet. She looked up the numbers, and she got the phone number to go ahead and press charges against her father. Then she thought to herself that she is far more important and her health and wellbeing are far more important than justice. Although she still wants justice, undoing all the work that she has spent a lifetime doing so that she can be a wonderful friend, a wonderful mother, a wonderful wife and a wonderful grandmother, was not worth going through the justice system. I like the story that the member for Shepparton told, where the person who had assaulted her friend at the end of the day turned around and pleaded guilty. I mean, jeez, that would be a lovely outcome for us, but we are not really going to push and try and make that happen.

This bill is important. I hope it will save people having to go back and relive the experiences that have destroyed them. Obviously at the event on National Survivors’ Day we spoke of people that are no longer here, who have committed suicide because the pain and the anguish of their experience was too much to bear. Why would anyone want to go through the justice system and have to relive that?

This changes the committal process. The committal process is four parts: it is a filing hearing, it is a committal mention, it is a committal hearing and then a trial. Who really wants to spend that much time sitting in their pain when they have been sitting in it their whole life? My wife does not. I do not want her to. I do not want to lose her to the justice system – we have already lost, to some extent, to the experience, but we have gained because we have done the work to survive. To all those people that are sexual abuse victims, I celebrate the fact that you have survived. I celebrate your bravery, and I do not blame you if you do not want to go through the justice system. We have all seen on the 6 o’clock news women going through the system and being utterly destroyed. It is disgraceful and it is disgusting, and we should be doing better.

There are a lot of good things in this bill which I could talk about. That is what I am here for, but I want to assure people like my wife and like my friend who is going to go through the system and take her rapist to court – she is an incredibly brave woman. She has had a very, very difficult life, and she is a hero for standing up and having the guts to confront not just her perpetrator but the justice system and how it works and how it continually seems to fail women. I know a lot of men will come to me at times and say the justice system does not support them and it is skewed to women. We will work on that. Let us work on that; there is a lot of work we can do for our community.

I might just throw away all those words that I was going to say. For people in my community there is a lot of support in the community. We have Western Port Community Support, which does a lot of wonderful work for people who are victims of sexual abuse or violence or are homeless or are having trouble with family – please go and see them. Thanks to the royal commission we have Orange Doors throughout our communities. We have one in Hastings; they do amazing work. I have been down to see them and talk with them, and if you are having any issues, if you have any struggles, please pick up the phone. If you do want to work into the justice system, then I encourage you to do so, but get the help that you need.

I love how the member for Tarneit said that this bill is about supporting victims, and in the bill there is talk about supporting perpetrators, and I know there has got to be a balance, but having a lived experience, there is not much balance, so I am very glad that we are thinking about this with this bill. I understand it is unopposed, yet there is a reasoned amendment which is sort of opposing the bill. To my wife, thank you for being so brave. I commend the bill to the house.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (16:49): I should start by saying how difficult it is to contribute after that unbelievable contribution from the member for Hastings, and I thank him for it. It is because of members like the member for Hastings that passing bills in this chamber and this Parliament will make it better for not only him and his wife but for his constituents and for Victorians right across this state, and I cannot commend him enough on his efforts and his contribution. It was just amazing, so thank you to the member for Hastings.

I also want to thank the Attorney-General in the other place, Minister Symes, for bringing this bill forward. And to all of her staff that worked on this bill, thank you for all of your efforts. It is an important bill. It is truly reformative work. I am very pleased to be part of the team that is making the system more efficient, fair and sensitive to the needs of the victims, and we just heard that in the member for Hastings’s contribution. Of course it is not just for victims but for witnesses who have to give evidence in committal hearings and in other hearings and experience the trauma that goes with that. I do not know if anyone has been directly involved in a committal hearing, but I have. It was a sexual offence case. I have got to say it was traumatic for everyone that was involved; they are very difficult matters to deal with.

I should start by saying that I am pleased the opposition are not opposing this bill. I do not see the need to accept the reasoned amendment from the member for Malvern, because I think in dealing with that amendment we are just delaying the passage of this bill in this house, and I just do not think that that is what any of us want to do. I think with the opposition not opposing it, they do not wish to delay it either. I think we should just get on and have the debate, and at the end of the week we will vote on it.

I think it was the member for Laverton that raised it earlier – I want to commend all the legal minds around our state and in particular our community legal aid services. I want to give a shout-out to the legal aid services that work in the Brimbank–Melton area: Comm Unity Plus, who do a fantastic job for our constituents, and also Westjustice, who support people in the western suburbs with not only legal support but other supports and engagement with Orange Door. Orange Door have been mentioned many times, but there are many agencies that support the people in need in regard to these types of situations.

We have mentioned family violence a lot. It is one of the biggest issues. I think 40 per cent of police work is around family violence situations. We have to change our ways. We have to change our culture. We have to start that at younger ages, and right through the system we have to change the way that we rear our kids and allow our kids to do things during the course of their growing up into young males and young men and then adult men thinking that they can get away with family violence and violence in general. We have to change our culture.

The role of committal processes is something that affects our justice system, but it might not be well known to many, particularly those who have never had reason to encounter this system before. Before we had independent police or prosecutors, way back then, there needed to be a way to make sure that cases had enough evidence to go to trial, and that is how the committal processes began – as a check to make sure that only cases with some merit moved forward and that there was some basis to take them to a higher court. It was intended to filter out cases that may not have been fit for a broader trial or a greater trial. The job of the magistrate in a committal hearing was to decide whether the evidence was strong enough to support a possible conviction for a serious crime. The bar for this decision was set pretty low, just enough to weed out only the weakest cases.

You will find that at committal hearings most sexual offence cases are referred on to the higher court because, I think you will find, magistrates, in regard to the evidence that they hear in a committal hearing, think that the matter generally should go before a jury to allow the jury to decide on the basis of the evidence that they have heard. That is my understanding and experience around sexual offence cases – that a lot of them are referred on to the higher courts to allow jurors to deal with them.

If we fast-forward to today and the committal process and the way that it has evolved, it is something like a mini trial. The prosecution presents their case, the witnesses can be questioned and cross-examined and the magistrate does a lot of the same work that happens later in the case when it goes to the higher courts. That in itself shows that we are duplicating the giving of the evidence by the victim and witnesses, which is very traumatic, subject to whatever the case may be. It is very traumatic and we just duplicate it. It is lengthy, it is resource intensive and, as I said, it retraumatises victims and witnesses if we have to put them through a couple of trials, one being the committal and then one being the bigger trial at a later date. And of course it can delay the outcome for victims because of the committal process and then going on to the higher court or the bigger trial.

Again, to refer to the contribution by the member for Hastings, people are traumatised enough. It changes their life, it changes their family’s lives. He contributed in that way in regard to his wife’s situation. She did not want to proceed with a court case or a committal hearing and did not want the offender charged because of the trauma that was involved. People that have been offended against like that live with it every day. There is no perfect outcome unfortunately.

We have heard previously in the debate that the 2020 Victorian Law Reform Commission report revealed that the discharge rate at the committal stage is very low – it is only about 1 or 2 per cent. I made reference before that most sexual offences cases would be referred on to a higher court to deal with those matters. Of course the Office of Public Prosecutions has a rigorous process for ensuring prosecutions are viable, appropriate and in the public interest. One major reason for the low rate of cases being dismissed during committal is the existence of the independent OPP. This office carefully assesses each case using a criteria that is outlined in the director’s policy, which is publicly available online. The criteria evaluated includes the strength of the evidence, the likelihood of securing a conviction and whether pursuing charges aligns with the public interest, and again cost factors must come into that. The OPP would review a matter that may be sent for trial on the cost of that and whether there would be greater potential of a conviction. Even if a magistrate decides a case does not meet the threshold for trial, the Director of Public Prosecutions has the authority to override that and directly indict the case to be heard in a higher court. That may not happen very often, but that certainly can happen.

In all, 51 recommendations were made in the Victorian Law Reform Commission report. The bill addresses inefficiencies and ensures a justice system that truly serves its purpose. Again, that is why this bill is so important in regard to supporting the victims, making it a fairer system, reducing duplication, reducing cost, hopefully hearing cases in the higher courts more quickly and hopefully having better outcomes so that people have less trauma. This is a very important bill, and I commend this bill to the house.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (16:59): I am pleased to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. I would like to begin by echoing the comments from the member for Melton with respect to the very brave and moving contribution from the member for Hastings. He is one of those good humans, and I know that would have been a really challenging thing. We are all thinking of him, his wife and his family.

Committals are something of a relic within our justice system. Developed before we had independent prosecutors, the need for this process has since diminished. The Victorian Law Reform Commission found that only in around 1 per cent of cases were any charges at all knocked out by the committal process.

This process requires extensive resourcing, often duplicating practices that occur during trial. Not only does this clog up our courts and drain the resources of our justice system, but the process, as we have heard throughout today, can also expose victims to unnecessary retraumatisation. This bill seeks to address these issues through several mechanisms that will ultimately strengthen our system and ensure that victims of crime can seek justice without fear of unnecessary trauma and angst.

First and foremost, the bill abolishes the test for committal. The test applied by magistrates requires them to consider whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for an indictable offence. Currently the committals process resembles a condensed version of a trial. The prosecution sets out the case against the accused and parties are able to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and the magistrate then undertakes a lot of the same work that would be then completed in court in order to determine if a case should move to trial. Efficiency is a big part of the reasoning behind these reforms. Repeating the work of lawyers and magistrates is costly for all involved, particularly when the Office of Public Prosecutions already undertakes a process to determine whether a case is viable.

Our independent Office of Public Prosecutions, which did not exist when the committal system was introduced, carefully applies a series of criteria to determine whether charges should be laid. I saw their work firsthand when I worked for Victoria Police as an unsworn public servant, and I saw the enormous amount of detailed work. I saw sometimes the frustration of police when they felt like they did not have enough evidence for a case to stack up in court and get through that committals process.

The criteria are set out in the director’s policy, which is available online and 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 that the bar for committing a matter for trial is not met, this can be overridden by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who can directly indict a matter for trial in a higher court. With the evolution of our criminal justice system it does not make sense for all the indictable criminal matters to require duplicative cost and time and to repeatedly retraumatise victims and witnesses through a process that sees only between 1 and 2 per cent of matters disallowed.

This brings me to what I believe is the most important aspect of the bill: prohibiting cross-examination of witnesses and victims in sexual offences, family violence and stalking matters at the committal stage. Currently most victims and witnesses in criminal trials can be cross-examined multiple times on the same evidence, first at the committal hearing, then in a higher court during trial and sometimes even before trial. Cross-examination is one of the most challenging parts of the criminal trial process, and having to go through this several times would be significantly retraumatising. 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 their experience is a significant deterrent to engaging with the criminal justice system.

This bill is about protecting victims and witnesses in sexual offence, family violence and stalking matters from that unnecessary pain and trauma, and I hope that these changes will help make our justice system more accessible for victims of these crimes. These protections already exist for children and those with cognitive impairment, who are already shielded from giving evidence twice in sexual offence matters. We are expanding this protection to cover all sexual offence, family violence and stalking matters.

Access to our justice system is crucial to its efficacy and integrity. Public prosecutors and defenders at their introduction were monumental in how they transformed access to the justice system. These systems, alongside society, evolve over time. Part of this evolution is recognising the strain that our systems can take on victim-survivors of family and gendered violence. As our understanding of mental health and wellbeing grows and evolves, so should our approach to administering justice. Systems that deter victims from seeking help through fear of retraumatisation or not being believed prevent these systems from acting in the interests of victims and society at large. This bill moves to modernise our justice system – not only saving time and money but most importantly granting further protections to victims.

This bill comes at a time when we mark 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence, recognising that there is so much work to be done in this space. Systematic and institutional changes like those in this bill are at the core of how we will address gender-based violence as well as how our systems of justice respond to victim-survivors. Changes like these demonstrate our government’s commitment to creating change in this and for many other sectors seeking to make Victoria a safer and fairer place for everyone.

I would like to acknowledge the work of some local organisations in my electorate of Footscray. McAuley social services led by the wonderful Jocelyn Bignold provides accommodation for women who are victims of the most horrific family violence, and together with Westjustice, our local community legal service, they partner to support women through court processes but also through the very important process of securing financial independence. Often these women are victims of shocking coercive control. We have McAuley and Westjustice in Footscray as well as the incredible GenWest working across the western suburbs to support victims and also to tackle gender-based violence. We are fortunate to have them, although I wish we did not need to have them. I feel like in Melbourne’s western suburbs we have some very serious issues with family and gender-based violence, as we do across Victoria, but we are well supported by the Orange Door, McAuley, Westjustice and GenWest. I commend this bill to the house.

Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (17:09): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. I am not a trained lawyer or a lawyer in a career and I do not have a direct experience to bring to this debate of being in a courtroom, but here in this chamber we are lawmakers, and it is a role that carries that profound responsibility in shaping the legal frameworks of our state. It is our duty in this place to ensure that the laws that we do create are not only just and equitable but also modern and fit for purpose in the world that we live in today.

Our justice system is there to maintain that social order. It upholds the rule of law. It delivers justice in a fair and impartial manner. It provides a mechanism to settle conflicts, whether they be criminal, civil or a family law matter. It is a system that recognises the rights and needs of victims of crime and provides them with access to justice. But here is an important part I think I would like to note: people do not choose to be a victim of crime. Victims of crime experience unimaginable trauma. It has a profound impact on their lives. A report by the victims of crime commissioner entitled Silenced and Sidelined found that criminal proceedings can add trauma to the victims that have already experienced some trauma through the crime. While our system is reliant on victims reporting and also giving evidence, many victims who talked for that report shared their experiences that they felt powerless in a system that was meant to help them. I think that is the real crux of the reason why we are here today debating this bill. This government takes this very seriously and is making these changes today to modernise that committals process, and it is centred around protecting the victim from the trauma of repeat cross-examination.

Victoria’s committal process is part of our court system, which decides if a serious criminal case should go to trial in a higher court such as a County or Supreme court. However, in practice there is some duplication in that system, which can be lengthy and resource-intensive and expose victims and witnesses to an unnecessary level of retraumatisation. A 2020 Victorian Law Reform Commission report identified several issues with the committal proceedings and did make some recommendations, and the bill today is about making a careful and considered change to modernise the committals process. Importantly, as I have stated, it is there to better protect victims and witnesses from that trauma of repeat cross-examination. In that 2020 Victorian Law Reform Commission report a primary concern raised was around stress and trauma caused to victims and witnesses during pre-trial processes, including cross-examinations. The report advocated restricting the pre-trial cross-examination for vulnerable witnesses such as children, particularly with family violence cases. I just would like to quote our Attorney-General, who recently did some media around this bill and publicly stated – I thought it was sort of pertinent to talk to this – that:

Survivors of sexual offences, stalking and family violence deserve justice, not further trauma. These reforms will ease the burden of repeated testimony, helping them move through court proceedings and get on with their lives.

That is why it is really critical today that we take steps towards a justice that has dignity and compassion for victims and witnesses of sexual offences, family violence and stalking.

Imagine for a moment the courage it takes for someone to stand up, to come forward and to share their story of suffering and survival, yet under our current system that bravery is met with the gruelling reality that victims are forced to relive their trauma not once but maybe twice or sometimes even more. They must endure that cross-examination at the committal stage and again at trial or even sometimes before a trial begins. I would imagine that cross-examination can be one of the most harrowing parts of our criminal justice process. For many the repeated questioning is not just challenging but retraumatising and can take fragments of hope from a victim and make them question whether they will see justice. Research also highlights this. Research shows that cross-examination in sexual assault cases can have a significant deterrent effect on victims reporting offences to authorities. The Victorian Law Reform Commission found that the adversarial nature of cross-examination, which does often retraumatise victims, can lead to many avoiding engaging with the justice system entirely. Victims describe cross-examination as an invasive, distressing process that amplifies that feeling of shame and fear. It discourages them from pursuing legal action or even reporting the crime in the first place.

Additionally, repeat questioning at various stages of the legal process can contribute to what is called a second victimisation, making the experience of seeking justice just as painful as the crime itself. Studies and survivors consulted – and they were cited by the Victorian Law Reform Commission – affirmed that these barriers do exacerbate already high levels of under-reporting of sexual offences, as victims can fear humiliation and the emotional toll of confronting such proceedings. That is what we are doing today; we are standing up for those individuals. By prohibiting cross-examination at the committal stages for cases involving sexual offences, family violence and stalking we are saying loud and clear that your courage will not be punished. This reform is not revolutionary, it is common sense. We have already shielded children and individuals with cognitive impairments in sexual offence cases from being forced to testify multiple times. We currently have a scheme to put in place supports for sexual offence complainants to allow them to give prerecorded video evidence, and this has been a successful change. We now extend this option to victims and witnesses who are children or who do have cognitive impairments in family violence matters.

I just want to finish on and be pretty clear that justice and fairness still remain at the heart of this change. The accused will still have the opportunity to apply for limited pre-trial cross-examinations of witnesses other than the complainant of the trial court, and this will ensure a fair trial while sparing victims and witnesses that unnecessary pain that I have outlined. As our criminal justice system evolves, committal proceedings offer several advantages. They allow disputes and issues to be narrowed, provide opportunities for early resolution of cases and ensure that the accused has access to the evidence against them through proper disclosure. However, requiring all indictable criminal matters to undergo this process is neither efficient nor justifiable, and it results in unnecessary duplication, as I have spoken about.

Our laws must reflect a modern and contemporary society. They must serve to protect the vulnerable, deliver justice efficiently and promote the values of fairness and dignity that underpin our democracy. When the laws lag behind the needs of the people, they risk becoming obstacles to justice rather than instruments of it. This bill aims to strike a balance between improving criminal justice efficiencies and reducing the trauma for victims and witnesses while ensuring a fair trial of the accused person. This government will also carefully monitor the effectiveness of these changes and will consider further reforms if needed.

I would also like to acknowledge and speak a little bit about the work of our local Orange Door service that is on the Bellarine. The Orange Door on the Bellarine has only been operating for about a year now. They are unfortunately very busy, and I wish that we did not need them. But they do incredible work in our community, supporting families and vulnerable people. They are working very closely with other support agencies and police, GPs, health services and allied health, and they are doing an incredible job in supporting those families who need that help. I thank them every day for their work. It is really important work they are doing, and I have no doubt in saying this: they are saving lives. It is an initiative that I am very proud to see, in a local sense, on the Bellarine. I am really thankful for their work. I thank the Attorney-General for the work on this bill as well, and I commend the bill to the house.

Natalie HUTCHINS (Sydenham – Minister for Jobs and Industry, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, Minister for Women) (17:19): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.