Tuesday, 28 November 2023

Bills

Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lizzie Blandthorn:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:04): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution, which will be a brief contribution, to the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Corrections Act 1986. These sorts of bills are rare in the Parliament, and they are bills that are specific to one prisoner. They are bills that have a very sharp application, but in this case it is entirely and utterly justified.

The bill amends the Corrections Act in relation to conditions for making a parole order for the prisoner Paul Denyer; to require the Adult Parole Board of Victoria in certain circumstances to specify a period during which a prisoner is not eligible for parole; to require the adult parole board in certain circumstances to consider making, and to empower the board to make, a declaration specifying a period in which a prisoner is not eligible for parole; and to make further provision for the sharing of certain information by the secretary and the adult parole board.

I should note that this is an area where Brad Battin, our spokesperson on corrections, led the field. He was very clear that this is something that needed to be done. The government was slower than it should have been, and the end result is this bill, which is a bill, as I say, that we support. There are a few little quibbles that we have, but basically we support the intention and the outcome of this bill.

I know that Brad Battin did wide consultation, not just with the Police Association Victoria, the Law Institute of Victoria, the Bar Council and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service but importantly and early in the piece with the family and friends of the victims of Paul Denyer. This monster should stay in prison; this monster should not be out. That is the direction of the bill, and that is what our approach has been. We understand that the intention is that the adult parole board will make these decisions. The word ‘may’ is there, and there is one view that says it should rather be ‘must’. But nonetheless, we understand what the government is trying to achieve, and it is our view that it will be achieved with this bill.

This bill, I think, shows the wisdom of Mr Battin’s leadership on this issue and the fact that the government has been dragged to follow in this particular circumstance. It is a case where the community have a very, very clear view about what should happen, and the fact that the government was reluctant or slow or unprepared to move at first was concerning. Again, I pay tribute to the work that Brad Battin has done and the focus that he has had on understanding what the community expects and what the victims and their families and friends expect.

I am a member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. I understand the natural cautions that people have about prisoner-specific matters and about the focus of the bill in this particular way. We have of course had a number of these cases before. I am reading directly from the SARC report on this Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. In the background section – and I pay tribute to the work that the SARC staff have done on this – it points to the named prisoners: Julian Knight, Craig Minogue and Paul Denyer.

With the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2014 – regarding prisoner Julian Knight – my then colleague the Honourable Ed O’Donohue as Minister for Corrections introduced a bill that inserted a new section which set out the conditions for making a parole order for prisoner Knight. In the case of the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2016, the prisoner Craig Minogue was the one in question. Mr O’Donohue introduced the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2016, which proposed a new section ‍74AAC, which set out new conditions for making a parole order for the prisoner Craig Minogue. Craig Minogue was sentenced by the Supreme Court in 1988 to life imprisonment for the murder of a police officer arising out of his involvement in the Russell Street bombing. There were override provisions in those bills. The Justice Legislation Amendment (Parole Reform and Other Matters) Bill 2016 was introduced by Lisa Neville. It was modelled on the Julian Knight bill of course.

I should note that in 2017 and 2018 challenges to this type of legislation occurred in the High Court, and it held – in Julian Knight v. the State of Victoria & Anor – that a law targeted solely and directly at an individual, the prisoner Julian Knight, was constitutionally valid. It has been the view of some that it is not adequate to target a prisoner in this way, and I would generally agree with that. I would, in general principle, agree with that, but with some of these rare and difficult individuals it is justified, and the High Court found it so.

The prisoner Craig Minogue commenced proceedings in the High Court in 2017 in which he sought declarations that sections 74AAA did not apply to him or his parole application. In June 2018 the High Court held in Minogue v Victoria that section 74AAA did not apply to Craig Minogue because he was not sentenced on the basis that he knew the murdered person was a police officer or that he was reckless as to that fact.

In 2018 the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2018 regarding prisoner Craig Minogue was introduced by Gayle Tierney as the Minister for Corrections, and a similar pattern has followed.

As I say, the work of Brad Battin was important here, and Matt Bach on his behalf and the opposition’s behalf introduced the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2023. That bill sought to insert a new section ‍74AC which provides that the adult parole board must not make a parole order in relation to the prisoner Paul Denyer under section 74 or 78 unless satisfied he is in imminent danger of dying or seriously incapacitated and can no longer harm any person or has demonstrated that he does not pose a risk to the community.

The SARC reported on the bill in relation to the so-called ad hominem legislation and noted its comments made on previous occasions: The member made comments supporting a charter override declaration during the course of the second-reading speech. The committee noted its previous comments:

Whether the amendments sought to be made by the Bill constitute grounds for an ‘exceptional circumstances’ is a matter for Parliament to consider.

In this case the conditions for making a parole order override for Paul Denyer – the charter override – are discussed again in the committee’s report, and I commend that. I am quoting directly here:

The Bill inserts new section 74AC into the Corrections Act 1986 which sets out conditions for making a parole order for Paul Denyer. The Adult Parole Board must not make a parole order under section 74 or 78 for Paul Denyer only if it is satisfied that the prisoner … is in imminent danger of dying or is seriously incapacitated …

So the new sections are dealt with. The committee notes that in the statement of compatibility the minister made comments in relation to an override declaration during the course of the second-reading speech and states:

The Committee has considered a Charter override declaration on previous occasions. Whether the amendments sought to be made by the Bill by clause [7] constitute grounds for ‘exceptional’ circumstances is a matter for Parliament’s consideration.

In my humble view, there is no question that that is appropriate in this circumstance. People can read this, and I urge them to do so. When you get to the charter matters, again the form of the legislation is pointed to and the fact that there is a retrospectivity aspect to it too is also correctly pointed to, but the committee understands that this is ultimately a matter for Parliament. They say:

The Committee notes the retrospective effect of clauses [8] and [9] in that they may change parole conditions in relation to prisoners already sentenced. The Committee notes the purposes of the Bill, the statement of compatibility and the High Court’s decision in Crump.

I am not going to go through all of that. But the charter issues and the other issues are legitimately scrutinised by the committee, and I will read their final conclusion to put it in the broader context:

The Committee will write to the Minister seeking further information as to whether or not:

• clauses 7, 8 and 9 are compatible with the Charter’s right …

• clause 9’s restricted prisoner regime is a less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose of clause 7’s bar on parole for Paul Denyer

• Queensland’s restricted prisoner regime is a less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose of clause 9

In addition, the Committee notes that, whereas sub-section 74AC(5) provides that ‘a reference to the prisoner Paul Denyer is a reference to the Paul Denyer who was sentenced by the Supreme Court on 20 December 1993 to three consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for three counts of murder’, the Supreme Court’s order sentencing Denyer for three counts of murder and one count of unlawful imprisonment states: ‘All sentences are to be served concurrently creating an effective sentence of life imprisonment’: R v Denyer (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, 20 December 1993.)

Whatever minor technical matters are legitimately pointed to by SARC, we all understand what we are dealing with here today. The determination of the Parliament and the community that this individual not be released is clear. I support that, the opposition supports it, and therefore we support this bill.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:17): I rise today to speak on a very important bill, the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. At the outset I would like to acknowledge the work of the many people who have brought this bill to fruition, particularly Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes, Minister Erdogan and the member for Frankston Paul Edbrooke.

The bill before us today includes reforms to improve certainty for victims of very serious crimes, and their families, during the parole process. For anyone serving a life sentence, it will empower the Adult Parole Board of Victoria to declare that a person serving a life sentence may not apply for parole for a period of five to 10 years if it is in the public interest to do so. The bill will also formalise the parole board’s authority to prevent people who have been refused parole from reapplying for a certain period of time and require all such decisions to be communicated to the victims. In doing so, the measures in this bill will ensure that the families of victims of exceptionally serious cases will be at the centre of parole decision-making. Their welfare should be our main focus. This bill places them squarely as the main focus.

What this bill also does, though, is right a historical wrong. By naming one particular individual – Paul Denyer – this bill ensures that that prisoner can never, under any circumstances, be released. Out of respect for the victims, that is the last time I will use that particular prisoner’s name in my contribution today. The names that we must remember are Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream, Natalie Russell and Roszsa Toth. There are those in the other place and in particular in this place who have a deeper connection to the case than I do, and I feel it is particularly important for me to acknowledge my colleague in the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region Mr Limbrick and his diligence and decency in pursuing justice – justice which was initially served and then so cruelly taken away. Today we can restore that justice.

I would also like to acknowledge some of the moving contributions which were made in the Assembly last sitting week, particularly those of the member for Frankston and the member for Pakenham. Frankston is a special part of my electorate. Indeed it is a special part of Victoria. In my former role in the trade union movement I had the privilege of representing retail workers in and around Frankston for five years. Very quickly I fell in love with the place. I fell in love with its people, its culture and its laid-back and friendly lifestyle. I still tell anyone who will listen that Frankston is by far the most underrated part of Melbourne. Over the five years in which I got to know so many of its people, so too did I learn more about the heinous crimes that took place there in the winter of 1993. You will not see it at a casual glance, but look closely and you will see the ways in which those crimes changed Frankston and how stranger danger became not a remote concept but a wholly encompassing, visceral fear – a fear with a long shadow that still lurks in the consciousness of the area.

One of my members, Heather, at the time of me knowing her, worked elsewhere, but in the early 1990s she worked at Safeway Karingal, the same store where the criminal whom we are discussing today also worked. One day she told me about it, and she told me about the various oddities and incidents that occurred during the time they worked together, such as when a woman with a child was deliberately knocked over by this person pushing trolleys at them in the centre car park. She also told me of how Frankston changed in the wake of these murders – how a quiet collection of suburbs lost their innocence forever. At this point I think it is worth noting that despite the moniker that we apply to this criminal, this did not just affect Frankston – it was Langwarrin, Carrum Downs, Karingal, Seaford and The Pines; it was the whole area. To know Frankston is to know many wonderful things, but it also means knowing of the deep trauma that was inflicted upon this community – a trauma which still ripples through the fabric of the area today.

Over the weekend just gone I caught up with a good friend. This friend is a few years younger than me, having been born in the mid-1990s. She grew up in Langwarrin behind Lloyd Park. Not for the first time we discussed the matter that is before us today. She told me how she and her sisters were never allowed to walk around the neighbourhood by themselves for all her childhood and teenage years and how they were explicitly never allowed to walk through Lloyd Park. She told me how growing up in Langwarrin at the time was like growing up in the shadow of fear. One day, rebelling, as teenagers do, she walked home through that particular park. Her mum found out. The reaction was intense. ‘She went completely off at us,’ she told me, adding, ‘She was just so terrified.’

Later on, when this friend was a few years older, she was taking her dog for a walk around the neighbourhood. An unknown man pulled up beside her in a car. She instantly felt sick. The man, likely sensing her fear, spoke to her through his open window. He said, ‘Don’t worry. I’m not getting out of my car.’ He then told her that he had often noticed her out walking and he wanted to warn her. The man explained that he had a teenage daughter at another local school and the students at that school had been warned that day about a weird man who had been seen loitering around parks, a man he had also just seen minutes earlier and wanted to warn my friend about. Grateful, my friend ran home as fast as she could. Such is the effect that almost 20 years later – at the time – the presence of such an unsettling character would prompt a man to warn a teenage girl unknown to him to get back home to safety and the presence of such a person would require a school to alert all its students and parents, just in case. To this day there are parks in the area where you will very seldom find kids playing.

After the murders started, schools across the area encouraged their students to walk home in groups. Older siblings would often drive their brothers and sisters and their friends to and from school. At one such school one of the older siblings, who would so, apparently, generously drive any number of children around to keep them safe from the attacker, just so happened to be the attacker himself. ‘Betrayal’ is a word you will hear again and again from people in the community about this person – betrayal, as this person who presented as a guardian, someone to help keep people safe from danger, was the danger themselves.

The friend I mentioned is now a high school teacher in the area today. Earlier this year, as we know, the criminal in question came up for parole. She told me of the concerns that were raised to her by her students, those in senior years as well as those in junior years, in years 8 and 9. They were terrified that he might be released. Despite her consciousness of the lingering trauma, she was astonished that even children who would not be born for well over a decade after the crimes took place would be so aware, would be so hypervigilant, of what this criminal did and the threat he posed in their community.

We know of course that the prospects of the criminal being granted parole at that time earlier this year were infinitely small, so infinitely small as to almost be a certainty, but it was not a certainty for the community and it was not a certainty to the families of the victims. How could it be? How could it ever be?

The seeds for that uncertainty were planted just one year after the crimes took place, in July of 1994, when the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence. The initial sentence was life with no possibility for parole. Given the nature and devastation caused by the crimes, this was an eminently justifiable sentence. The Court of Appeal reduced this sentence to life with a non-parole period of 30 years. In light of my role as an MP I will not stray too far into my personal feelings towards a Court of Appeal decision that downgraded the non-parole period from life to just 30 years, but suffice to say I am pleased to see this legislation before us today, which will right a wrong – perhaps not a legal wrong but certainly a moral wrong.

We have a fundamental principle in our system of government, the separation of powers. It is there for a good reason, but there are circumstances, exceptional though they may be, that warrant the Parliament intervening to stop an injustice, to prevent the pain and suffering of those who have already suffered too much. For the Parliament to take such a step we must satisfy ourselves of two things. Firstly, we must be satisfied that the subject is exceptional enough to warrant intervention, and secondly, we must be satisfied that the manner in which it is done is treated carefully and with close regard to avoiding unintended consequences. I am confident that this bill satisfies both of those tests.

The private members bill introduced earlier this year was proposed with a genuine desire to address the concerns of my community after the failed parole bid of the criminal. I fundamentally agree with the intent behind that bill, but I also believe it is critical that we get this reform right, that we ensure that there is no chance of unintended consequences and that it is part of a structural reform package that will prevent other families from having to go through the same unbearable hardship. The bill before us today addresses the intent of the previous private members bill as part of a vital reform package to safeguard our communities. Irrespective of the logic of it, though, voting against that bill earlier this year was by far the most difficult thing I have done in this place. To the members of my community who reached out to me at that time, most of whom were unhappy with my actions, I want you to know that I heard you and I still hear you. And while you may or may not agree with the reasons I voted the way I did, know that on that day every bit as much as today the victims, the families and the Frankston community were at the front and centre of my mind.

Today I will be voting for the bill before us. I will be voting for it emphatically. And whilst I do expect this bill to receive overwhelming support from across this chamber I also humbly ask each member of this place to think of the victims, their families and the Frankston community when you vote today. Think of the year 9 students who are in classrooms in Langwarrin, in Carrum Downs and in Frankston, and let us vote so that they need never worry again about this criminal being released.

In 1993 Frankston lost its innocence. In 1994 the justice which had been served was cruelly taken away. In 2023 we can restore that justice and right a historic wrong. This bill, Nat’s law, is for the victims and for the families of the victims of those unspeakable crimes. It is also for the families of other victims, who should never, ever have to go through what these families went through. It is for the students sitting in classrooms this very minute, the same students who were so worried about the criminal being released on parole earlier this year, so that they need not fear his release. But above all this bill is for three people, Elizabeth, Debbie and Nat. May we always remember them. I commend this bill to the house.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:30): I rise to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. This bill will ensure that serial killer Paul Denyer never walks Victorian streets again. I would like to acknowledge in the gallery family of the victims, and I just acknowledge that this is not an easy process and something that would be very hard to go through.

Paul Denyer is responsible for the brutal murders of Elizabeth Stevens, Deborah Fream and Natalie Russell and the abduction of Roszsa Toth over a seven-week period in 1993. Elizabeth Stevens was 18, Deborah Fream was 22 and Natalie Russell was 17. Young and innocent, their lives were stolen from them. These women were not known to Denyer. They had no relationship with him. But he hated them for one reason, and that was because they were women. When asked of his motives in a police interview Denyer chillingly quoted, ‘I just hate women.’ When he was asked to clarify this, the police officer that was interviewing him asked, ‘Those particular girls and women, or just in general?’ and he said, ‘In general’. A psychological assessment by police after his arrest concluded that he had no remorse for his crimes and that he even enjoyed recounting his brutality. Denyer’s vile hatred of women fuelled these murders, and Victoria will be a safer place now that somebody like him is banned from ever entering our streets again.

This bill inserts new section 74AC into the Corrections Act 1986, which makes specific laws to keep him in prison for life. 74AC prevents a parole order being made for Mr Denyer unless he is deemed by the board to be in imminent danger of dying or is seriously incapacitated and as a result no longer has the ability to physically harm any person and has demonstrated that he does not pose a risk to the community. This bill also amends section 3 of the Corrections Act 1986 by inserting the term ‘restricted prisoner’ and ensures that these restrictions are placed on prisoners serving sentences of life imprisonment for which non-parole periods were fixed. When a prisoner is convicted of two or more sentences of murder, the murder of a child or the murder of a victim who was also subject to sexual offences by the prisoner, these are the areas that it encompasses. This bill gives the Adult Parole Board of Victoria the power to declare that a restricted prisoner is not eligible for parole for a period of between five and 10 years if the board is satisfied that that is in the public interest.

There are a few acknowledgements I would like to make for this bill. The first person I would like to acknowledge is my colleague in the other place Mr Crewther, the member for Mornington, for his persistence and dedication in advocating for this case and also Mr Battin, the member for Berwick, for championing this issue. I really applaud their bravery and their ability to stick at it even when this was knocked down just a few months ago. In April, given Mr Crewther’s familiarity with the issue as a former member for Dunkley, he put forward a policy proposal to guarantee that Denyer could no longer apply for parole and that he would be kept behind bars for life where he belongs, legislation that would have mirrored the provisions that exist for Craig Minogue and Julian Knight.

An unremorseful Denyer should never have the opportunity to apply for parole, as a parole application only stands to further inflict pain on the traumatised family and friends of the victims. This was submitted to shadow cabinet by the relevant shadow minister on 17 May, and the Liberals and Nationals, supported by Mr Limbrick, put forward a private members bill to this house. This bill was, unfortunately, opposed by the government under Daniel Andrews. This fostered months more pain and suffering that should never have happened.

I think it is significant that we are talking about this today. As you can see, many of us are wearing orange, and that is because we are in 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. This bill today is a small step in making Victoria a safer place for women and girls, but there is a long way to go. Victoria’s insufficient laws do not protect women, and it is unfortunate that we do not heed the warning signs, often, until it is too late. I will continue to stand up in this place to push for stronger laws when it comes to violence. The culture of waiting years to pass better legislation needs to stop, and there are three areas I would like to address today.

The first one is that this bill has come despite a long period of worry and anxiety for the grieving families of Denyer’s victims. This man is the face of evil, and this is something that should be an absolute no-brainer. The second one is that later on today we are going to be addressing another bill, the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023 – hopefully we will debate it later today ‍– which has come 12 years after the horrendous death of Joy Rowley. The third reason is that two weeks ago I stood in this place and I spoke about Celeste Manno’s murder on the third anniversary since she was violently and horrifically murdered by a stalker. Since her murder, the Victorian Law Reform Commission has provided us with 45 recommendations, which were tabled last year in September in Parliament, and to this day nothing has been done about that. That is not good enough. How many more women have to live in fear or, potentially, die and have their families suffer the lifelong consequences of grief until we get our act together and decide that it is time for law reform? It is not just time to stand up and wear an orange shirt, like I am today, to get a photo and to talk about things but time to actually see law reform in this state that is going to protect women and the vulnerable. I do not want to wait for another tragic story. I do not want to see the rights of perpetrators outweigh the rights of victims. I believe the days for that need to end. How many AVOs need to be breached or how many women need to flee horrific circumstances for crisis accommodation before this becomes a priority in this Parliament?

The disincentives for breaching AVOs are not strong enough in this state. The disincentives for offending in this state are not strong enough. We need to be tougher on crime. I welcome this change, but I also want to note that I believe it has come too late. When this bill came up months ago, the government should have supported it. The government should not have put the families and the victims through months and months more of pain and agony. They should not have. This is not good enough.

I want to close by saying this: Saturday was White Ribbon Day, which is also International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. That then kickstarted 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. Today we join together and we wear orange as a sign of solidarity. Today in Queen’s Hall, as you would have seen walking in, there were pairs of orange shoes that represent each woman that has been killed this year by family violence. On days like this we need to stop and remember that they need to lead not just towards a day to remember but also towards law reform. Words and photos are not good enough. We need to become people of action, not people of words. Law reform like this is needed – law reform to keep people safe. I am very thankful that this will pass, but sadly, I think it has taken too long.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:39): I speak today on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023, and in doing so I want to acknowledge family members here today and anybody impacted who might be watching from a distance, which I will refer to later. I also want to acknowledge just how distressing resolving this is today in this chamber, and I hope that this puts it to bed, in a way, and leaves it alone and resolves the matter for the families involved. The overall objective of the bill we will debate today is to deliver on the government’s commitment to providing greater certainty for victims, and it will seek to minimise much of the possible trauma associated with the parole process. I again thank the families for their patience in waiting and contributing to the work that has been done. It has been a piece of work, and there has been a period of time to achieve that.

This bill goes to the fundamental challenge of our legal system that it faces on a daily basis, and that is the human rights of victims and their families and friends and those of a prisoner. When passed, this bill will prevent Mr Denyer from receiving parole unless he is dying or incapacitated. This ensures he will cause no harm to anybody else. Importantly, the bill includes reforms to improve certainty in the parole process for other victims of serious crime. The bill will introduce a no-return period for people serving certain life sentences for any type of offending. This is designed to prevent serious offenders from repeatedly applying for parole even after a refusal. This cements the Adult Parole Board of Victoria’s powers to prevent repeated applications that have no prospects of success. Even more so, this will help reduce the uncertainty and trauma experienced by victims and their families during parole applications.

The bill will also introduce a new category of restricted prisoner. These are people who have been sentenced to a life sentence for multiple offences of murder, murder of a child or murder along with a sexual offence against the same victim. The adult parole board will be required to consider whether a restricted prisoner should be prevented from applying for parole for a period of between five and 10 years – if it is in the public interest. This does not need to wait until a prisoner has applied for parole. The adult parole board will be required to consider this at least 12 months before they are eligible for parole. The Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety will provide the board with a report about the prisoner, their rehabilitation and their risk to the community. Victims will also have an opportunity to provide their views to the board should they wish to. The board will then decide whether to ‘declare’ the prisoner and thereby prevent them from getting parole before they become eligible to apply. This will help prevent victims and their families and friends from having to experience the uncertainty and trauma associated with parole applications for these most serious offenders, and it formalises the parole board’s ability to prevent declared prisoners from receiving parole for a period after they are denied.

It also allows information about a no-return period for a restricted prisoner declaration to be shared with victims’ families and other parties as appropriate. As pointed out by the Office of Public Prosecutions, victims can apply to receive information about offenders who have been sentenced to jail. The victims register provides information on violent crime about adult offenders while they are in prison. The historical context behind this bill is that Paul Denyer was sentenced in 1993 to three concurrent terms of life imprisonment for three counts of murder. This year he became eligible to be considered for parole. Parole was denied in May 2023 but not before victims’ families experienced a period of fear and trauma at the prospect that he may be released. Under the current legislation without the amendments in this bill there is technically no limit on how many times Paul Denyer can apply for parole, thus retraumatising families despite the low likelihood that he would succeed.

I am acutely aware that there will be people present here in the gallery or watching closely from a distance who have been terribly affected by these crimes, and I acknowledge the turmoil and distress that raising this subject must cause, not only for victims of Paul Denyer but for the victims of other brutal crimes, including people who are currently being abused by a perpetrator in the community or within their families. I thank the families for their advocacy and leadership on this matter. They can have satisfaction that their advocacy has made life better for other families and for future families.

This is a sensitive area, and it is our role as a responsible government to lean in on the difficult issues and take the hard decisions. The bill before us today delivers the Allan government’s commitment to the families and the Denyer victims. I thank Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes for meeting with the families and listening to their experiences and their thoughts on what would help. To the families and friends affected, I acknowledge your long-lasting grief, and believe all of us in this chamber today wish to express our heartfelt sympathy to you. I also want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague David Limbrick for having the courage to advocate and debate this issue in the chamber.

The horrific chapter behind this bill is that in 1993 the prisoner in question instilled fear across our state, particularly within the Frankston community. The impact of his crimes has been most deeply felt by the family, friends and loved ones of Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream, Natalie Russell and Roszsa Toth. To the families of these women: I thank you for your unwavering advocacy over the years.

The impact of these changes is real and heartfelt. As Natalie’s father Brian Russell and sister Lisa stated in the Herald Sun on 2 November:

It’s the first night in 30 years that I wasn’t afraid to wake up and open the paper and see Mr Denyer’s face staring at me …

(We are) extremely delighted and content in knowing that Paul Denyer can never ever harm another person ‍…

We never gave up. It was team Nat. There’s lots of us.

Shepparton News on 2 November also noted the parents of Natalie Russell, Brian and Carmel Russell, saying:

A tremendous weight has been lifted off our shoulders …

Not only will Denyer not see the light of day again, this legislation looks at the whole parole system.

There are some good changes which will benefit people who have been in our situation.

As a result of the work put into the bill, other families of victims can feel secure in the knowledge they will not be subject to the same deliberation over and over again. It is both complex and horrific to deal with offenders who show no remorse, not at their arrests, not at their trial and not even during their incarceration. As the Minister for Corrections Enver Erdogan pointed out in the Frankston Times on 7 November this year, ‘Parole is not a right’ and:

People who commit unimaginable crimes belong behind bars – not back on our streets.

He went on to say:

We’ve listened to victims and their families who have been forced to relive their trauma through a perpetrator’s parole application. They deserve certainty and they deserve better.

Before closing I do want to reflect on the central focus of parole. When I describe it, you will see how incompatible it is with Denyer and prisoners like him. The central focus of parole is as a mechanism to maintain community safety. This bill acknowledges the vital role the parole system plays in the rehabilitative journey. Parole provides individuals who are released from prison the opportunity to reintegrate into society under the oversight of skilled corrections officers. It is a good thing that while on parole people can typically undergo treatment, participate in programs and seek employment. This helps them reintegrate into society. From this description you can see there is absolutely no compatibility whatsoever with the offenders we are talking about in this bill. This bill will keep declared prisoners behind bars and is applicable to very serious offenders.

Credit for the bill needs to go to the families and to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Corrections in thoughtfully representing their needs in this bill that is currently before the chamber. This careful engagement means that the bill will not only address the concerns of the families of Natalie, Debbie and Elizabeth but also benefit many other families who have been impacted by serious crime. This is a complex issue and goes to the very extreme end of balancing individual human rights with those of our broader society and the maintenance of law and order in our state. I thank the families for their input on this distressing matter, and I commend the bill wholeheartedly.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:52): I would like to thank all the other speakers so far on this bill; they have all been very excellent contributions. I also would like to make a contribution on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023.

When I first came to this place, I think in my inaugural speech even, I spoke about one of my beliefs, which is the belief of the harm principle. It talks about the appropriate role of the intervention of the state, and an appropriate role is when an individual or group of people harm other people. In the case that we are talking about today, there are few people who have existed in this state who have caused more harm than this man. I note that back on 20 December 1993 when Justice Vincent was giving his sentencing remarks, I was there. It weighed very heavily on him, this decision. He knew the gravity of what he was talking about, and I would just like to quote something that he said in his sentencing remarks which I think is very relevant to today. This is the part where he is talking about what he has to do with regard to sentencing. Justice Vincent said:

Unfortunately, I must sentence you now and I cannot abrogate my responsibility to some distant Parole Board. Recognizing the importance of rehabilitation as a sentencing consideration, there are very occasionally situations in which that factor must be subordinated within the confines of a proportionate sentence to the need to protect the public against the truly dangerous. The evidence before this court is tragically clear on that aspect. You do constitute such a danger, and at our present state of knowledge, apart from separating you from society, there is nothing that can be done about it. Any non-parole period which I fix would have to be very long in any event and calculated without reference to the potential risk which you could then pose. Perhaps there will come a day when you will be able to walk among the ordinary people of our community. Whether you will ever do so must await the passage of years and the decision of the Executive Government of the time.

And so 30 years has passed and, in a way that Justice Vincent did not envisage, this Parliament today is making that decision. We are making that decision, and we have decided that it is in the best interests of Victorians and it is in the best interests of the people of Frankston to make this decision today. That is what we are doing.

After the sentencing happened, as traumatic as everything was for everyone involved, we felt some sort of justice, some sort of closure, that we could start the process of getting on with the rest of our lives. We thought that was it, basically. But the next year in the appeals court, in a process that I did not understand, I do not think any of us understood and in fact I only understood recently when I went back and studied it again, to our shock we discovered that a technicality which I only discovered recently, the technicality in that exact statement that I read out from Justice Vincent, was used to overturn his original sentence – it was not a unanimous decision of the court – and set a non-parole period of 30 years. I think I can speak for everyone involved in this that we were all very shocked when this came out, and it started a period, which now is the majority of my life, where we constantly had this feeling in the back of our minds that one day – maybe in 30 years, maybe in 40 years or whatever – there is a possibility he might harm another woman. That was always a fear in our minds.

This is not why I got into politics. I do not enjoy talking about this. This is not a fight that any of us wanted to have. But sometimes the fights choose you, and in this case I felt like I was compelled to act. In 2021 we realised that soon this person would be eligible for parole, and I talked to the government about it, to the Attorney-General. She was very sympathetic to what I had to say, and she did listen. But what we asked for was not anything in particular. We did not dictate to the government what we wanted. We just wanted some sort of reassurance that he is never going to harm another girl. That is what we were asking for. This bill today provides that certainty, so I will be clear about that. I think that people have had that fear in their mind, or that concern, that worry, that one day some distant parole board that Justice Vincent spoke about will make a mistake. There is no possibility, so I would say to people that have been living with this: today I hope that that part of your mind that you have lived with for so long will go away and you will have some sort of closure again, like what we had in December 1993.

Karen, who is here today in the gallery, started this campaign with me in 2021 to try and get some sort of action. It was very difficult to talk about this, but what we realised was that there are not many people associated with this left that can talk about it. It was a long time ago. People pass away. People are not in a position where they can advocate publicly. They do not have a platform like I do. Maybe they are not in a good enough state to be able to do it, so it is a privilege in some ways that I have been able to do that and speak out. Many others have been speaking out also, and I would like to just thank and acknowledge some people who have been playing a part in all this – Vikki Petraitis, firstly. She is an author, a podcaster and also a screenwriter now. She was with the police on the night when Nat was taken from us, and she was reporting on the story and sort of became part of the story. She has felt so strongly about this. She has been telling this story for decades now, and because she has been telling this story, people have not forgotten what happened. They have not forgotten what happened to Elizabeth, Debbie and Nat. They have not forgotten that we do not have certainty that he is never going to harm another girl, and they remember the horror of what happened. He was sentenced for these crimes, but in the confession he confessed to an array of other crimes. Since we have been talking about this publicly I know that Vikki, the member for Frankston and I – many people – have been contacted by members of the public, women primarily, who have said that they have been stalked by this man. I do not know how many it is – at least dozens, possibly hundreds. This is a person that was fantasising about murder since the age of 14. He stalked women for years until he got to a point where he acted. He is clearly an exceptional case. I do not like laws like this either, but this is to correct an injustice, an exception, and if there was ever to be an exception, I do not think that you could find one greater than this.

Some other people have been campaigning on this for a very long time. Neil Mitchell from 3AW campaigned on this right from when it happened – and more recently, John Silvester, a crime writer. I would also like to thank my wife and family and my mum, who are here today. You can imagine this is a very awkward thing for me to be publicly talking about, and I am glad that today is the last time I have to talk about it. I thank Karen, who is also here; Nat’s family, of course; Brian and Carmel, Nat’s mum and dad; and my staff. I acknowledge that this is a very emotional thing, and I cannot fault their commitment to sticking with me on this. They have gone over every detail of this case, and they understand it better than I do in many ways, so thank you to them as well. I would also like to thank the people of Frankston that got involved in this campaign, signed petitions, contacted my office and that sort of thing. I would also like to thank some members of the government and the opposition: the Attorney-General, the Minister for Corrections, the member for Frankston, and Brad Battin for his involvement as well. I know there has been some politicking around that, but I thank everyone from both sides of politics who has shown an interest in and a passion about this. I would also like to thank the new Premier for supporting this.

We do have this opportunity now. One of the things I am really grateful for is the legacy of going through all this. We saw that there were many problems with the parole system. The government, thankfully, has acknowledged that, specifically some of the things around time limitations for parole applications – frankly, I was surprised that they did not already exist; I did not realise that there were no time limitations on them – and also the communication to victims’ families. It is a very black-box process. I am not criticising the parole board in any way; they are very limited in what they can do through legislation. Today we are changing the laws so that they can communicate certain things to families so that they will know and have some period of certainty, when people have been convicted of extremely serious and horrible crimes, about what will happen and for how long. I think that is a welcome change. I am happy that this process has surfaced that and we have been able to draft some laws that will centre victims in this process a little bit more.

I am very happy that we have not been condemned to fight this for the rest of our lives, because I felt that if this did not happen today, there would be no option other than to continue this every time it happened, and frankly, I do not think anyone wanted to do that. So we can at least rest assured that we will not have to be doing that ever again. I hope that that brings some comfort. With that, I commend the bill to the house and thank everyone for their contributions so far, and I know other people have contributions.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:05): I also rise to speak very briefly on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 and acknowledge my colleague in the house Mr David Limbrick and thank him for his contributions and for his unwavering fight to make sure that this did take place. I want to also acknowledge the family and friends of the victims. This is clearly a really important moment for all of these people that are here and those that are watching online. They have allowed themselves to go through tremendous pain to be here and to relive over and over again things that are just so difficult, because it is so important that every other woman in Frankston and throughout Victoria and even Australia can rest assured that they will be safe because they did not give up, they did not give in and they did not take no for an answer.

What I do feel very aggrieved about is that we do find ourselves back here in Parliament having to do this again. I cannot imagine the additional pain that it has caused, for which I am very, very sorry, that first time round this was not put to bed. I also acknowledge the number of colleagues that have worked so tirelessly or campaigned, their feelings so heartfelt, along with those who have suffered and those victims who lost their lives so tragically. I acknowledge as well Mr Battin and Mr Crewther in the other place and a number of others that have worked so tirelessly, and I am so pleased that finally the Attorney-General has worked to allow this to go through this house.

It is a great relief for women everywhere to know that when someone has not reformed and will not reform they cannot be released to attack once again. We all deserve to feel safe. Nobody deserves to have their life taken from them, and nobody deserves to have brutalities or such tragedy in their lives that they have to live with that pain and knowledge even as family members. As a mother myself, I cannot tell you how much it breaks my heart – it really breaks my heart – to even try to put myself in the shoes of those who have had to walk alongside this for so long. I just congratulate all for their tenacity and thank them for the favour that they are doing for all of us, because it is so incredibly important.

This Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill is built on the one that was originally put forward by Mr Limbrick, and the coalition supported it. It was a day of grief for us when it was not supported in this house, and well may my opponents have hung their heads in shame that we should have to come back here and do this again. I find this incredibly difficult to talk about. I represent the south-eastern region, and Frankston is in my electorate. Frankston was the place where my parents got married. It was the place where my nanna and pop lived and my aunties and my cousins. It was a place where my husband and I nearly bought our first home. We were married, and this was perhaps one of the things we considered when we were looking at a house, whether it would be safe in Frankston. I just cannot thank people enough that we are actually passing this. It is a long time in coming, to have a non-parole period for Denyer with just some really minor exceptions in it.

Specifically the bill will limit the circumstances in which the Adult Parole Board of Victoria may order the release of Paul Denyer on parole, namely, the prisoner Paul Denyer who was sentenced by the Supreme Court on 20 December 1993 to three consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for three counts of murder. It will require the adult parole board to impose a no-return period after refusing parole to a person serving a life sentence. Such a person cannot receive parole within that period except if they are dying or incapacitated. The bill will also empower the adult parole board to make a restricted prisoner declaration, preventing a person serving a life sentence for a particularly serious crime – which what he has done is – from receiving parole while the declaration is in force except if they are dying or incapacitated, as I have already said.

As I said, I spoke in more detail when we had the coalition bill before the house. I find it incredibly difficult to speak about this. Crimes against women, violence, taking a life – and to have family members here, it makes it even harder. I do not want to speak for too long except to say that I am very pleased that finally all those who have hung in there for 30-odd years can have closure, that they can put their head on the pillow tonight knowing that in this house this bill is likely to go through with tremendous support and they can rest assured that this will be over for them. I think it has been so brave for Mr Limbrick to have spoken twice on something that is so personal to him. Just before I close, I do once again wish to acknowledge the victims – Natalie Russell, Elizabeth Stevens and Deborah Fream – and the attempted abduction of Roszsa Toth. To all of these victims and to their families, please rest assured that you have our deepest sympathy. We are so pleased that today has come, and so we commend this bill to the house.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:12): I am happy to lend my voice to the debate on this bill in strong support of its contents and its passage through the Parliament today. I thought I would begin just by reflecting on the very moving contribution of Mr Limbrick moments ago and the words that he used that I think will strike a chord with so many and that I think sum up what is at the core of the reasons for this bill, and that is that people have not forgotten. People clearly have not forgotten the atrocious acts that were committed by this man – the man who this legislation deals with ‍– but also people have not forgotten the grief of the families who are with us today and the loved ones that they lost. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to acknowledge those two things as being the motivating reasons why the passage of this legislation before us today is so important.

We have had over the course of the debate in this place and in the other place some very moving contributions from many fellow members, obviously Mr Limbrick principally here. Others I do want to acknowledge in the gallery – the member for Frankston Mr Edbrooke for his very moving contribution in the other place and also his support of members of his community on what is a very difficult issue. Mr Limbrick gave us a very heartfelt contribution, one filled with clear emotion but also with graciousness, and it is very clear from that that he is very deeply moved by this issue. It is very hard to get up in this place and talk in those terms about things that are so important to you, and so I wanted to particularly acknowledge your contribution, Mr Limbrick, with you here.

The words that he has conveyed to us, as have others, from the families and from the communities have been spoken on many occasions and they have been listened to. I think this bill encapsulates the listening that has been done and the converting of the listening into action. That is what the legislation before us will do. People should not forget – the Victorian community should not forget – what happened 30 years ago in 1993 when that series of murders occurred in the Frankston area. Mr Denyer received three life sentences for those crimes, and he should serve them.

The issues that we are obviously addressing with this legislation are the way in which the parole system has operated, the impact of that operation and the possibility of one of Victoria’s most notorious serial killers being considered for parole and the concern that that has generated in the community. The voices of the families and friends of Natalie Russell, Elizabeth Stevens and Deborah Fream have been well heard by this legislation, which will enable this prisoner to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

There have been reflections about both the impact that the pre-existing parole arrangements have had on families who endure the uncertainty of not knowing and the stress that the existing system puts in place. Certainly the reflections I have made both in listening to the Attorney-General in her public contributions on this matter but also in conversations with the Minister for Corrections on the way that that system has compounded and exacerbated the difficulty for the families are things that both in this particular instance but also more broadly the government has been attuned to, and it has recognised action is required to facilitate change.

It has been well said that there are clearly real fears in respect of this individual from the people who have had dealings with him over the years of what else might happen should he see the other side of a prison cell, and there is an absolute commitment to ensure through this legislation that that will not occur.

The bill in its broad terms complements similar legislation that exists in other jurisdictions across Australia to ensure that this particular prisoner will be ineligible for parole unless he is dying or incapacitated to the degree that he is incapable of causing harm to others, but it will also provide certainty in similar cases in the future by vesting in the Adult Parole Board of Victoria the powers to provide further security to victims of other serious crimes. I think the dual purpose of this legislation is important for the assurance that it provides those affected by the specific instance but also the broader message that it carries about the seriousness we place on serious crimes more broadly in the community.

The adult parole board in receiving these new powers will be able to declare that a person serving a life sentence is not eligible for parole for a period of five to 10 years if it is in the public interest to do so. These new powers will also include the power to prevent people serving a life sentence from receiving parole for a period after being denied parole. So there is the concept of a no-return requirement. The crimes that fall under these reforms are a series of offences of murder or one offence of murder where the victim was a child or one offence of murder where the victim was also the victim of a sexual offence committed by the prisoner.

Postponing the parole of these individuals means nothing unless we continue to support the victims of serious crime. That is why under the proposed bill the registered victims can receive consistent and updated information on the decisions made by the board regarding these relevant offenders. That is ensuring that victims of crime are kept informed about the decisions that the parole board makes about matters that affect them, because we recognise the continuing grief, continuing anxiety and continuing fear that exists in many connected to the worst crimes in our community.

The bill also makes key changes about how we refer to key stages in the parole process to avoid distress and confusion caused by terminology. We know that words matter, and they can affect how people engage with government processes. I think that it is always incumbent upon us, as those who determine what things are called, to think about the impact that particular words might have on people rather than thinking that they just serve the system, because as we all know, across a range of activities, systems are nothing without the people that engage with them, and we need to first and foremost think about those matters. The updated terminology in the bill will be reflected in the department’s and the adult parole board’s publicly facing materials.

I will just briefly mention a few of the other things that the bill will do, including enshrining in the act that the safety and protection of the community is the paramount consideration in whether parole should be granted, revoked or cancelled, or a cancellation of parole is revoked. It also allows for the appointment of a full-time chair of the adult parole board, it introduces time limits for the appointment of the board of no more than nine years in total and it ensures that registered victims are given at least 14 days notice of persons convicted during the reporting period of a serious offence committed while on parole. It will have a broad application as well as the specific application that so many in the community and those who are here today and have joined in this debate have called for. We think it deals with both the specific and the more systemic issues that confront us.

We hope that these changes do bring about improvements to the way that parole is conducted in the state of Victoria, particularly for serious crimes. We acknowledge that the development of these reforms has been done in collaboration with a diverse range of stakeholders and individuals, and as I have mentioned, we have heard from relevant ministers who have been involved in the process and the extent to which they have thought through these issues and given a very considered response.

These reforms will go some way to helping ensure that there is more peace of mind for victims. We hope that they do. In the speedy passage of this legislation through the Parliament today, I think and I hope that it demonstrates through our contributions and our actions the seriousness with which we take these issues and that, to come back to the point that I started with, in the words of Mr Limbrick, people have not forgotten what has happened. We hope that this helps the process.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (15:24): I rise to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. In doing so today I recognise the victims and their families. Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell, and Roszsa Toth who escaped, were young women at the start of their lives. I acknowledge the grief that has been endured and the strength that the families have shown for many, many years. This bill today deals with a very small cohort of prisoners convicted of the most serious of crimes. We hope that the restrictions to parole will not be seen across wider cohorts of people convicted of lesser charges, keeping in mind that, overall, parole serves an important function. Research has consistently demonstrated that prisoners released to parole supervision are less likely to reoffend than those who serve full sentences and are released without supervision.

This bill also gives the Adult Parole Board of Victoria powers over a person who is deemed a restricted prisoner, resulting in far less ability for them to apply for parole. We very much encourage the government, as has been stated repeatedly in today’s debate, that this bill be a rare exception and that decisions about prisoners are appropriately made by the judiciary. As legal stakeholders have reinforced and previous speakers have commented today, we do have the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary as a core tenet of the rule of law in democracies, including ours. I note that also some legal experts have commented that elements of this bill could be seen to undermine the rule of law in Victoria. We understand, though, that the government has received updated legal advice from the solicitor-general to support the approach taken in this bill.

I note that this bill is more comprehensive than the one that was brought before Parliament before. In June, when we spoke to the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2023, the previous bill on this matter, I said the following:

There is also merit to arguments that the parole board has acted as a bit of a black box, with little information available. How the parole board releases information to the public – what it can and cannot release – is currently determined by extremely strict legislation. We would encourage a review into how well that legislation serves the public interest and would welcome the opportunity to work with the government to consider changes to provide more information to people on the victims register.

Today this bill does include welcome changes. It provides more information and transparency to victims and families of victims, and it will relieve the families of victims of the burden of making submissions at further parole hearings.

With regard to decisions of the parole board, there has been acknowledgement in some legal circles that a prisoner’s right to privacy needs to be weighed against victim support and family support and that the lack of the transparency of some parole board processes and decisions is contributing to ongoing trauma, so we support the reform efforts of the government in this area to allow the parole board to communicate parole decisions to victims and families.

I will just close by reinforcing that as this bill is considered today our hearts are with the victims, their families and the communities who have endured that ongoing grief and trauma. We acknowledge your enduring love for those that have been lost, and the strength and resilience that you have shown is testament to that.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:27): Today I rise to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. This bill will introduce changes to our justice system by amending the parole process to ensure criminals in stand-out cases are not given the opportunity to re-enter the community if they are responsible for some of the most heinous crimes seen in Victoria, the specifics of which I will get into later.

But first I would like to pay my respects to the families and all of the loved ones who have suffered an unimaginable loss and have suffered everyday through Denyer’s crimes and his attempts to attain parole and re-enter the community. To them I want to say: we hear you, and we are listening. He has forced them to contend with the prospect of his being able to return to the community just shy of 30 years since he was brought into custody for those horrible crimes. The resilience of the victims’ families in the face of it all has been commendable to say the least. No-one should have to experience such a thing.

Denyer terrorised the people of Frankston nearly 30 years ago, unleashing fear in ordinary Victorians, who were afraid to go out as Denyer roamed the streets. He committed crimes so barbaric that they still shake me today. To the families and loved ones of Natalie Russell, Elizabeth Stevens and Debbie Fream, I cannot possibly imagine the hurt you went through and still suffer from today. You have been brave and you have been strong.

I want to thank the Minister for Corrections my friend Minister Erdogan for his work in shepherding this through and his commitment to ensuring that our parole and corrections system is fit for purpose in the 21st century. I would also like to take a moment to thank the Attorney-General Ms Symes, who has spent time with victims’ families to learn from them and to see things from their point of view. To all of those listening here today and from home, I believe that when we talk to the families and the victims of such heinous crimes we can understand a great many things, particularly how we can change the law going forward. In doing so we gain their unique perspective on how the justice system can be better managed when we address such cases in the future. I commend the Attorney-General for handling this with the care it deserves and with respect and sensitivity for the case.

When we listen to the community, particularly those traumatised and closely impacted by crimes as severe as Denyer’s, then we have a better chance of ensuring our justice system is equipped to keep people like him off the streets going forward and away from the community for good. This bill at its heart is intended to do just that and ensure Denyer will never be a risk to our community again. It is a bill that will make sure that society’s worst criminals, truly the worst of the worst, will be kept away from everybody, behind bars for good. Anybody who inflicts that level of suffering, trauma and cruelty should not walk among the community as a free man.

The bill will specifically move to stop Denyer from receiving parole, with the exception of extreme restricted circumstances. Those strict circumstances are limited to scenarios where Denyer is in imminent danger of death or at such a time where he is so incapacitated that he no longer poses a threat to anyone. He will sit in his prison cell until the day he dies or until he is in such ill health that he cannot possibly be a threat to anyone. These are the conditions, the same that were imposed for Julian Knight and Craig Minogue, who as we speak are sitting in their own cells for good. In those circumstances laws were passed keeping those killers away from the community for good, and today we are doing just that by passing this bill, which will do the same for Denyer.

This bill will also amend the law to empower the Adult Parole Board of Victoria to restrict repeat applications for parole in these serious circumstances. When we say ‘serious circumstances’ we mean the worst. The very worst criminals try to use the parole system and process to be released back into the community when we all know they are still a threat. That includes the type of evil we find in Denyer. There will be a new definition of what constitutes a serious crime, which will then render the criminals perpetrating it restricted from the parole process due to the seriousness of their crimes. That definition specifically targets serious criminal offenders, including child murderers, murderer-rapists and multiple murderers. Criminals who fit the definition can, upon passing of this bill, be categorised as restricted prisoners by the parole board, which will limit their ability to seek release for between five and 10 years after the conclusion of their non-parole period. These types of people do not deserve to be let back into our community. With this reform the adult parole board will now be able to reject applicants with these backgrounds, those who just repeatedly apply for parole when it is clear as day that they still pose a threat to our community and should be kept behind bars for the rest of their lives.

The amendments will also ensure that individuals who have committed the most atrocious of crimes and are serving life sentences currently will be ineligible to lodge another application for parole for up to a period of five years after their rejection. It is a fair and just ramp-up of our criminal justice measures against the most egregious criminals in our state and will help keep them off the streets and safely locked behind bars. As rare and unusual as it is to see a bill of this nature before Parliament, I am assured it is legally sound. Serious criminals have in the past objected to such laws being passed, especially ones that have directly called out specific criminals and confined them to prison for the rest of their lives. If Denyer feels as though this is unjust, he can lodge a case with the court, but it has been tried before. The High Court had a similar case before it with the Hoddle Street killer, and what did they say? The judges were in unanimous agreement about that matter. The High Court has ruled that such a bill, as uncommon and unusual as it may be, is proper, and in that vein I do not see why it should not pass – the condemnation of and restriction upon such a cruel individual. Not to do so would be a disservice not just to the community but to the victims.

Now to the words of the amendment. Under section 3(1) of the principal act we will insert the following definitions:

“restricted prisoner means a prisoner who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment, in respect of which a non-parole period was fixed, for –

(a) two or more offences of murder; or

(b) one offence of murder, where the victim was a child; or

(c) one offence of murder, where the victim was also the victim of a sexual offence committed by the prisoner;

restricted prisoner declaration means a declaration under section 74AAG;”.

We must keep him behind bars. We need a piece of legislation that is more comprehensive than just targeting one person. Going to the effort of keeping him behind bars should apply to others in comparable situations. It provides amendments for the parole board to ensure cases like this can be blocked in the application process where monsters try and try again to get out, and it specifically blocks Denyer from getting out. There are times when the crimes committed by someone are just so vile and so traumatising to the community that it is an obligation of the people in this place, the members of the Parliament elected to represent that very community, to work together to stop people from returning to our streets. It is not just a moral obligation but a necessity that we pass a bill that will give a sense of closure to the loved ones of Denyer’s victims and do the right thing for our community.

As I said earlier, a bill such as this is not a common one, but it is fitting his crimes remain in the collective consciousness of all Victorians. I remember it vividly, just as I remember the Hoddle Street killings, so we must work together on this. We have consulted and listened to the needs of the victims and put families at the front of our decision-making. We have also listened to the chair of the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. The Department of Justice and Community Safety also provided briefings on the reforms to the victims of crime commissioner, the Aboriginal Justice Caucus and the victim representatives of the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, because as those in this place know, we are a government that consults to ensure the best legislation possible.

The bill will make the parole system easier to navigate, and it will reduce the trauma and uncertainty that happens when offenders become eligible for parole. We are committed to doing more in supporting victims, their families and the wider community through the parole process, and we will do that through other mechanisms that do not require legislative change. For instance, we are going to change the way that information is provided to victims and their families, and we will enable the victims register to offer the appropriate support and services to victims, particularly when parole becomes a potential concern and a danger to the wider public or, in fact, a danger to individuals. We can do all this because of our record investments in victims services, something that should be above politics.

When we asked the VLRC, the Victorian Law Reform Commission, to report on how we can improve victims services, they told us that the lived experience of these survivors must be at the centre of everything that we do, and that is what we are doing. The Allan Labor government has accepted this advice because we know that criminal behaviour, offending and any type of victimising can and often does have a lifelong effect. The victims of crime financial assistance scheme is part of this. It will ensure that victims receive better support, sooner rather than later, through a system that is built from the ground up by survivors and is informed by and based on the challenges faced by victims. All people should have a voice, and victims of crime are people too and their voices deserve to sing through initiatives, programs and work like this – the specialist victims legal services, targeted consultation with experts and advocacy mechanisms like the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, among many other ways.

I particularly want to thank the family of Natalie Russell, someone whose name will forever be etched into this place through the countless mentions in Hansard, someone who will never be forgotten after her family’s collaborating with us on this bill right now. Your work has made it what it is today, and I thank you for it. Your input and your view will mean that the families will not have to go through the same prolonged experiences that you went through. Nothing can bring back Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell, but today will make a difference in another way. It is proper that the same level of restrictions be put on Denyer that we brought upon other infamous and horrific criminals, such as the Hoddle Street killer and the Russell Street bomber.

The Frankston killer tormented the people of Victoria for so long and has scarred the community. The families of victims were subject to the most horrible crimes against people they dearly loved, and it was unlike anything many of us have ever seen. Therefore, I say that it is right that we act collectively as a Parliament to make sure Denyer does not leave his prison cell and pose a threat to the community ever again. This bill is a meaningful step forward, further tackling serious criminal issues in our state by ensuring the very worst of them are kept behind bars and away from our loved ones. It means that parole is removed from those like Denyer and that he spends the rest of his life behind bars. Keeping Denyer away from the public is a moral obligation of representatives of this great state, and I am happy to see that this bill does just that. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:39): Originally I was just going to make one of my one-line or one-sentence kind of things, but upon sitting in here and listening to the contributions and seeing the families up there, I figured this probably warrants a little bit more.

Once this bill has had royal assent, I think a weight will come off a lot of people’s shoulders. I doubt they will ever sleep well at night again, but at least they will not have to worry about animals like this person – and I now do not need to say his name – being let out until they are in such an incapacitated state that they will be at no risk of harming anyone.

Personally, if it was up to me and I was running the High Court, I would just leave them in there and plant them in the garden somewhere when they are done, but that is not the way it works. But he needs to stay in there because of the futures he stole from the girls he killed and the futures he stole from the families – there is no way to pay that back. Also, in this instance there has been no indication that this animal has made any attempt at rehabilitation. Much was made by way of comment at the time that he was different to the rest of us. I think this is the only path forward. I am also very pleased that the Adult Parole Board of Victoria now has more tools to deal with people like this, because we should not have to be coming into Parliament to make individual recommendations or statutes to keep them in the system until they are no longer a threat. With that, I hope all the victims and their families rest easy after this.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:41): It is an honour to follow other speakers both from the Assembly and from this chamber today on a really important bill that means a lot to many people, particularly people that are joining us in the gallery today. The Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023, at its heart, is designed to provide greater assurance and opportunities for peace of mind for victims and for loved ones who have been subjected to the worst crimes by the worst perpetrators.

I know how important it is that we frame the discussion of these reforms in the right context and that we do not stoke attention on those who do not deserve it, so I want to acknowledge the victims that are central to the reform today. The three names and stories that are most critical to today’s debate are Elizabeth Stevens, a promising young nursing student; Debbie Fream, the young mother of Jake; and Natalie Russell, the 17-year-old student who aspired to be a journalist. They were so much more than those short descriptions, but what we do know is that each of these young women should be with us today living their dreams and loving their families, being normal, not being talked about in the Parliament of Victoria. The reason why they are not here today is deeply haunting, particularly for those who grieve them every single day. The bill seeks to respond to the expectation of those family members and friends by providing a level of certainty to them and the loved ones of victims of some of the most serious offenders in the state of Victoria.

There are three critical components to these reforms. First, the bill provides the Adult Parole Board of Victoria with more options when considering the parole applications of those who have been given a life sentence. Specifically in circumstances where the board denies parole to one of these people, they will be required to set a no-return period of up to five years. The reforms also change the approach to the small but concerning cohort of offenders who are considered the worst of the worst. Here the parole board will have the power to make a restricted prisoner declaration that will apply to a specific category of offenders, people that I wish we did not have to talk about but people who are in prison on a life sentence who have been convicted of multiple murders, have been the murderer of a victim who was a child or the murderer where the victim was also a victim of a serious sexual offence committed by that person. With this declaration comes a greater restriction on the period in which these applicants can be granted parole, excluding them from being granted parole for at least five years but importantly up to 10 in appropriate circumstances.

Second, the bill will name Paul Denyer to make it clear that he is ineligible for parole unless he is dying or incapacitated. We know that precluding this individual from returning to society as a free person is critical to the healing of not only the family and friends of Elizabeth, Debbie and Nat but also the Frankston community, a community that three decades later is still scarred by the horror of these crimes. I know this because I have spent time in that community. I have spent time with family members, and I have listened to the likes of Mr Limbrick but also importantly to our really dedicated local member for that community the member for Frankston in the other place. He has been tenacious and determined in getting an outcome for this community, and I do want to commend his contribution in the Assembly where he certainly took responsibility for the sentiment of his community and presented it so eloquently.

Finally, the reform package also includes some non-legislative changes to how the parole system operates to make it clearer and easier for victims and families impacted by applications. These changes will apply across the board and ultimately seek to minimise any unnecessary confusion and trauma. The reforms also provide greater opportunities for victims registered on the victims register to be kept informed of processes such as being notified when the adult parole board are considering a restricted prisoner declaration, importantly so that those voices can be heard. Submissions can be made and people can feel as though they are involved in the process appropriately.

I have confidence that these reforms presented today not only go a long way to improving the experience of victims within the parole process but also do not compromise the important principle of the separation of powers between the Parliament and the courts. As first law officer, I have a role to protect the separation of powers as well as ensure that any charter overrides are not only proportionate but consistent with previous pieces of legislation. I acknowledge that some have argued that what we are achieving today could have been done sooner. I genuinely believe that most people that have engaged in this debate have all set about to seek the same outcome, but it was important for members of the government, for me and for the Minister for Corrections, to take the time to develop, in full consultation with the families, a package that we think is as best as we could achieve.

This is a package that has been carefully crafted to provide reforms that fundamentally change how victims within Victoria experience the parole system, and that could not have been done without intense consultation and feedback with those people who this has directly impacted. In June in this chamber we dealt with the private members bill and I stood here and I made two things clear. First, I said I wanted to achieve the same outcome that we are achieving today: that this individual will remain in prison and never be able to harm another member of the community. Second, I wanted to honour the commitment that I had given the victims that we would find an appropriate way to respond to their pain and to their experiences in dealing with the parole system. I have always acknowledged that we could have and should have done better and that what was being proposed then did not quite do the job. But I think we are there today.

I would really like to acknowledge my colleague and friend Mr Erdogan for his work in carefully considering, consulting on and crafting these reforms. This is something that we have worked closely on together. You should be very proud of your office – fairly new minister, complex issues and you have handled it with good grace and a determination to really see this through. Also, Mr Erdogan is the Minister for Victim Support. That is a really tough job, and what you have done through this bill is deliver on a critical component to provide a long-awaited sense of peace to many who have suffered for too long.

I would also like to thank Mr Limbrick for his continued and unwavering advocacy and involvement in discussions that have gone on for many years and have contributed to where we are today. He has never sought to politicise this issue. He has engaged respectfully, has never dictated an outcome and has just been tenacious in ensuring that we reached a satisfactory outcome, and for him I am so pleased that we are here.

I will again reflect on those who are most central to the reforms: Elizabeth, Debbie and Nat. I cannot profess to understand the pain and suffering of those that you left behind or indeed the exhaustion of going through a process that we know was not as good as it should be. My sincerest hope is that the legislation goes at least some way to easing some of that exhaustion and offering some sense of relief both for you and for others who may find themselves in similar positions.

It has been an honour to get to know the family of Natalie Russell. They have been instrumental in these reforms. Her parents Brian and Carmel, who I am sure are watching at home; her adoring sisters Janine and Lisa; and her best friend, who was hanging out at this house as a teenager and is still there 30 years after, recalling what her best friend meant to her and being such a support to that family. They are amazing people. I know it has been an incredibly long and painful journey to get here. I am very, very deeply humbled for getting to know these people and the way that they have helped me and helped the government formulate a policy and a bill today that we think is the right thing to do. I have been welcomed into their home to discuss really incredibly difficult matters. It has been made easier because there is always a bit of humour and cake. Despite them being difficult meetings, I have really enjoyed getting to know these people. Many of them are in the chamber – I cannot look at you guys. Lovely people. Doing the right thing as a government is something you should always strive to do, but when you work with people that it means so much to, it means more to us. I am in awe of you guys and your determination to do what is right for Nat, and she would be pretty proud of you, so thank you. I commend the bill to the house.

Adem SOMYUREK (Northern Metropolitan) (15:53): I congratulate the government for having the maturity to reflect on its decision to refuse to back the private members bill earlier this year which essentially delivered a similar outcome. I do not say that facetiously or condescendingly. I think too many times in politics, politicians and governments make decisions and then they stick to those decisions obstinately at a cost of the community, so I do commend the government for changing its view on this one.

I made the point in my speech on the private members bill that I am generally against ad hominem legislation. I believe in the principles of separation of powers between the legislature/Parliament, the executive and the judiciary, and I also believe in the principle of equality before the law, which is a fundamental principle for every liberal democracy – or ought to be a fundamental principle for every liberal democracy – throughout the world. Those principles are also entrenched, as the Attorney-General said, in our charter of human rights.

Notwithstanding that, I also adhere to the principle that this Parliament ought to be consistent. It must be consistent. By knocking back this legislation last time, I do not think this Parliament was consistent. The Parliament has twice before enacted ad hominem legislation to deny freedom to, or keep in prison, two other killers, Julian Knight and the Russell Street bomber. The crimes committed by Paul Denyer are some of the most heinous crimes in the history of this state. They targeted young women. It would have been a complete travesty had the government not come back and made the right decision to reintroduce this bill.

I recall, as I said in my speech earlier this year – and I am not going to go into all the details – that I happen to have some connection to these incidents, obviously not as closely connected as Mr Limbrick in his tragic experience and that of people in the gallery today. We were a young couple, my wife and I, living in Chelsea Heights, and some of the murders were committed only a couple of kilometres away from where we lived. I can tell you there was an atmosphere of fear in the community in the south-east around Chelsea, Chelsea Heights, Seaford and Frankston, especially for young women. My wife was about 22 years old at the time, and she would regularly travel to Frankston by train. I recall she had to be locked up in our house, and in some instances I could not go to work. That was the level of fear in the community during that period of time. If we are ever to introduce ad hominem legislation, this has got to be it. I commend the government for revisiting its decision of earlier this year and commend the bill to the house.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (15:57): I want to make some brief closing remarks in relation to the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. We have heard many thoughtful contributions from all sides, and I want to take this opportunity to thank and pay my respects to everyone that has contributed to the debate not only in this chamber but also in the other place. In particular I want to acknowledge Mr Limbrick, not only for his deep personal connection with the issue but also his unwavering and constructive advocacy on this issue. I note, since having had the privilege of serving as the Minister for Corrections and Minister for Victim Support, your engagement very early on and our sit-down discussions about these matters and why these reforms were necessary. I know that engaging in these debates is not easy, but I hope you do see that the outcome was well worth it.

Most of all I want to acknowledge the families, friends and loved ones of Natalie Russell, Debbie Fream and Elizabeth Stevens. You have been clear in your desire for this legislation, and I am pleased that we have been able to deliver this important reform. On behalf of the government, I again want to thank the Russell family for their persistence and their input in helping us get this bill right. I know it was not easy. Nothing can take away the pain and trauma you have suffered for over 30 years, but I hope that the decision that we are making here today will provide some small comfort into the future. I know through our discussions, through the Attorney-General, through the local member for Frankston and through Mr Limbrick and many others that this has not just been about your family but about other victims of heinous crimes, so that other families will not experience what you have through this process.

As the Minister for Corrections and also Minister for Victim Support, this bill has always been about providing more certainty for victims of crime and their families. That is why we worked closely with the Russell family and consulted with other victim representatives in developing the package of reforms. I want to say thank you to the Attorney-General for leading that engagement with the family and for her input into these important parole reforms. We are confident that these reforms will stand the test of time and help families into the future without the need for bespoke approaches and having to personally advocate with members of Parliament.

I briefly want to talk about how these changes reinforce Victoria’s parole system. In Victoria we have the toughest parole system in the country. As this bill reinforces, the primary consideration is community safety, and the independent Adult Parole Board of Victoria takes that very seriously. The parole system plays an important role in keeping our community safe. Our parole system ensures that people released on parole are under careful supervision by expert corrections officers. During their period of parole people are usually required to undergo further treatment and programs that reduce the risk of reoffending. There is support to gain employment and housing, which we know are two of the most important factors in preventing reoffending. The evidence shows that this approach improves community safety compared with straight release at the end of a sentence. This is why the changes in this bill are targeted at only the most serious offenders – people on life sentences. For this small cohort the courts have said quite clearly that there is no assumption that they will ever be released from prison. Parole is a privilege, not a right. This bill will help ensure that this small cohort cannot abuse this privilege. It does that by providing more powers to the Adult Parole Board of Victoria to prevent repeated applications, including where there is no realistic prospect of parole being granted or rehabilitation.

We have also heard from victims of crime about the need to improve the information sharing around parole. This bill implements specific changes to allow the Department of Justice and Community Safety to share information about restricted prisoner declarations and no-return periods. But we are not stopping there. We are also making non-legislative reforms that will make parole clearer and simpler for victims of crime more broadly. They include simple things like updating the terms that are used, to avoid unnecessary confusion and trauma, and continuing to improve how we communicate with registered victims to ensure that they are getting support. We are doing this in consultation with victims’ representatives, including the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, and I again want to thank them for their work, because, as I said earlier, these reforms are first and foremost about victims and their families: more certainty, more clarity, less pain. The changes are proportionate and are built on the views and experiences of victims of serious crime and experts in the criminal justice system. They will help the parole board to continue to keep our community safe.

I want to thank everyone that has worked with us to get this bill right and, most of all, the family members and loved ones that are here with us today. Thank you. I think debate on this bill has shown the Parliament at its best and what we can achieve when we work together in the best interests of the whole Victorian community.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (16:02): I move, by leave:

That the bill be now read a third time

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.