Thursday, 20 February 2025

Bills

Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Gayle Tierney:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:08): I have got to be honest: I could not wait to get on my feet to speak on this bill, such is the excitement of this bill. I have been waiting with bated breath for the government to bring this bill into the chamber. It is full of lots of interesting things that we of course all want to speak about in this place, and I know that government members are also very keen to speak on this particular bill and have been looking forward to it for some time.

The origins of this bill can be traced back to the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s report on committals, which was presented in March 2020. Now, 4½ years later, we are considering a legislative proposal. To provide context, the terms of reference were given to the VLRC in October 2018, which means we have waited essentially six years into the process before Parliament has finally seen a proposal. Committals have been a significant part of the criminal justice system for many years. Essentially these proceedings allow the Magistrates’ Court to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a serious charge, known as an indictable offence, to a higher court, such as a county court or district court. As stated in the Victorian Law Reform Commission report, which I am sure you have all read:

Currently, magistrates must consider the evidence to determine if it is of sufficient weight to support a conviction for an indictable offence (the test for committal or committal determination).

While the rationale for applying a committal test is sound – to provide independent scrutiny of an indictable prosecution – requiring it in all indictable stream matters is unnecessary; therefore the test should be abolished. The lower courts should, however, be empowered to discharge the accused on application by the defence, on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

This is from the executive summary in the VLRC 2020 report on committals.

The bill enacts some, but not all, of the VLRC’s recommendations. I believe the government has not provided a sufficient explanation as to why only certain reforms were adopted while others were left out. The bill’s primary purpose is to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and reform the process for committal proceedings. Key changes include removing the committal test; extending the prohibition on cross-examination to additional proceedings; strengthening the test for granting leave to cross-examine; and enabling early committal for trial in the Supreme Court, among other miscellaneous amendments. What the government proposes, however, is that instead of the Magistrates’ Court determining whether there is enough evidence to send the matter to the County Court for trial, the Magistrates’ Court would essentially serve as a case manager. While it would still hear some evidence, in most cases cross-examination of prosecution witnesses would not be allowed. Furthermore, the Magistrates’ Court would not make a decision about whether the matter should proceed to trial. I believe the government does not intend any disrespect, but this proposal reduces the power of the Magistrates’ Court, limiting its role to case management for preparation rather than making a judicial decision about proceeding to trial. Regarding Supreme Court matters, particularly in cases such as murder and manslaughter, the government proposes that these cases would go directly to the Supreme Court. In this scenario a judicial registrar would manage the case before it is scheduled for trial before a Supreme Court judge and jury.

There are varying opinions within the community about whether committal proceedings and the current committal test are still necessary or not. The Criminal Bar Association of Victoria released a statement on 30 October 2024, which reads:

This week, the Victorian Government introduced a Bill into Parliament that is designed to abolish committal hearings. The CBA strongly opposes these reforms and supports the retention of committal hearings and particularly having the ability to cross-examine witnesses.

A committal hearing has traditionally served an important role within the criminal justice system and continues to do so.

The committal test – to determine whether there is evidence of sufficient weight to support a conviction for the offence charged – is a fundamental safeguard in our justice system and ensures that charges where a finding of guilt at trial is highly unlikely or impossible do not proceed to the trial Court. This saves alleged victims, witnesses and accused from unnecessarily undergoing the trial process.

The strength of any prosecution case only becomes apparent once witnesses are required to face cross-examination. It is at that crucial point that deficiencies in the evidence become apparent.

This prevents unnecessary trauma for alleged victims, witnesses and the accused. The strength of any prosecution case is truly revealed when witnesses face cross-examination, which is a critical moment when any weaknesses become apparent.

The Law Institute of Victoria have also raised concerns with the Shadow Attorney-General. They oppose the changes to the committal process, particularly the removal of the committal test and the proposed shift in the purpose of committal proceedings. The LIV argues that the proposed amendments risk undermining the benefits of the current committal process, especially by diminishing its capacity to resolve cases before trial. They also point out that the reforms fail to address the real causes of delay such as adequate disclosure, sufficient legal aid funding and a lack of court resources to expedite cases, and we have been seeing all over the state, really, the lack of court resources. We have seen that in particular in Werribee, where they have got a court building but no actual staff inside.

Committal hearings have long been a critical safeguard in protecting individuals accused of serious crimes. The current system holds significant value in ensuring adequate disclosure, facilitating early case resolution, minimising the impact on vulnerable witnesses and reducing the pressure on the criminal justice system. This is the dilemma that we face when considering this bill. Key legal stakeholders like the Criminal Bar Association of Victoria, the Victorian Bar and the Law Institute of Victoria strongly oppose this bill for several reasons. Firstly, they argue the bill will not lead to a streamlining or acceleration of the committal trial process; secondly, they believe that it could be unfair to the accused; and thirdly, they contend that it might actually result in more cases going to trial that would otherwise not proceed if the committal test were in place. On the other side the government and the Victorian Law Reform Commission argue that the current committal system is inefficient. The government claims that the process involves unnecessary duplication, as the Crown essentially presents its case at committal only for it to be tested again. Furthermore, the government and the VLRC question the point of the committal process when the Director of Public Prosecutions can rightly override a magistrate’s decision not to send a matter for trial by directly indicting or presenting the case.

There are valid arguments on both sides of this debate, which is why you can understand for the opposition it has made the matter quite complex to navigate. The government’s goal is to reduce trauma for complainants in criminal cases by significantly limiting the ability of defendants to cross-examine them at committal hearings. The test for cross-examination will be made more stringent and the scope of cases in which cross-examination is prohibited will be expanded. There is no doubt that it will be much harder for a defendant or their legal counsel to cross-examine a complainant during a committal hearing.

I do understand that the government is not proposing a complete abolition of committals. A committal hearing would still exist, but it would no longer involve a magistrate applying the committal test. Instead it would serve as more of a case management process and a chance for the Crown to disclose its evidence to the defence. These changes have raised significant concerns within the legal community, as many are uncertain about whether such restrictions would be fair to a defendant.

This is where the issues in the bill become quite complicated. In our criminal justice system it is the state against an individual. The full power of the state is brought to bear on one person. That is what a criminal trial is, and we cannot approach this process assuming that every defendant is guilty. In fact the law clearly presumes innocence unless proven guilty. Similarly, we should not automatically assume that every complainant is lying, but we cannot assume that every complainant is telling the truth either. The purpose of a trial is to test the truth, and not just to determine what is true but to assess whether the evidence meets the high standard required under criminal law beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. Given the serious consequences for those who commit crimes in this state, I cannot accept the idea that any restriction on cross-examining a complainant should be automatically endorsed. To do so would suggest that we are questioning whether complainants can be believed, and that is not the point. The concerns raised by legal stakeholders are rooted in ensuring fairness in the system, and fairness means that everyone’s evidence must be tested. Evidence presented on behalf of the Crown must be tested, because if it is not what is the point of a trial? If we simply assume every complainant is truthful and honest without question, what is the purpose of a trial? There must be a fair process for testing all evidence.

The Parliament has put in place changes to laws to make that fairer. We do not want to see complainants subject to harassment, bullying or having irrelevant details about their past used to discredit them before a jury or a committal magistrate. These changes are necessary and welcomed, as it is crucial that judges enforce these laws in court to protect complainants from being badgered, bullied or belittled by an aggressive counsel. I fully support that. This is not about suggesting that complainants do not deserve protection; they absolutely do. However, there also must be a fair testing of all evidence or else, as I said, what is the point of a trial? If we assume that one side is automatically believable and the other side is not, then trials become meaningless. That is not the purpose of our legal system. The system is based on testing all evidence from all parties to uncover the truth and determine whether the evidence meets the standard required to sustain a conviction, and that is what we must ensure.

The Shadow Attorney-General, I think – I was at the bill briefing; it must have been quite a while ago, as this has been sitting up here in the red morgue for quite a while – asked the government during the briefing why a particular recommendation from the VLRC was not being supported. The response was – and this is paraphrased – that would just bring back committals as they are. I do not believe that is what the VLRC had in mind. I think it is unfair to characterise their recommendation as just a new version of the committal test. I am concerned because there may be times when the DPP or the Office of Public Prosecutions faces significant pressure, public or political, when making independent decisions. They must be free from undue influence, but let us not pretend there is no pressure on decision-makers throughout the justice system. I think it is crucial that there is a ‘break glass in case of emergency’ option for a magistrate to discharge a defendant when it is clear from the evidence presented that a conviction is not possible.

I am genuinely concerned the government has not adequately explained why this safeguard was not included in the bill. Consider the example of the recent tragic event at Daylesford where a driver lost control of their car and crashed into the beer garden of a hotel, tragically killing several people. I do not think there is any Victorian that was not moved by that tragedy. I know several in the Indian community, particularly in my electorate, were personally affected by that tragedy with family and friends. That case highlights how the committal process actually works. The DPP was understandably concerned and believed there were grounds for a trial; however, at the committal stage evidence emerged about the defendant’s medical condition. The magistrate, after reviewing the evidence, decided not to commit the case to trial as it was clear that the defendant’s condition would likely lead to reasonable doubt in the minds of a properly instructed jury, making a conviction unlikely. Naturally the family and friends of the victims must have been devastated, feeling as though justice had not been served. I am sure there was considerable pressure on the DPP to push for a trial, but this case demonstrates how the magistrate’s role was crucial in determining that the case should not proceed because the evidence did not support a criminal conviction or raise a reasonable doubt. Under the government’s proposal, however, the case would have gone to trial regardless of the evidence. Would a properly instructed jury have reached the same conclusion as the magistrate? We do not know for certain, but it is important to note that we have seen cases in Victoria where juries have found defendants guilty only for higher courts to rule unanimously that there was no basis for conviction. Juries do not always get it right, and as we know, judge-only trials do not always get it right and go on to be quashed by the High Court. That has certainly happened here in Victoria.

Imagine a scenario where this reform was already in place at the time of the Daylesford tragedy. Instead of going through a committal, the case would have already gone straight to trial. Many more witnesses would have been required to testify, perhaps more than they would have needed in the Magistrates’ Court, and this would have done nothing to ease the burden on resources. It would have taken more time and more money and caused more grief for everyone involved in that tragedy. This example makes it harder to justify the reforms; however, for every instance like this there are 99 others where the committal process has caused unnecessary grief, trauma and delays in the committal hearings.

This bill does not reflect reforms that have been implemented in other states. I will concede that in those states the sky has not fallen in with changes to the committal process; however, I would also point to the fact that in New South Wales there has been significant public controversy involving the New South Wales District Court, which is the equivalent of our County Court, and the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions. Some judges have raised concerns that the DPP has pushed ahead with trials in the District Court despite evidence not supporting them. Judges have publicly questioned whether those decisions were politically motivated or made with a proper focus in the interest of justice. The DPP has strongly rejected these claims and has filed complaints with the New South Wales judicial commission against those judges who have voiced concerns. Some have been partially upheld. I mention this not taking a side in the matter, as I am not certain who is right, but it does highlight that reducing judicial scrutiny in lower courts could lead to concerns that weak cases might proceed to trial. If that happens, it could result in further delays, wasted resources and increased trauma for defendants, complainants and witnesses.

At this stage – I know you have been waiting with bated breath, everyone in the chamber – we will not be opposing this bill. We have, however, proposed a reasoned amendment because we believe the government has not fully addressed the issue. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘the bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until the government:

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

(2) commits to reviewing the implementation of the bill to identify and remedy any demonstrable unfairness to defendants.’

I will ask for that reasoned amendment to be circulated.

We feel the government needs to explain why it has selectively adopted some of the Victorian Law Reform Commission recommendations regarding committals. Additionally, we believe the government should commit to conducting a thorough review into the bill’s implementation to ensure that if it results in demonstrable unfairness to defendants, it can be quickly corrected. The interest of justice affects us all. We have a stake in ensuring the justice system works for everyone. The justice system must be equally fair for defendants and complainants. We would be keen to see that and particularly keen to hear from the government whether they can guarantee that there will not actually be as a result of this process less-worthy cases going to trial. I will not take long in the committee process, and if the minister who will be at the table is listening, that is basically going to be the crux of my questioning – to expand for the opposition on whether they can guarantee there will not be less-worthy cases going to trial and what they believe the process around that will be.

This is not the first justice legislation amendment that I have dealt with. It will not be the last. Hopefully we will have some more soon, because as we know, in the space of one term the government came in here with a justice legislation amendment bill that weakened the bail laws. I moved an amendment those bail laws to remove or delete the lowering of the threshold for committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. The government changed that threshold so that, consistently, offenders get the lowest test to receive bail again. The government came back, made some changes around the edges and said, ‘We’re not adopting the Liberals and Nationals’ proposal. We’re creating a new serious offence whilst on bail,’ which as we know has done nothing in the community. Consistently we see case after case where you have got offenders committing again. You have got offenders offending again whilst on bail, which is causing massive issues. I hosted just last week the Shadow Minister for Police and Corrections David Southwick up in Craigieburn for my Craigieburn and Greenvale crime forum. Many people expressed some pretty harrowing stories about car theft, armed robbery, burglary, home invasions, and it is particularly acute in the growth areas. I know people always talk about places like the inner south-east being terrible for crime, but in the growth areas in particular it is a massive issue.

I was doorknocking recently with our candidate for McEwen, and people were telling me some pretty harrowing stories, that people still have glass broken on their houses in places like Kalkallo. These are real stories. We see over and over again car chases through places like Tarneit, Kororoit and Werribee and consistently find out that those offenders were on bail. You have the shocking video of an offender boasting that he will get arrested and he will be out again in 90 minutes, boasting that they cannot keep him locked up and he is just going to be out again the same night, doing the same offences, stealing people’s cars and setting them alight. This is what is happening all over our state, and the government is to blame. The government is to blame because they weakened the bail laws.

We had the absolute theatre of the Premier under pressure in Werribee, rushing out to the Herald Sun and saying, ‘I think we need to go further.’ The only reason we need to go further is because this Premier weakened the bail laws. This Premier weakened the bail laws and now needs to go further again. They accuse us of just attention seeking for a Herald Sun headline and then have a Herald Sun headline of their own. The theatre of what we saw was the Premier announcing a review by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Police, only for the police minister to come out and say, ‘It’s not a review; it’s a discussion. We don’t need a review. I’ve got all the ideas in my bottom drawer ready to go for this discussion.’ The Premier then contradicts her own police minister again and says, ‘No, it’s a review. We hope to have something in Parliament within three months.’ You would never have seen that under Comrade Andrews, but under this Premier we consistently see undermining and conflict within this chaotic government that has weakened Victorian bail laws and made our community less safe through what it has done.

We warned them when we put an amendment in this place that this will have serious consequences. Then, after six months, I introduced a bill to restore the offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. What did we get from those on the other side? ‘You’re just looking for a Herald Sun headline. This is not an issue. You’re scaremongering about crime. It’s not an issue in our communities.’ We are saying it is a massive issue, it is a huge issue and now the government has discovered it is an issue. I would say to the government it is their fault that we are seeing this. You have chaos in Victoria Police. You have the government not giving Victoria Police the resources it deserves. The government, at war with Victoria Police, have been warned about failed laws, have been warned about move-on laws and are doing absolutely nothing. I am sick of it, we are sick of it and the Victorian community is sick of it.

Just coming back to this bill, as I said, there is a reasoned amendment. We will not be opposing this bill, but I look forward to supporting that. We are not entirely convinced that the government has gotten this right. I believe that reforming committals can bring some positive changes to the justice system. For that reason we are not opposing the bill at this point. However, we do think the government needs to answer questions that we have raised, which are outlined in the two parts of the reasoned amendment I moved.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:36): I rise to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. This is a comprehensive reform bill which provides several amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and other similar, related pieces of legislation to modernise how we deal with certain criminal cases. At their core these changes are designed to make sure our legal system is fit for the modern world by protecting more victims from trauma, building a more efficient procedure and hastening the process. The aim of these reforms is principally to help minimise trauma felt by victims by way of addressing inefficiencies in our justice system which have led to the duplication of work and stress on victims and witnesses.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Minister for Police in the other place, my good friend Anthony Carbines, for all his hard work on this matter. I would also like to thank the Attorney-General, Minister Kilkenny, for her work and pivotal role in these reforms. This has been in the works for quite some time now, and it has taken the collective effort of a large number of hardworking people from across the legal profession coming together to help shape these reforms. Every year hundreds of thousands of cases are brought before the courts. That is thousands upon thousands of witnesses, victims and perpetrators. About 3000 criminal cases each year go through some kind of committal process in the Victorian Magistrates’ Court. In simple terms, that is a court hearing where the court determines whether there is enough evidence and enough of a case for the issue to be bumped further up the chain. These court hearings can have quite a lengthy process. It is a tiresome process involving cross-examination of witnesses, victims and perpetrators, as well as all of the relevant information and evidence.

As my good friend Minister Carbines pointed out, there is a very understandable reason for this at first glance. In our legal system the process of commencing criminal proceedings for trial or sentencing emerged before independent police forces and prosecution agencies even existed. Back then it was necessary for the whole process to be in place. Our legal system needed to make certain determinations due to the lack of an independent policing or prosecution body. It was the job of the magistrate to review and scrutinise the evidence of any case given to determine whether or not the case had merit and filter out those that could not stand up to scrutiny. It was the first line of review by the legal system. Now, of course, Victoria has its own independent police force and a more robust legal system with more agencies and a more fleshed-out procedure for dealing with these matters. Nonetheless, once cases pass into the courts the proceedings can last quite a long time. Sometimes they can take weeks or months, and in rare cases they can drag out for years on end. Instances like this are unavoidable.

Our justice system must work hard to ensure every case is managed with the diligence and care needed and expected of the law, but that does not mean there is no room for improvement. We should always be constantly innovating and improving our legal system so that it not only can get things done quicker but does right by most of the vulnerable in our society. The simple reality of many criminal proceedings is that they can involve severely traumatic experiences for victims and relevant witnesses. Whether they are cases of family violence, stalking or sexual offences, as covered by this legislation – which I will touch on momentarily – the criminal cases will be traumatic for those impacted and involved. Recalling those events and doing so repetitively under questioning in cross-examination in those early court hearings can bring those same emotions and traumatic responses right back to the surface. In short, we currently have a system where some cases are going on for a very long time, where key witnesses are cross-examined and subject to multiple rounds of questioning, which can bring up a lot of trauma for victims, all while the court gets backed up with these proceedings and cases, and it needs to change.

In 2020 the Victorian Law Reform Commission published a report detailing its recommendations for reforms in key legal matters such as committals. It is a comprehensive set of reforms which the Allan Labor government is committed to, and that is ultimately why we are here today. Many of the legal structures in this state are necessary, robust and unparalleled, but that does not mean they cannot be scrutinised and reformed where necessary. We understand the need to reform and modernise our legal procedures in this state, and that was the underlying purpose of the report by the VLRC. We are listening to the legal community’s feedback on how to reform the system and we are getting on with the job.

This amendment bill before the chamber is a comprehensive adoption of these recommendations. First, the bill will remove the committal test for trials. For those who are not familiar with the procedures, this essential pre-trial process is conducted to determine whether or not the accused should stand trial. This was one of the recommendations put forward by the Victorian Law Reform Commission in that report, which principally audited the efficiency of the system. The report made the point that an outsider may be able to immediately see the purpose or rationale behind having such a test. After all, those tests on paper seem to be the standard committal check to determine whether the proceedings should continue. It sounds simple enough, but the report by the VLRC found that, in spite of that, in most cases going forward before the courts the test was ultimately not necessary, and that is why we are scrapping it.

The numbers suggest that anywhere between 1 and 2 per cent of the cases are thrown out at this initial stage, yet our system is still backlogged. Hence the goal of this reform is to modernise how we process these cases. We are pushing towards a more modern case management process which can stamp out any cases or claims that do not stack up against scrutiny but allow cases to proceed in a timely fashion. Anything we can do to make our legal processes and procedures better and smoother will always be welcomed by the Allan Labor government. We are committed to reforming the system and we want to get it right.

This bill makes changes in relation to the cross-examination of victims, with further restrictions introduced and prohibitions expanded. Victims and witnesses involved in cases of family violence, sexual offences and stalking will no longer be allowed to be cross-examined before trial. The logic behind this is very simple. Trials are a very lengthy process. They involve recalling very traumatic memories that can cause great distress and disturbance to many victims and witnesses. Owing to the length which some of these trials can go on for and the sensitive and traumatic nature of a lot of testimonies, it is only right that we do not subject Victorians to that repeated trauma. That is why this reform will ensure victims only have to testify once before a court. It scraps the lengthy and repetitive subjection to scrutiny and questioning ahead of a trial, which can be deeply traumatic.

The bill retains provisions for cross-examination of witnesses under certain circumstances but with new protections and procedures. Cross-examinations of a witness will now require an explanation as to how that examination is directly and substantially relevant to the issue and why they should be questioned in the interests of justice. This ensures that we are not dragging out legal proceedings for any longer than necessary and are demonstrating how cross-examinations of these victims can be directly relevant, because otherwise we risk continuing the status quo where victims are forced to relive a traumatic experience for simple procedural matters. The prohibition of cross-examination at the committal hearing will still apply to all matters relating to a charge of a sexual offence, a family violence offence or an offence of stalking. Under this legislation, a Magistrates’ Court cannot grant leave to cross-examine a witness in these proceedings. This is about protecting victims and families, and it is crucial that we get this right. We need to protect victims and to believe them, respect them and support them. That is why this change is important. It ensures they can safely come forward and not get bogged down in drawn-out legal proceedings. Instead, they can provide their singular statement and testimony in a court of law and continue on.

Another key aspect of this legislation is to make our legal proceedings more efficient by helping resolve more cases and disputes before trial. Another provision in this bill is a new pushback to fast-track certain cases to the Supreme Court. This extends primarily to cases of murder and manslaughter. This was another reform recommended by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which drew on examples in other cases where this has proven successful. In line with this the bill has a new model for early committals in these cases, which will allow these cases to be expedited by being fast-tracked to the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is just another aspect of the legislation that helps to deliver a faster and more efficient legal process. Allowing for these extreme cases of murder and manslaughter to be moved swiftly upwards means we have less backlog in cases like family violence, which are otherwise being sped up through the ban on cross-examination.

It is a great point, and it is backed up by the recommendations put forward by the VLRC. This legislation is yet another groundbreaking reform initiative by the Allan Labor government, and it is a direct reflection of our commitment to making Victoria’s legal system fairer for all Victorians. We have listened to the community and the law experts that have come together to hash out a plan to build a more efficient and resilient legal system. The pre-trial proceedings in this place right now are quite an old system, built to manage cases before we had an independent police force and prosecution service. The fact of the matter is that this is not the world we live in today. We do have a strong, robust and independent legal system in Victoria now. Our legal system should not be hung up on managing issues from two centuries ago and should be relevant to the contemporary legal challenges. Cases are being held up and dragged out by procedures which are not relevant or providing much in the way of filtering out problematic cases. This is why reforms out of this legislation are so important. We are not just focusing on the outcomes of these cases but ensuring we are protecting the Victorian community and delivering fairer outcomes and fairer processes for everyone. No-one should be subjected to needlessly repetitive lines of questioning and cross-examination in these tough cases. We can avoid a strong risk of retraumatising victims and witnesses and minimise the necessary input by scrapping the cross-examination process and allowing them to provide their recollections at trial only. Victims in cases of family violence and sexual offences or in cases of stalking are often deeply disturbed and traumatised by what has happened, and it is not right that they have to relive it multiple times. By increasing the standards for witnesses to be cross-examined we also protect them as well as preventing undue and unnecessary stress and trauma.

This government is also acting to make sure that murderers and those charged with manslaughter are not clogging up our lower courts. By fast-tracking them to the Supreme Court of Victoria we can see these cases dealt with faster and in an appropriate avenue. This also clears up backlogs in the lower courts and means less severe court cases and trials can proceed more quickly without as long a wait. This helps people pass through the court system faster and ensures criminals are behind bars quicker. It is part of our plan to resolve more legal proceedings quicker by trying to deal with this backlog within the courts and also help more disputes resolve before they even get to trial. That is why we are also scrapping the committal test, which allows for the cases to pass right through to upper courts quicker and ensures witnesses and victims are not being bogged down by legal bureaucracy.

Of course ensuring that most cases can be filtered out is the whole reason for the modernisation of case management. It is the Allan Labor government that sets out its commitment to justice reform, and we are delivering it. We want to see more people engaging with our legal system and having the ability to do so without unnecessary stresses and pressures.

In line with the Victorian Law Reform Commission recommendations, we are ensuring more Victorians who experience or witness cases of family violence, sexual offences or stalking are not forced to relive the trauma through needless cross-examination. We want people to feel safe and secure when they come forward. That is why we are removing these needless procedures. Also, an extremely good reason needs to be provided to the court.

This is a comprehensive set of reforms that has taken quite some time and a lot of work to put together, and I am incredibly thankful for all the hard work put in by the ministers and all the relevant legal experts who have helped not just create the VLRC report but also execute it now into practice. Given the thousands upon thousands of cases that stand to be impacted by this legislation, I think it is safe to say that this will have a transformative effect on our legal system. Backlogs can be cleared out and strung-out legal proceedings can be shortened, and most importantly, Victorians will be more protected and cared for in our legal system than before. I commend the bill to the house.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (10:49): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to reform the process for committal proceedings, including by removing the test for committal, extending the prohibition on cross-examination to other proceedings, strengthening the test for granting leave to cross-examine and providing for early committal for trial in the Supreme Court, and to make other miscellaneous amendments. I would like to thank the Shadow Attorney-General Michael O’Brien for his work consulting with key stakeholders on this bill, including the Law Institute of Victoria, the Criminal Bar Association and the Federation of Community Legal Centres.

Evan Mulholland has already contributed to this bill; he talked about the rise in crime. We are seeing an incredible rise in crime right across the state. In Bendigo, where my office is located, I hear from people regularly who are so concerned about the issues that we are seeing in our region. We know the statistics do not show good figures at all. When you look at the crime statistics for the 12 months to September last year, stealing from retail stores is up 50 per cent, aggravated robbery is up 69 per cent, residential aggravated burglary is up 89 per cent and motor vehicle thefts are up, I believe, 50 per cent. When you hear the stories on the ground it sends shivers down your spine. I was speaking to a lady who experienced people coming into her home; they tried to steal the car. A neighbour was stabbed in the process. It is awful and horrific to be in this situation. I have spoken to local business owners in Bendigo who talk about a lot of elderly clients now not wanting to come into the centre of Bendigo because they are so scared. They are seeing a huge escalation in antisocial behaviour. We have had bashings in the street in broad daylight. Just recently I know Andrew Lethlean, the federal candidate for Bendigo, was contacted by people as well who raised concerns about some bashings that had happened in the centre of Bendigo that were extremely violent. He has been in business in Bendigo for over 20 years, and he has never seen anything like it. We know cars are being stolen on a regular basis, and it is causing incredible trauma to local residents. We have also experienced hooning in the streets, and I know many people have raised concerns about that. A man who tried to take action ended up in hospital. I have also been contacted recently by the police, who want CCTV footage from outside my electorate office because of an incident that occurred there.

There are significant concerns, particularly when we know that our side of the house has been pushing hard for a long period of time for reforms, particularly when it comes to bail. There was an incident that was reported about a young boy, 15 years old. He had over 200 police charges last year. He avoided jail. There were 81 charges, but he was let off on bail for the 55th time. I just want to read from an article that talks about this that was published yesterday. It says:

Two teens have been charged with bashing a man in the head with a hammer during a violent Bendigo home invasion.

A 15-year-old and 17-year-old were arrested during a police raid about 9am on Sunday in relation to a police investigation into a burglary in Bendigo.

Then it goes on to talk about an incident happening at a home in Kangaroo Flat. It says:

… bashing a man in the head with a hammer.

The 15-year-old was released on his 55th count of bail despite police warning he would commit further offences.

Police have since charged the teen over several alleged offences allegedly committed since he was released on bail.

It is incredible that we have been pushing for so long for changes to bail laws, and just recently the Premier announced a review – just a review. We cannot afford to kick the can down the road.

I am interested in the balance, because obviously when people repeatedly do the wrong thing they may well end up in prison and should end up in prison. I visited three prisons just recently. I was at Middleton prison, I went to Loddon men’s prison and I went to Tarrengower women’s prison. I mentioned in my members statement today the important work that is being done there and the facilities that are provided for people who are in prison to be able to learn new skills and to be able to participate in employment opportunities that will help them with that rehabilitation process, hopefully, at the end of their sentence. But I was interested that at Middleton prison there is a large area there that is not utilised. I guess the numbers are below what they targeted, so there is an accommodation wing that is empty. We know Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre was closed by this government, and we also saw Dhurringile Prison in Murchison closed last year. It is interesting that, yes, our prisons are below capacity and yet we have crime skyrocketing in the state.

This bill in particular has taken years, in a way, to come before the house, because this bill came about from the Victorian Law Reform Commission report on committals, which was tabled in March 2020. That was nearly five years ago, and it has taken a long time for this bill to actually come before the house. But we should not be surprised, because this government when it comes to crime – it has been said before – are more interested in chasing headlines than they are in chasing criminals. We know that there is a need for bail reform, but again there is a review that is taking too long.

We called for changes to the tobacco licensing regime, because other states have actually taken steps to introduce a licensing regime, but we have now had over 130 firebombings in this state. I know they have impacted Bendigo and they have impacted Rochester in Northern Victoria. We have also called for changes to the permit-to-protest laws. Again, it takes a huge amount of police resources to attend so many protests, particularly in Melbourne, and they are draining the resources from regional areas. The move-on laws – we have certainly called for changes to those. Labor stripped away the powers on those back in 2015, and we have indicated that if we win government in November 2026 that will be something we will seek to change, because it is so important that police have the power to move people on and arrest them if there is a breach of that.

We know that the issues that we are seeing with crime and escalating crime are not just in the growing suburbs of Melbourne but right across Melbourne, although we are seeing huge numbers – I think there are 83,000 people following a Facebook page that is about stolen cars. We have seen an increase in crime happening right across Bendigo. I received correspondence from a resident who was talking about Goornong and the impact on towns like that. There is a police station there, but unfortunately there is no police officer. These single-person stations are so important in our regions – that we maintain them. In that area there is a huge issue with crime, with burglaries and home invasions. The feedback that I had from this resident is that a lot of these crimes are not actually being reported. It is scary to think about, if that is the case, because the statistics we already see are so high. But if there are more cases that are not being reported, we do need to be concerned about that. We note this government has also scrapped the role of Minister for Crime Prevention. I think that is extremely disappointing, because crime prevention and helping change the direction of people heading in the wrong direction is so vitally important.

We have said that we will not oppose this bill, but we have certainly put forward a reasoned amendment, which Mr Mulholland spoke to earlier.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (10:59): I am pleased to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. This bill arises from the recommendations made by the Victorian Law Reform Commission in 2020 on improving Victoria’s committal system. The commission identified that the current committal test is no longer an effective filter for stopping proceedings without merit from reaching higher courts. The commission also identified opportunities to improve efficiency in the justice system and to improve victim and witness experiences. This bill introduces reforms that will streamline the criminal justice process in line with the commission’s recommendations. I cannot be more in support of these changes, and I will talk about why that is the case shortly. Importantly it focuses on improving the experiences of victims and witnesses who are too often retraumatised by the system that is meant to protect them.

I will just go through what this bill is going to do. It is going to abolish the committal test. Yes, it will abolish committal tests. It will prohibit cross-examination at committal in sexual offence, family violence and stalking cases and strengthen the test for granting leave to cross-examine witnesses. It will require committal case conferences in most matters. It will allow children and people with cognitive impairments to give prerecorded evidence, fast-track serious matters to the Supreme Court and make audiovisual appearances the default for persons in custody.

The committal process is an old process dating back to 1848. It was formed for the needs of a different age. It is clear it is no longer an effective process. A study by the commission found that only 1 to 2 per cent of matters have any charges dropped as a result of a committal hearing. Much of the function that was previously performed by the committal hearing is now performed by the Office of Public Prosecutions. The office has a responsibility to consider the strength of the evidence, the prospects of conviction and the public interest in deciding whether charges should be laid. That means committal hearings are now largely duplicative, and that is certainly the case for survivors of sexual assault. Committal hearings also significantly contribute to delay. The commission’s report states that:

In 2017–18 in Victoria, the median days between filing hearing and committal to a higher court was 228 days if committal occurred at a committal hearing. By comparison, if committal to a higher court occurred at a committal mention, the median number of days this took was 107.

These delays are not just a waste of time and money for courts, they are a huge additional stress for the accused and for victims. For the accused it means longer to wait, potentially on remand, until the charges against them are decided. For victims and witnesses it means not just a delay in justice but the potential that they will have to give evidence twice – once in the committal and once in the trial.

For witnesses and victims of the kinds of serious indictable crimes that go through the committal process, being repeatedly interrogated on the same material and often about terrible experiences can be significantly retraumatising. In my time at CASA in south-west Victoria, the Centre Against Sexual Assault, many of my clients and my colleagues’ clients – survivors of sexual assault – decided not to follow through on reporting to the police or, if they reported to the police, then subsequently decided not to be witnesses and participate in a trial, which then obviously meant no justice. It was purely because they would have to go through the process twice. At CASAs it was commonly acknowledged that committal hearings, by virtue of their traditionally investigative approach, were often more aggressive in their cross-examination than the actual trials.

This is incredibly important reform for survivors of sexual assault, survivors of family violence and survivors of incredibly traumatising crime. It is also reform that is going to assist women. There is a gender impact of this piece of legislation. It will mean that women as witnesses will not be retraumatised twice. Committal hearings being completely changed so that there are not two solid repeats of the same process – that is the reform we have before us today, and that is why I am incredibly supportive of this reform. Kathleen Maltzahn, CEO of Sexual Assault Services Victoria, said in a press release about this bill:

This change will maintain accused people’s rights while removing an unnecessary step that has created avoidable harm to survivors and slowed down the legal process. We’re pleased to see the government taking action on this serious issue.

Because this affects survivors of crime that are often women – a significant portion of the people affected are women when it comes to family violence and sexual assault – it has taken a really long time for this reform to come forward. I am confident that the family violence and sexual assault sector will be very, very pleased to see this piece of legislation and reform go through the Legislative Council today. Other jurisdictions have also found committal hearings to no longer be fit for purpose. New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia have taken similar approaches. Committal hearings were also abolished in England in 2013.

To ensure that those accused of serious crimes continue to get a fair trial, the bill requires committal case conferences to be held in most matters. That is a completely different process to a public committal hearing. Such conferences are designed to ensure both sides provide appropriate disclosure ahead of trial and enable the accused to know the case against them. They support the early resolution of issues and promote trial readiness. This makes enormous sense. The other sector that will receive enormous benefit from this is the court system because this will unclog the court system and alleviate the delays in the court system, and delayed justice is certainly something we do not like to see. The bill also clarifies that the prosecution is required to disclose materials that undermine their own case or support the defence case. This makes it clear that the prosecution is not only required to disclose material that supports their case or that they intend to rely on. This is an important change that will promote the right of accused persons to understand the case against them.

Importantly, the bill introduces further protections for witnesses and victims in sexual offence, family violence and stalking matters. We know it is already very challenging for survivors of these offences to come forward, and the prospect of having to repeatedly tell and defend their story and experience can further deter people from engaging with the criminal justice system. I can vouch for multiple clients of mine in the past that have said exactly that: ‘I cannot go through this process. Experiencing the trauma was bad enough, but re-experiencing it twice in an aggressive cross-examination’ – they just make their own assessment of their own mental health, and quite justly so. It is a form of self-protection. I respect all of the women who have previously made those decisions, because the system has not been protective of them in the justice process, and this alone will have distorted the data on convictions for sexual offences, convictions for family violence and convictions for stalking. This alone will completely cause an under-recording of the number of offences that have happened and the many cases perhaps that were strong cases but for the willingness of witnesses.

I think this is an extremely important reform, and I am very pleased to see it. It is an important change that will promote the right of accused persons to understand the case against them. Importantly, the bill introduces further protections for witnesses and victims in sexual offences, family violence and stalking matters, as I said. We know it is already very challenging for them, as I have explained, and this is why cross-examination of victims at committals for such matters will no longer be allowed. This will be an incredible relief for survivors. Instead, their evidence will be given and tested at trial as is appropriate.

This approach is not new. These rules already apply for children and people with a cognitive impairment in sexual offence matters. We are simply expanding this protection to cover all victims giving evidence in sexual offence, family violence and stalking matters. To ensure a fair trial the defence will still be able to make an application for limited pre-trial cross-examination in the trial court of witnesses other than the complainant. As then Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes said on the introduction of this bill on 29 October 2024, survivors of sexual offences, stalking and family violence deserve justice, not further trauma. These reforms will ease the burden of repeated testimony, helping them move through court proceedings and get on with their lives.

This bill also makes improvements to the rules covering cross-examination and prerecorded evidence more broadly. Witnesses and victims that are children or have cognitive impairment will be given the option of providing prerecorded evidence in all criminal matters. Giving prerecorded evidence is less intimidating and stressful and often produces high-quality evidence. This bill also strengthens the test for allowing cross-examination at committal for other matters, so committals will continue in other types of matters.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this is a reform that is very typical of a government that is cognisant of the impact on women in the judicial system. This particular reform will be an absolute game changer for women and children who are survivors of sexual assault, family violence and stalking. I think that we will see much more confidence in entering the courtroom or entering the legal and justice process from survivors of these types of offences as a result of this bill. I am very proud that the Allan Labor government has brought this forward, because it is exactly the kind of bill that Labor does so well.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:14): I rise to make a contribution on this this bill, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. I was just reading through some of the notes about the background of this bill, and I think it is important to talk about some of that before I talk about some of the mechanisms that will be introduced via this bill and the changes foreshadowed.

Effectively the reason why we need this bill is that the committals process was developed before we had independent police and prosecutors, and it was a process that was designed to filter out matters that should not be pursued to trial. However, in practice the process is actually duplicative, lengthy and resource intensive, and it can expose victims and witnesses to an unnecessary level of traumatisation and retraumatisation, because it obviously involves retelling your story and being examined or cross-examined on your story over and over again. As a consequence, a 2020 Victorian Law Reform Commission report found that the rate of discharge – the proportion of matters where any of the charges are knocked out at a committal stage – is actually very low, somewhere between 1 and 2 per cent. Additionally, the report identified a range of duplications in the current process and the current approach and recommended further reform to reduce delays, yield financial and process efficiencies, and improve victim and witness experiences. It is always a good thing when we are able to rely on the good work undertaken by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. I thank them for their important work in reviewing these matters and for making the recommendations in regard to this bill.

Significant funding and resources would be needed to implement the full 51 recommendations made by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, and this bill focuses on the reforms that will streamline the process by maximising the use of existing resources – it is always good when we can get efficiencies – but specifically the bill will effectively abolish the test for committal. It will also require committal case conferences in most matters to ensure appropriate disclosure, enable the accused to know the case against them, support narrowing and early resolution of issues and promote trial readiness as well. It will ensure the accused’s rights to a fair trial by clarifying the need to disclose material that may undermine the prosecution case or support the defence case, reduce duplicative cross-examination by strengthening the test and, as I said earlier, prohibit cross-examination of witnesses and victims in sexual offences, family violence and stalking matters at the committal stage, because again that would traumatise and retraumatise victims. It would also allow children and people with cognitive impairments to give prerecorded evidence. It would fast-track the most serious matters to the Supreme Court for management and faster resolution. And it would enable the appropriate use of audiovisual appearances for persons in custody and allow, for certain offences, investigators to witness statements.

As you can see, a number of these things are commonsense and will assist victims of crime, perhaps, and witnesses in being part of an overall trial process, reducing duplication and increasing the time that things actually get to trial by removing a duplicative process. As I said, these changes are underpinned and recommended by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, and the bill is about making careful changes to modernise Victoria’s committals process. There are important benefits that will be made in regard to the committals process while minimising duplication. Of course by reducing duplication this will reduce cost for parties and the justice system and speed up the resolution of matters as well. I note Ms Ermacora was talking about this in her contribution. Her focus on this bill was about victims of crime and the way in which they are currently required to give evidence in a process like this. It is a very harrowing situation to go through, and for witnesses and victims of serious crime, indictable crimes that go through the committals process, as I said earlier, being repeatedly interrogated on the same material and often about terrible experiences can be really, really terrible and retraumatising. As I said earlier as well, it is important to note that the vast majority of matters are committed to be heard. It is only about 1 to 2 per cent of matters that are actually filtered out. The current process was designed to filter out matters that may not have met a significant threshold from then proceeding to trial, and effectively that is not occurring. So with such a low threshold, and as the Victorian Law Reform Commission found in one of its recommendations, it makes sense to streamline this process.

I will just focus for a moment on the low knockout rate, and the Victorian Law Reform Commission focused on this as well. A key reason for the low knockout rate is that we now have an independent Office of Public Prosecutions, which carefully applies a series of criteria to determine whether charges should be laid. These criteria are set out in the director’s policy, which is available publicly online, and include considering the strength of evidence, whether there are reasonable prospects of securing a conviction and whether pursuing the charge is in the public interest. Previously that did not exist when the committal process was utilised, so now we have that process. Even in a situation where a magistrate considers that the bar for committing a matter to trial is not met, this can be overridden by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who can directly indict a matter for trial in a higher court. This in fact happened four times in 2023–24, seven times in 2022–23, six times in 2021–22, five times in 2020–21 and 10 times in 2019–20. Director of Public Prosecutions having that overriding ability has been working, and you can see that in the statistics that I just talked about.

Even with the evolution of our criminal justice system over time, the key benefit of committals, as I spoke of earlier, is the opportunity for issues in dispute to be narrowed. I went to this earlier when I was talking about how the prosecution can, when they have a case conference, advise the other side about the type of material that they will be relying on; or likewise, the defendants can do the same. So there is an opportunity for those issues in dispute to be narrowed and for matters to be resolved where that is possible. It is not always going to be possible, but where it is that can happen. It also ensures the appropriate disclosure of evidence is being made to each side so the accused knows the case against them and they are able to then obviously prepare accordingly. But it does not make sense for all indictable criminal matters to require this duplicative cost and process, and as I said, only between 1 and 2 per cent of matters have been disallowed.

We are doubling down on the benefits by removing the process but requiring committal case conferences, except where this would not be in the interests of justice. It is an opportunity for parties to take advantage of the magistrate’s expertise. Of course the magistrate can ensure that all appropriate disclosures have been made, the accused understands the case against them and the issues in dispute are narrowed to those that genuinely need to be litigated in the trial court. Where there are issues capable of early resolution, for example by either a guilty plea or a discontinuation of prosecution, that can be finalised where appropriate so the parties are in fact ready and prepared for trial and can hit the ground running when the time for trial comes up. We will codify disclosure requirements as well, clarifying that the prosecution is required to disclose materials that undermine their own case in support of the defence case. This is an important change that will promote the right of an accused person to understand the case against them.

We will also be reducing that duplicative cross-examination that already would occur in a committal stage and would then reoccur in a trial stage and also require that any materials be disclosed but limiting it to matters that are directly and substantially relevant to an issue that is capable of early resolution. That is in the interests of justice and also affords procedural fairness to all parties. As Ms Ermacora focused on in her contribution, we are protecting witnesses and victims who are victims in a sexual offence or family violence matter or stalking matters. They can be shielded from potentially being repeatedly cross-examined on some matters. For witnesses and victims that are children or have cognitive impairments, we will also be giving them the option of prerecorded evidence, which is less intimidating and less stressful, and it often produces higher quality evidence as well. We will be expanding a successful fast-track pilot for the most serious criminal matters to be committed as early as possible straight to the Supreme Court. This will mean that justice is served faster and that parties will have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s specialist expertise in managing these complex matters, ensuring that matters progress more smoothly. We will also be making some commonsense changes to support the appropriate use of audiovisual appearances for persons in custody and to ensure that for certain offences investigators are able to witness statements when carrying out their duties as well.

There is also going to be a stronger threshold for the cross-examination of witnesses, as I have been talking about, in regard to victims. But we will be strengthening the test for cross-examination generally at committal to reduce duplication between the Magistrates’ Court and trial court processes. Currently, cross-examination is permitted if the accused identifies a relevant issue and cross-examination on that issue is justified. The bill will narrow the allowed topics for cross-examination to matters directly and substantially relevant to an issue and where there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the witness should be cross-examined on that. This will ensure that cross-examination at committal only occurs where it serves the interests of justice and directly goes to supporting disclosure, ensuring a fair trial or resolving issues in dispute.

I talked earlier about the early case conference process, where full disclosure can be made by both parties so there is early identification of issues that may be in dispute or so issues may be agreed. Sometimes you can actually agree on facts in a case. This is all leading to the narrowing down of any issues that may be in dispute and then of course consequently narrowing down the scope of issues that a witness may be needed to be cross-examined on, which of course is all going to save time in the process as well. Reducing this cross-examination, as I said, would reduce the time taken up in committals, but it reduces the questions on peripheral issues that may not be necessarily germane to the particular case in question. Sometimes an inordinate amount of time in cross-examination can be taken up on cross-examining witnesses on peripheral issues, and this is the case sometimes in matters involving witnesses who may be the subject of or someone who has in fact been the subject of a sexual crime or a violent sexual crime. That is going to in turn reduce questions of a peripheral nature and reduce trauma for victims of serious crime, so that is something we want to do. We want to also strengthen and improve any experiences that witnesses may need to go through.

It is also going to provide special hearings to family violence complainants, and those will provide them with essential protection. We currently have a scheme in place to support sexual offence complainants that allows them to provide evidence via a prerecorded statement. This has worked well, and we are now looking to extend this option to victims and witnesses who are children or who have cognitive impairments in family violence matters. Sometimes these matters can be complex, with a complex set of circumstances that might affect people involved in these crimes, but we still need to hear important evidence from them. A special hearing of this nature will have a number of benefits that include, as I said, prerecorded evidence being given; the environment of a special hearing, which is less intimidating and less stressful; and special hearing recordings, which can be edited in case a complainant against gives evidence that cannot be put before a jury, which could avoid a mistrial.

As you can see, there are a number of important changes that are included in this bill. As I said earlier, this is in large part due to the excellent work of the Victorian Law Reform Commission in reviewing these processes. I always give a shout-out to the Victorian Law Reform Commission. They do very important work. I really like reading their reports and important recommendations. They do such good work consulting with stakeholders in this sector as well, so I will give them a shout-out. But in terms of this bill, the clock is about to beat me, so I will conclude my remarks there. I commend this bill to the house.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:29): I also would like to say a few words on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. I will start by acknowledging the commendable motives for this bill, which are to essentially make the justice system more efficient and to reduce the amount of retraumatisation of witnesses by having to give evidence multiple times. Having been close to many victims of crime throughout my life, I certainly have seen firsthand the trauma and harm that can be caused by coming into contact with the justice system and being forced to give evidence and this sort of thing. Especially in cases such as sexual assault or family violence and that sort of thing it is very understandable that there would be severe trauma involved in giving evidence multiple times and being cross-examined multiple times, and if this is unnecessary then this should certainly be removed. Another thing enabled by this bill which I am very supportive of is the ability to get prerecorded evidence from certain cohorts such as those with a cognitive impairment or children and other groups. I feel that this is a good change.

However, the purpose of the committals process is really to ensure that a case has sufficient merit to proceed to a higher court and commit to trial. As has been mentioned by others during the debate, the number of cases that do not proceed is quite low. However, my office has actually got some data from the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and although the number of cases that do not proceed is quite low, about 15 per cent of the charges overall are actually withdrawn by the DPP during the committals process. This does seem like a significant function that is important that the committals process is currently performing.

On the matter of efficiency, I do accept the argument that removing this process will speed up the amount of time taken to get to a trial. That is a good thing, I think, but I do question whether it would cost less money, whether it would be cheaper overall, because effectively you are transferring these functions to both the DPP and the Supreme Court. I think it is unclear to me whether it is actually going to be cheaper overall, but certainly it may speed up the process.

However, considering that I believe that the committals process does perform an important function in ensuring that cases do not go to trial, if we think about the types of cases that we are talking about they are very serious cases in many ways, and the consequences of someone being found guilty of that are very serious as well. They are taking away their liberty, and we must be very certain that the evidence is solid and that they are truly guilty of that offence. I think that removing this process is problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, as I said already, 15 per cent of the charges, according to the numbers I have – not the cases but the charges – get dropped in the committals process, and I am concerned about whether the process that this is going to be replaced with will be able to filter that out. Will we end up with situations where charges, in this case up to 15 per cent potentially, would end up getting tested in the Supreme Court, go to trial in the Supreme Court and not be found guilty, because the evidence was not sufficient? I am concerned about that and whether that may happen or not.

Also, the process around cross-examination, as I have already acknowledged, can be a very traumatic process for victims of crime. But in the interest of justice it can also be a very necessary process – an unfortunately necessary process – because one of the purposes of cross-examination is to determine and establish consistency of evidence and ensure that the evidence is correct and consistent. If that evidence is consistent and correct, hopefully it will be credible enough to ensure that criminals end up where they belong – in prison. But if that opportunity is not afforded, then I do have concerns about potential cases where this may be a problem.

Although this bill does some good things and I do acknowledge the motivations for this bill, the Libertarian Party is not in a position to support this bill today.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:35): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024, which has been introduced to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to make certain changes to the committal process in Victoria’s courts by abolishing the test for committal for indictable cases and strengthening case management in the Magistrates’ Court. Preserving the core functions of committal proceedings allows for early committal cases before the Supreme Court and will strengthen protections for victims and witnesses at the committal stage by prohibiting cross-examination at the committal stage of a witness in sexual offence, family violence and stalking cases; amending the test for granting leave to cross-examine witnesses in other cases; and extending special hearings to certain complainants in family violence cases. It will make a range of other amendments to the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 to allow for default use of audiovisual links to conduct committal hearings and make consequential and technical amendments.

As other speakers in the debate have noted, there was a very significant piece of work, about a 108-page report, prepared by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which was tabled in this Parliament in 2020. There was an extensive process undertaken independently by the Victorian Law Reform Commission which has informed some of the aspects of the legislation that is being considered in Parliament today. The bill before us is informed by that review. In parts it makes certain careful changes to modernise the committal here in Victoria both to preserve the important benefits that the committals process provides while minimising duplication of processes across the entirety of the trial system. As a result of that removal of duplication and streamlining of processes certain things will not be duplicated at the committal stage and the trial stage, reducing trauma for both victims and witnesses, which can be significant and real. The victims charter that we have in this state recognises the importance of acknowledging the trauma that is placed on victims and witnesses in particular as part of criminal trial processes. So it protects those and tries to reduce the burden of repeated cross-examination for witnesses. That is the most important benefit that these changes will have. In reducing duplication it will improve the efficiency of the process but also help speed up resolution so that there are not unnecessary delays as a result of the duplicative elements of committal proceedings.

Committals, as are many aspects of our legal system, are the byproduct of a different time when we did not have independent prosecutors and where it was felt that, because of a lack of the existence of independent prosecutors, it was necessary for someone to have an independent look at the evidence that was going to be presented in a trial to understand whether the evidence that was going to be led at trial had sufficient merit. It was designed to filter out private prosecutions that did not go through careful decision-making in a way that does not really occur in modern courts. So the test that is required to be applied by the magistrates when considering the evidence is whether the evidence is of sufficient weight to support a conviction for an indictable offence. It is a relatively low bar because the intention was to exclude only the weakest cases from the process. The consequence of the way the committals process has evolved, particularly the way it plays out in many of the Magistrates’ Courts – and this is something that was reflected in the law reform commission’s report – is that it often feels that the committal process is a lot like a mini version of the trial itself: the prosecution lays out the case, parties can examine and cross-examine witnesses and the magistrate undertakes a lot of the work that will then be replicated in full trial. Obviously that duplication of processes is costly to the system and to the parties and extends the amount of time that is taken for the resolution of these processes, and victims and witnesses have to be interrogated repeatedly, often on the same matter in a different location, over the course of a single case.

The other by-product of this, which others have mentioned and Mr Limbrick did reflect upon, is that only a small number of matters are discharged or struck out by magistrates in the committals process. The latest data from the Magistrates’ Court shows that of the 2625 committals in 2024 only 13 were knocked out by the magistrate, compared to 336 where the Office of Public Prosecutions withdrew the charges. What clearly has changed in the operation of the court system since this feature of it was developed – for a purpose – is that the way that the independent Office of Public Prosecutions examines the brief of evidence, examines the charges and makes an assessment of the prospects of conviction. This has significantly changed the way prosecutions are handled. The way that the OPP, in an independent way, assesses whether pursuing a conviction in the courts is in the public interest, is one of the number of criteria that are used to determine whether charges should be laid. It is done under a transparent policy that the OPP and the DPP use. So there are functions that have developed in the system that operate as an independent check, which means that that part of the function that previously was so important in the committals process is now being done. That is evidenced by those stats, where very few cases are knocked out in the committals process by magistrates. The OPP is doing a lot of work assessing and reassessing whether such charges should be laid.

Removing the duplicative committals test in the Magistrates’ Court but continuing to require things like committal case conferences, except when it is not in the interests of justice, gives an opportunity for parties to take advantage of a magistrate’s expertise and can ensure that appropriate disclosures are made; the accused understands the case in front of them; issues in dispute are narrowed to those that genuinely need to be litigated in a trial court; issues capable of early resolution – like by a guilty plea, for example, or a discontinuation of prosecution – are finalised where appropriate; and parties are ready and prepared for trial. Part of the changes in the bill will codify the disclosure requirements, clarifying that the prosecution is required to disclose materials that undermine their own case or support the defence’s case – important changes that will promote the rights of accused to understand a case against them. It will reduce duplicative cross-examination by strengthening the test for allowing cross-examination at the committal stage, limiting it to matters that are directly or substantially relevant to an issue that is capable of early resolution and is in the interests of justice.

The protection of witnesses, as I mentioned earlier, is one of the key reasons why the reforms in this bill are so important, particularly for witnesses and victims in sexual offence cases and family violence and stalking matters. They will prevent them from being potentially repeatedly cross-examined on the same matters, which can increase trauma. There is also a provision in the bill for witnesses who are either children or have cognitive impairments to have the option of preparing prerecorded evidence, which often is in a less-stressful, less-intimidating environment than you would understandably expect to see in court proceedings – which we know, from the work that has been done by law reform bodies, can and often does produce high-quality evidence that can be used in the courts. We think that is a really welcome change. It is not a novel change – these protections for these types of witnesses occur in other circumstances – but what the bill before us does is expand that protection to cover all sexual offences, family violence and all stalking matters.

The threshold for cross-examination of witnesses at committal will be changed, as a strengthening of the test for cross-examination generally at a committal proceeding, to reduce the duplication between the Magistrates’ Court and trial court. Currently cross-examination is only permitted if the accused identifies a relevant issue and the cross-examination on that issue is justified. The bill is going to narrow the scope of topics allowed for cross-examination to matters directly and substantially relevant to an issue and where there are substantial reasons why in the interests of justice the witness should be cross-examined on that. This change will ensure that cross-examination at committal only occurs where it serves the interests of justice and directly goes to supporting disclosure, ensuring a fair trial or resolving issues in dispute. Limiting cross-examination will reduce the time taken up in the committals process, reducing unnecessary questions on peripheral issues and helping minimise stress and trauma for victims and witnesses at all places.

The broad change that the bill is seeking, which is to remove the committal test and try and focus the Magistrates’ Court on case management, will have the benefit of removing duplication. Making these changes and focusing the Magistrates’ Court’s activities and their time on case management – rather than on running a duplication of the final trial process – will enable magistrates to work more closely with parties to ensure that they are ready for trial, improving both, hopefully, the justice system and the justice process for the accused. The magistrate has a case management function here, when it is in the best interest of justice to do so, ensuring that things like appropriate disclosures have been made by the parties, particularly the prosecution. That conference enables opportunities for resolution of any disputes and ensures that the accused person, before they do stand trial and instead of having a minitrial in the committal process, actually properly understands through the work of the magistrates what is being asked of them.

The magistrate can also, through the conferencing process, narrow the issues that are in dispute so that parties can get to the crux of what needs to be litigated properly and openly in the full trial and in the nature and scope of the witnesses that are going to need to be called for that. These processes hopefully could also lead to early resolution of matters. If there are weaknesses in the prosecution or the defence case, this case management process, which does not have the nature of a highly adversarial committal process, can hopefully – if there are things which are not as strong as they should be – lead parties either to withdraw or reduce charges or to suggest that guilty pleas would be advantageous. It will just generally assist parties to be ready for trial, which in the higher courts should allow those courts in particular to be more efficient.

Over the course of the bill others have spoken about audiovisual appearances. I mentioned it briefly at the outset. Enabling audiovisual appearances for people in custody will lower court costs and security risks, a pragmatic change that will reduce the need for physical transportation of adults in custody to make court appearances, which has a range of benefits – cost, public safety and the like – and will just make our system work better.

There are a range of other things in the bill. As I said, it was an important process or a significant piece of work the Victorian Law Reform Commission did following the reference from then Attorney-General in 2018 and the report that was tabled in 2020. The changes that are being put forward in the bill today are some careful and sensible changes to help improve the administration of justice in Victoria, and I commend the bill to the house.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:50): I will make a short contribution today on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. Committals are a way of testing evidence generally, and it has been interesting listening to some of the statistics that have been mentioned during the course of the debate on how few cases are dismissed at a committal stage. It seems like it is a reasonable effort, particularly in relation to sex crimes, where the victim has to go through effectively a trial twice. They have to be cross-examined twice and have to be embarrassed and degraded twice, because there is no hiding it, when you have to relive these things that is how it is. For the people accused – let us say the 2 or 3 per cent – that go through it that apparently did not do it or for whom there is not enough evidence, they too have to go through it once or twice depending on the issue.

Looking into this, as long as the processes prior to a committal hearing, such as when the sexual offences and child abuse investigation team units go through, remain as good as they are – of course there is always room for improvement – this will hopefully clear up the court system. It will certainly help with police numbers, because if you get a week-long committal, all the police witnesses have to be there for at least part of a day or a day, if not the whole lot. While they are there they are not doing anything else, so I think this is a good recognition of efficiency as long as it does not come at the expense of justice for the victims, because really in the end that is what the system is for. My point of view about what happens to offenders is probably a little bit more hardcore than a lot of people in this room, but if they are actually offenders and they are beyond the accused stage, honestly, I do not care. As long as they get their day in court and as long as justice is served, I think this is worthy.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:52): I also rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals) Bill 2024. In doing so I note it is always good to be in the chamber to hear other speakers make their contributions, and I appreciated the contribution just now from Mr Bourman. I admit I had some difficulty seeing him because of the wonderful camouflage that he has there with his terrific tie. I think that deserves a call-out in this chamber as well. It was good to at least hear your voice, even if my vision was obscured. I very much appreciated your contribution, Mr Bourman, and indeed the contribution of all speakers on this bill today.

This is a very important bill for what it will achieve, and that really goes to what Mr Bourman was just talking about – going about this process in a smarter way and in a more efficient way, one that does still have those provisions to protect the rights in particular of victims and witnesses but to make the justice system a little bit more streamlined. Indeed I was going to make some comments around the resourcing for the court system itself – the magistrates, the court staff and Court Services Victoria as a whole – but Mr Bourman was quite right to point out that this will also mean a significant saving for police, who we already ask so much of and who already do so much for the community, if they are not bound up in committal hearings. I will go into some statistics around them later.

Obviously we are in a very fast growing state. People want to live in Victoria, and we are seeing that growth put demand on all services, be it schools, transport, hospitals or of course police resources and the justice system. Just last sitting week in this place I was talking about the Wyndham law courts and some very significant new investment into our court system in outer western metropolitan Melbourne. I know our newly elected member of the Legislative Assembly, John Lister, is very excited about that coming into effect too. It demonstrates our commitment to the west and to that part of Melbourne indeed, as we have also seen with the Bendigo law courts, which have opened in recent years – another terrific facility – and as indeed we saw in my electorate, in Dandenong, with the new Children’s Court service up and operating there. We have invested in these modern, up-to-date court services. Too many of our older court buildings do not take into account the physicality for victims. Too often in some of our older courtroom victims, including victims of horrific sexual assaults, are forced to be waiting in the same area as their attackers. That is something that people have very clearly said to government is an issue, and that has gone to the heart of all of these new court precincts, whether they be customised specialist settings for children at the Dandenong Children’s Court or whether it is those other culturally safe settings for First Nations people or indeed most importantly for keeping victims safe and supported as best we can. In very many ways the design of these buildings contributes to that. It is very hard to change that in some these older court buildings, but in the new precincts that we have been investing in – be it the Wyndham law courts, be it the Bendigo law courts or be it the Dandenong Children’s Court – those sorts of principles have been very much at the heart of them, which is a very, very important thing to acknowledge as well.

Whilst we will continue to make the investments that the community expects into our justice system, it is also appropriate that, like any good government, we do look at the way in which we are going about things as well. It is not just about delivering more infrastructure and more services. Of course that is very important, but it is also about looking at the system and saying, ‘How do we make this smarter? How do we make it more effective and better for victims in particular as well, and also how can we have a more efficient use of the resources that we do have so that our police can be getting on with what we expect them to do and so that the justice system can keep up with its case load in a more efficient manner as well?’

This is a bill that will achieve that, and it follows recommendations from a 2020 Victorian Law Reform Commission report. That found some very, very low rates of discharge. I will go into some statistics shortly if given the time, but we know from that report that the typical discharge rate is somewhere between 1 and 2 per cent, which does mean that a lot of those resources are going into a process which is 98 per cent of the time not changing anything.

There will be a significant amount of funding and resources to implement all those recommendations, and what this bill focuses on are the reforms that will streamline that process by first making use of the existing resources that we have, to start from the best point possible. Specifically, as others have said, this bill will abolish the test for committal. It will require committal case conferences in most matters to ensure appropriate disclosure, to enable the accused to know the case against them, to support the narrowing of early resolution processes and early resolution of issues and to promote trial readiness. It will also ensure the accused’s right to a fair trial by clarifying the need to first disclose material which undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case and to ensure that this will be available. We are reducing duplicative cross-examination by strengthening the test. Other speakers have gone to the importance of that. Specifically for victims of sexual assault, but in many other cases as well, the burden of having to be cross-examined more than is necessary is something that this bill addresses as well. I very much hope to see better outcomes for those individual victims.

The bill will indeed, more so than that, prohibit cross-examination of witnesses and victims in those sexual offence type cases and in family violence and stalking matters at the committal stage, again recognising the many issues that have been reported to Parliament and to government around those sorts of cases. It will also allow children and people with cognitive impairments to give prerecorded evidence and fast-track the most serious matters to the Supreme Court for management and faster resolution. It will also enable the use of audiovisual appearances for persons in custody and allow certain officers and investigators to witness statements.

This is a bill that is about making careful changes to modernise Victoria’s committals system. The changes will preserve the important benefits that the committals process provides whilst minimising duplication of processes which will occur in the trial court as well. Reducing that duplication will reduce costs for the parties and for the justice system and speed up the resolution of matters, and really importantly as well, it will protect victims and witnesses from the trauma of repeated cross-examination. I will, as I foreshadowed, if given the time, talk in more detail about some of those statistics later in the day.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

The PRESIDENT: Can I just advertise that at lunchtime there will be people here from Special Olympics Australia. The Special Olympics is a competition where people with intellectual disabilities participate. We will have some successful Victorian athletes getting awarded a medal. We would love for anyone who can to come through and have a chat – I know you are all busy – because they would really appreciate it.