Tuesday, 18 March 2025

Bills

Family Violence Protection Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Sonya Kilkenny:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (13:26): It is probably a stretch to say that I am pleased to rise to speak on the Family Violence Protection Amendment Bill 2025, because this bill is to fix a problem that should never, ever have occurred. It is very concerning that between the period of 15 November 2024 and 5 March 2025 inclusive, copies of family violence intervention orders generated by the Magistrates’ Court and Children’s Court for service contained a defect in their form, and as a result of this defect, those copies created during the relevant period may not be true copies of the orders as made by the court and service may not be valid. I am advised by the Attorney-General that around 11,500 orders, family violence intervention orders, have been affected by this flaw. The purpose of this bill is to seek to regularise those orders, to ensure that those defects are rectified and, more importantly, to ensure that the protection intended by the courts for the beneficiaries of those family violence intervention orders is maintained. The Attorney-General advises that this loophole – and let us call it what it is; it is a loophole – that has been inadvertently created has not so far been the basis for any challenge by a subject of a family violence intervention order and has not yet been the subject of a challenge in the court as to its validity. That is certainly a case of good luck. It is not good management on the government’s or Court Services Victoria’s behalf.

When you consider that 11,500 people, predominantly women, are the beneficiaries of these orders, it is beyond comprehension that we can have a flaw, a technical flaw, allowed to occur which has put not just the validity of those orders in question but the legal protections for the beneficiaries of them in question too, yet that is where we are today. As to how this egregious error occurred, the opposition is currently none the wiser. The Attorney-General indicated that she is none the wiser, other than to point the finger at Court Services Victoria as the responsible party. We do need to get to the bottom of what happened, we do need to get to the bottom of why it happened and we do need to get absolute assurance that it will not be able to happen again. When people, vulnerable people, approach the courts seeking a family violence intervention order to protect them – to protect their lives and their property – from somebody who can be belligerent or violent, it is absolutely critical that the court process and administrative processes do not let them down. When people receive court orders to protect them, they deserve the benefit of that protection. They do not deserve to have that called into question because of a stuff-up, yet that is exactly what has happened on over 11,500 occurrences here today.

I will not speak on this matter for all that long because I think time is of the essence, but I do flag at the outset that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. We do need to see it passed and we need to see it passed in a rapid manner.

While the Attorney-General was very quick to point the finger of blame at Court Services Victoria for the issue that is before us today, I do wonder how much the $19.1 million budget cut that this government delivered to Court Services Victoria this financial year may have had some responsibility. When the government takes an axe to the budget of Court Services Victoria, it puts the whole system under strain, it puts the whole system under pressure. When systems are under strain and under pressure, mistakes happen and errors occur. We need to find out what went wrong at Court Services Victoria and we need to understand the extent to which this Labor government’s savage budget cuts to CSV are responsible, because it is not just the $19.1 million of cuts to CSV in this budget that concern me, I am also very concerned by the forthcoming $58 million of cuts which the government has already pencilled in for the 2027–28 financial year. The idea that this government could slash $19.1 million from Court Services Victoria this year and then in two years time rip out an extra $58 million from our courts and that is not going to have any impact on the people who rely on the courts to protect them is nonsense.

This government always talks about funding things that matter. Well, I think our justice system matters. I think protecting vulnerable women who have the courage to take on perpetrators of family violence and go to court and seek a family violence intervention order matters. I think they are entitled to have the protections that a court intended to provide to them honoured. That has not happened on 11,500 instances this time around.

In noting that the opposition will not be opposing this bill in the circumstances, I do note that this government is at least responsible for $19.1 million of budget cuts to Court Services Victoria this year. I note that they are responsible for $58 million of cuts to CSV happening in two years time, and I urge the government to reverse those cuts. When budgets get cut like this, mistakes happen and people’s lives are put at risk, and that is what has happened here, 11,500 times. Victorians, particularly Victorian women, deserve better than that occurring. I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (13:32): I just want to make a very short contribution. The Greens will be supporting this bill going through urgently. I think this is an example of exactly why Parliament has procedures for the urgent or emergency passage of bills when something like this happens that was unforeseen, a mistake, that then results in, as the member for Malvern said, women’s lives being put at risk imminently. We need to deal with it imminently and urgently. This is exactly the kind of bill that those powers of the Parliament should be used for, which is why we have no problem putting this through Parliament urgently. We have no problem with the government saying that it is an emergency and that we all need to act immediately. I think it shows the power of this Parliament and its tripartisanship when we received a briefing from the Attorney-General’s office – and I would like to thank her office for that. I think it showed some real maturity to reach out to other parties and say, ‘Look, let’s be up-front. We’ve got this issue. We’ve got this mistake. Let’s all come together and fix it and deal with it.’ I think that is very reasonable, and we are more than happy to facilitate that happening.

I think that that stands in quite stark contrast to the way that the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025 will be coming before Parliament this week and the way the Labor government has approached the bail bill, which is something that we have known about for a long time. It goes to huge issues all across the justice system that really need very deep interrogation and consultation. Instead we have got a rushed bill that we are being told has to be forced through the Parliament in a very short period of time with no interrogation, no consultation and huge condemnation from a whole bunch of legal and human rights stakeholders. That is exactly not what the urgent powers of the Parliament should be used for. The Parliament should be used, with those bills where there is a longer lead time, to actually interrogate bills properly and go through proper processes.

I think this bill we are very happy to see have speedy passage through this place, and we would not stand in the way of it. But I think it just shows the stark difference between the way that this bill is being dealt with and the way that the bail bill is being dealt with.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time; by leave, proceeded to third reading.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.