Thursday, 28 November 2024

Corrections Amendment (Assisted Reproductive Treatment) Bill 2024

Introduction

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (10:11): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Corrections Act 1986 to provide that a prisoner does not have the right to undergo assisted reproductive treatment or any procedure for the purposes of another person undergoing assisted reproductive treatment and for other purposes.

I introduce this today given what has been highlighted in the media this week, where a person who has been convicted of murdering a mother of three now has access to reproductive rights to go out and get treatment. This is a person who stole the life of a mother of three children, who now have to be raised as orphans, and it spits in face of the victim’s parents, family and those that are impacted. It is a big issue and one that I know the community is very, very passionate about.

When I do this, and I know it is a procedural motion, we do it because in the government’s program, in our daily program, there is a section which is about the introduction of bills. If I am correct, what I have heard from the other side continuously is there is no process for the opposition to introduce bills. Their argument continuously is it has got to go through a consultation, it has got to go through other organisations. May I remind the government that when they introduce bills, the first time that the opposition see those bills is generally on the second reading before going through that consultation process. All we are asking from the government is the respect that we can have that same process.

We want to introduce these bills because the community are rightfully angry when they hear that a person is getting out of the prison system, taking leave to go and get treatment. I note that the minister in the other house has come out and stated that it is a self-funded IVF treatment. I will take out of the fact of that that even if it is self-funded, it is not something that we believe we should be supporting when it comes to taking care of the child.

I think it is really important that we get onto the record during this part of debate some of the issues that were raised when the government changed the process in the legislation in 2020 concerning reproductive rights to say that you could not take into consideration anymore a person’s criminal history. However, when that was changed by the government in 2020 it did clearly state that:

While the checks are no longer required, a number of safeguards remain in place. In particular, ART providers continue to have a statutory obligation to have regard to the guiding principles set out in section 5 of the ART Act when making a decision about whether to treat a person. These principles include that the welfare and interests of the child to be born are paramount.

I am not sure which world we live in where the rights of the child are being put well and truly behind the rights of a person who stole the life of a mother. If I am looking at it, as any person in this place should look at it, I do not get how it is against the human rights of the child when we say we are going to have them born into a prison and for the first five years that is where they will remain. That is how the system is set up. That is what is trying to happen here with this murderer – they are trying to get a system where the person who will have a child will keep that child in custody for five years. If the mother does not get parole at the end of that five years, the child is then released from prison and sent out to other family members.

That is not in the best interests of the child, it is not in the best interests of our system, and it puts a further burden on our already stretched justice system. The Dame Phyllis Frost Centre has already had rolling lockdowns due to staff shortages. They have already had to lock down other inmates at specific times because they cannot get staff.

Staff are working up to 16-hour shifts back-to-back. They are giving up their RDOs, and do you want to know why? It is because the people who work in there genuinely care. They want to make a difference in the lives of the people in there. But they are also the ones that are raising the issue here that this is further stretching the resources, overtime costs and all of the transport costs that go with this to make sure that a person can go and get treatment for IVF.

We on this side 100 per cent fundamentally disagree with this process. I have said publicly that I do not understand in what world this seems to be okay. We have spoken in media. We have gotten responses from people continually, and messages are coming to my office. I know we sometimes look at topics that are pretty fragile and we will get some responses that go one way and some the other. I have only heard two people come out and say that we should allow a person to go and get IVF or use ART whilst they are in the prison system. From all the messages coming back, the community simply do not support it.

The government is using the 2010 decision. I want to put that in perspective: the 2010 decision was for someone to continue treatment for IVF who was a welfare thief. A welfare thief doing under 18 months in prison, and now the government is using that as an excuse for a person who murdered a mother of three over a $50 debt. We encourage the government to support this bill to ensure it does not continue.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (10:16): I rise to speak against the introduction of this bill. This is quite obviously another delaying tactic regarding the government business program and debate on a bill before the house today that is actually really important, and that is the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Paramedic Practitioners) Bill 2024. There are a lot of speakers on this side of the house that are really keen to speak on this bill and give personal experiences about the importance of having paramedic practitioners here in Victoria, which may I remind the house will be an nation-leading first.

The matter that the member for Berwick is talking about is simply being used here in this place to continue to further delay getting through really important government legislative reform as part of our big legislative reform agenda here in this place. It is another disappointment, another tactic from the member for Berwick, who I thought would have thought twice about such tactics given his recent antics over the past couple of weeks.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a procedural debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had started to stray from the procedural debate. I ask her to come back.

Sarah CONNOLLY: I actually thought I was going high, not low, considering the antics that have been going on in this place from those opposite over the past couple of weeks, but I do digress. This is another delay tactic to us being able to put through a bill that was part of our election commitment in 2022 and is quite clearly something that all Victorians voted for in 2022 thanks to an Allan Labor government. I am not going to spend a great deal of time talking and continuing to further delay our legislative agenda program for this week, the last sitting week for 2024. This is another tactic that those opposite are using to disrupt, cause chaos in the house and further delay a really important legislative reform program that Victorians voted for and want to see us get done, so I speak against this bill.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:18): I rise in support of the member for Berwick’s move on the Corrections Amendment (Assisted Reproductive Treatment) Bill 2024 and its introduction. The debate now and the debate earlier are about the moral compass of this chamber. The divisions on both of these items have been about the moral compass of this room and the members in it, because both of these bills seek to correct things that are wrong and need to be corrected. The government speakers have spoken about the need for experts only to draft bills, and I will leave out for a moment that the government drafters have drafted these bills. But if the government were moving an alternate bill that did the same thing or fixed these problems, I would look at it and say perhaps they had an argument that we on this side of the chamber should listen to.

But what has happened today is our side of the chamber has sought to move two bills to fix things that are wrong. They are not just wrong in practice but also morally wrong, and for the government to be voting against them is at the very least disappointing. I would hope that the government could stand up and say that they will look into these issues and seek to solve those same problems, and if they did, they would have some standing.

The first bill would have empowered women and their loved ones with knowledge – how could you possibly vote against that? – and what this bill seeks to do is say that the rights of the victim should always be put ahead of the rights of the criminal, and what this government is saying is that the criminal, who in this certain circumstance committed one of the most egregious crimes by murdering a mother of three, has more rights than the victim and the victim’s family and is fit, as a murderer, to bring a child into jail. So we on this side of the house have said the system as it stands is wrong.

I would say to the government: if you are going to vote against this bill – and speakers have suggested they will – why not at least commit, both on this and the former matter, to making a similar reform? The community would expect the rights of a victim to be put ahead of the rights of a criminal, which should always be the case, and that has been lost sadly in the state. But also the earlier matter would have empowered women with knowledge. That is something that other states do, empower women and their loved ones with knowledge, because to solve the broader issue you need the broader community and you need people’s loved ones to be part of the knowledge base to help solve these broader issues.

I would say to the government, as they stand and say they have a busy legislative agenda: do not simply just vote this down, but do so committing to similar reforms, because otherwise a vote against these bills is not just a political vote, it is also a vote that is morally wrong, and that goes to the heart of the character of every single member who votes against these bills, and frankly, members of this place should do better.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (10:23): Let us be clear, this is a procedural motion; it is not a second-reading debate. We are not voting against bills. But to the extent that this procedural motion speaks to what is in effect a piece of ad hominem legislation, I would like to extend my sympathy to the victims in that particular case. I do not want to trail over things that might still be sub judice, but just to emphasise, we are talking about children here. There has been a lot of discussion about morals and ethics, but the simple fact, as the shadow minister suggested, is that the Castles v. Secretary decision of 2010 did set a precedent that women in custodial settings are entitled to fertility treatment and that access to treatment, as it stands, is a Supreme Court decision. Those opposite may wish it was otherwise, but we do have a separation of powers in this state.

As the shadow minister’s contribution also emphasised, there are real ethical complexities here.

I would suggest that the ethical complexities about the rights of as yet hypothetical and unborn children are real and the rights of victims are real, and that is why considering these issues is not best done in a kneejerk last-day-of-sitting, populist kind of gesture where those opposite assert their moral supremacy over us all. It is not the way to address these issues. As Minister Erdogan in the other place has very articulately said, there are many questions that need to be asked about the appropriateness and the necessary nature of this treatment, and there are ethical questions about these treatments for long-serving prisoners, but those questions are not addressed or ventilated and analysed in any effective way via a procedural motion that is basically just designed to hold up the notice paper and the government business program.

So I am not going to hold up that business program any further in my contribution. Suffice to say that there are ethical questions here that the minister is working with his department to resolve and to investigate. The way in which the opposition have sought to bring it on today is not the way to do that. So I will resume my seat. I will be voting against a procedural motion that accomplishes nothing, and I urge the house to vote against it as well.

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (10:26): I rise to support this bill from the Shadow Minister for Police, the member for Berwick, and can I just say at the outset: if the government were truly serious about their very urgent legislative agenda, then perhaps they would not have wasted everyone in this chamber’s time by debating a frivolous and fickle political pointscoring motion yesterday which was absolutely slanderous. And I take personal offence because there were many accusations across that sided at the house about us being xenophobes, and when I look in the mirror that is not what I think about myself. So I take great offence to that. Every member that spoke to it, every member that accused us of racism, every member that had something to say about that – that is so offensive.

Belinda Wilson: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a procedural debate, and the member for Warrandyte is not speaking on the procedure.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Warrandyte I am sure was coming to the procedural debate.

Nicole WERNER: What we are dealing with at hand is a convicted murderer who killed a mother of three, who said:

I don’t care if she took it or not –

the $50 that she killed this woman over –

… I’ll gut her.

This is a mother of three that was murdered by a now convicted murderer in prison that is seeking to go and have IVF treatment, which I understand she is paying the cost for herself, but the taxpayer will have to bear the cost of her being transported and will have to bear the cost of her child being raised until the age of five in prison. As a woman that is a mother-to-be who experienced her own fertility challenges, this to me is outrageous, absolutely outrageous. And it is not about politics, it is about right and wrong. It is about taking action. It is about taking decisive legislative action when something is just categorically wrong. And it is so wrong that the victims – the children who are now orphans because this woman murdered their mother in cold blood and stabbed her one, two, three times over $50 in an ice-induced rage – have spoken out, and we want to be the voice for these victims. Tobias Evertsen-Mostert, who he was 12 when his mother was murdered just a year after he lost his father, says this:

I was an orphan, when this –

b –

… did this, my dad died a year earlier, so all my milestones as a kid, I had nobody to celebrate them, I had no parents.

You left three kids motherless, you animal. You stabbed your friend. I stand strongly against this …–

referring to the IVF treatment. He said he didn’t care if she had a child once she left prison, but it was his belief she was trying to cut short or make easier the jail time she had left to serve.

Secondly, there is Miranda –

Members interjecting.

Belinda Wilson interjected.

Nicole WERNER: I am actually quoting, thank you, these victims that lost their mother and are actually orphans now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Warrandyte, please.

Nicole WERNER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to continue to quote these victims of this murder. Miranda Evertsen-Mostert, Tyrelle’s sister, said:

Where’s the justice? She … is in maximum security prison to serve her time. It’s getting hard for her and now she’s trying to get the next leg a lot easier.

Referring to the murderer:

She was a mum once, but not a good one. How does her child feel? She’s been abandoned and is now going to be replaced. Another child traumatised, being brought up in jail for five years. No knowledge of large groups of people, pets, buses, shops.

It’s a stupid idea and what about the three boys who have grown up without their mother?! They have just passed their mum’s 10th anniversary of her death. The boys are suffering traumas due to their mother’s death.

It’s insane that this could even be thought of, let alone passed by government. Our family are the victims, and if she goes ahead with it the new baby and the other child will also be victims. I miss her … every single day.

Then there is Jim and Yvonne Gentle, the parents of Jason Gentle, who was Tyrelle’s partner when she was killed and who is the father of her youngest son, who was in the house during this cold-blooded murder. They said this:

If you’re in prison and you have committed a crime so diabolical and calculated, surely you don’t have the same rights as anyone else …

The law might say you have rights, the law might say it’s legal but it doesn’t make it right.

You shouldn’t have these privileges. What’s the point in going to prison? What’s the point of punishment? She took away a life.

This is why we must urgently talk about this today.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (10:31): I rise to speak against the introduction of this bill by the member for Berwick. Never put it past the member for Berwick to seek to try to divide communities –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The house will come to order. The member for Berwick has had his chance.

Brad Battin interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Berwick is warned.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for St Kilda is clearly straying from this procedural motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Brighton knows to use correct titles.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Brighton’s point of order on relevance is upheld. I ask the member for –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will be removed from the chamber without warning. The member for Narre Warren North is also warned. Seriously. The member for Narre Warren South to continue on the procedural motion.

Gary MAAS: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The Liberals are about control. What they are doing with the introduction of this bill is reinforcing –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Narre Warren South to resume his seat. The member for Brighton on a point of order without assistance.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, relevance.

Sarah Connolly: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is quite clear that the member for Brighton is continuing to raise frivolous points of order to interrupt the contribution of the member on his feet. I ask you to counsel the member for Brighton about frivolous points of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I made statements in that regard yesterday. They still hold. The member for Narre Warren South had had 2 seconds and I am sure was making it relevant to the procedural debate.

Cindy McLeish: On a new point of order, Speaker, I refer you to Rulings from the Chair, page 133. I think that the member on his feet should by now know the procedure for taking a point of order. You called the leader of opposition business and the member failed to sit down. He is required to give way, and he kept talking for at least another 10 seconds. I ask you to familiarise him with the procedures of the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Berwick has already been warned. I really do not like sending people out to the coffee shop.

Gary Maas interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Narre Warren South does not have the call, and I would advise all members to refrain from interjecting. I will give the member for Narre Warren South the call, and I advise him to continue on the procedural motion.

Gary MAAS: I am trying to continue on the procedural motion by making this point: those who seek to reinforce oppressive structures that control women and perpetuate inequitable treatment of women –

Members interjecting.

Nicole Werner: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker – relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has twice now just started to be in the middle of a sentence. It is hard to understand whether it is relevant or not if he does not finish. I take the point.

Gary MAAS: As I was saying, if you reinforce oppressive structures that control women, you are perpetuating inequitable treatment of women. And we know that this party is all about this. It effectively punishes women twice.

Members interjecting.

Wayne Farnham: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, there is no relevance to what he is saying. This is a procedural debate very clearly. The member has strayed a long way, and he is bordering on defamatory again.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members have had some context in this procedural debate, and the member’s time has expired.

Assembly divided on motion.

Ayes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner

Noes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.