Thursday, 20 March 2025

Bills

Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:01): I rise to speak on the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025. Here we go again. Only a few months ago we were in this place debating a bill to overhaul the youth justice system. While this bill was passed, it is yet to fully come into effect. Also, the last range of reforms to Victoria’s bail laws only came into effect this time last year. Just last sitting week I called on the Premier to end the politicisation of bail laws and for any review of bail laws to be evidence based. Clearly these calls have been left unanswered. This kneejerk bill is devoid of any evidence base. It is wilfully turning a blind eye to the relationship between incarceration and recidivism.

Our bail laws were changed in 2023 for a reason. As described by this government, they were a ‘complete, unmitigated disaster’. Time and time again this government tinkers with bail laws. This government is constantly making and unmaking changes as they are forced to respond to the perverse outcomes of their tough-on-crime approach, including the doubling of the rate of Indigenous women in prison. You might think a government so open to changing bail laws would at least follow through on announcements made, but that is not what we have seen. Instead we have seen this government turf out plans to improve the bail system for young people and backflip on their promise to raise the age of criminal responsibility. Make no mistake, this is a government caving to media pressure and political aspirations. This race to the bottom between the Labor and Liberal parties achieves nothing and hurts everyone. Play politics all you like, but don’t you dare put our most vulnerable and marginalised communities in the firing line.

Before turning to the details of the bill, I would like to echo the concerns of many in this chamber about the way we were briefed on this bill. I was astounded this week to not even receive a copy of the bill until the night before we were expected to start dealing with it. This is not the way to progress legislation; this is a government in fear. The lack of consultation with stakeholders has been shocking. Much like us, they have been left in the dark. We have been unable to properly do our job of scrutinising this legislation. As a member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee I have major concerns abut this process of scrutiny being circumvented, especially the considerations in line with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Representatives of the Australian Council of Social Service and the community services, human rights, family violence and legal sectors have stood in solidarity this week to strongly condemn these changes and their impact on criminalising marginalised and vulnerable communities. Many of these stakeholders played a fundamental role in the development of last year’s Youth Justice Act 2024. To now see their efforts being dismantled before the legislation has even come into full effect is a disgrace. Any bail reform must align with Poccum’s law, which this bill fails to do.

I want to be clear: everyone has a right to feel safe in public and at home. I acknowledge that a significant number of people do not feel that way at the moment, but without addressing the root cause of crime we will not see any change. Motivators of crimes are complex, as are the ways to address them. Instead of directing your time and effort to locking up kids who are some of the most disadvantaged in our state, how about we work on addressing high-school attendance – it is at an all-time low – family violence rates increasing, waiting times for mental health supports blowing out and people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.

A lot of young people who offend are victims themselves, traumatised and disconnected from our community, and a lot of these young people are in state care as well. You know what does not help people deal with trauma and disconnect? It is prison. The sad thing is that we can force people into prison, but in a lot of cases we still cannot force people into treatment services. In pushing for these changes, the government talks about reducing the risk of reoffending and putting community safety first. When their own media release talks about the expected increase in adult and youth offenders on remand, this statement is an oxymoron. Vulnerable groups like children have not even fully developed consequential thinking. They are not mini adults and should not be treated as such and thrown into a prison cell. Entrenching children and young people in the justice system by its very nature will only further offending, not deter criminals, and will do nothing to make our community safer. These reforms lack nuance and an understanding of non-carceral approaches that would actually decrease rates of recidivism.

Turning to the bill itself, it makes sweeping changes to the Bail Act 1977. These changes include uplifting a number of offences from schedule 2 to schedule 1 and establishing a new schedule 2 offence. Community safety is to be considered an overarching principle, while remand as a last resort for young offenders is taken out. We are completely opposed to this change as it goes against the presumption of innocence and basic human rights. The bill also proposes to reintroduce bail offences. These two offences are ‘commit indictable offence while on bail’ and ‘contravene a conduct condition of bail’. Importantly, the latter offence has carve-outs for participation in bail support services and for children. These offences were repealed as part of the 2023 bail reforms. Again, these changes have been in effect for less than a year.

While it is promising to see that this bill includes a review clause, unfortunately this includes delaying the planned statutory review of the Bail Act that would have occurred next year. Ironically, in the second-reading speech when talking about this, the Premier noted the need to ensure the review is meaningful and properly informed. This bill is not properly informed, it has not been guided by meaningful reviews and it will cause existing reviews to be pushed down the line. We should not be amending bail laws until a full statutory review of the last change of bail laws can be undertaken.

While it is promising to see that a number of the tough-on-crime changes to bail laws were relegated to a later bill, we wait to see how this government will avoid repeating past mistakes. We understand that there will be amendments to the bill that address some of the most problematic aspects. We will be supporting these and a push for further consultation before such radical changes are forced through this Parliament. At the end of the day, this bill is a kneejerk reaction that lacks evidence and has shown a complete and utter disregard for due process. I call again on the Premier to end the politicisation of bail laws. These people are not your political football.

I have major concerns that this bill will have unintended consequences, and we will again have to deal with the perverse outcomes of rushed and reactionary bail reform. We are already seeing a trend of Aboriginal women and young people being misidentified as perpetrators in family violence contexts. I shudder to think of the consequences that this bill will have, because the reality is we are talking about real people. They deserve laws that are evidence led and do not criminalise disadvantage. When we get it wrong we know that people die.

In closing, if this government is set on being tough on crime and wanting to resource police, how about it regulates the personal adult use of cannabis? It would save police resources and keep people out of prison. Interestingly, some data has come out of Atlanta in the USA around this very proposal. Decriminalising cannabis in Atlanta, critics feared, would lead to more crime. As it turns out, the opposite happened. Recent data shows that violent crime dropped by nearly 20 per cent. That works out to be 20 violent crimes fewer per 100,000 people every month. Researchers believe this is because police were able to shift their focus from low-level cannabis arrests to serious crimes. In fact the Atalanta police department backed up this evidence, saying that they would rather fill jails with dangerous criminals than pot smokers. Now, that is some food for thought.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:11): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025, and I want to endorse many of the comments made by Mr Mulholland earlier and other speakers, including Ms Payne just now. The government’s process behind this bill has been chaotic, undemocratic and frankly outrageous. The idea that parties would be presented with bills at 6 or 7 o’clock the night before on major matters – matters of significant impact that require significant work and thought and indeed consultation with community and other groups, including specialists – is, I mean, I think outrageous is not too strong a word.

This government has become very, very arrogant and very determined to push its stuff through. The paradox of this bill is that the opposition has been calling for tougher bail laws now for several years. We have seen the crime epidemic. We have seen the increased numbers of home invasions. We have seen the number of knife crimes, and we have seen the numbers of youth who are out there committing very serious crimes, frightening many in the community. Many in the community are legitimately asking why on earth they have to put up with this. Why are we in a position where young people go out and commit these crimes and they are brought to court, they are bailed, they go out and commit more crimes, they are bailed again, they go and commit more crimes and they are bailed again? I am aware of one case of more than 50 bail occasions. This is completely and utterly unacceptable, and the opposition has pushed again and again and again, reintroducing its bill seeking to make committing an offence on bail a crime in itself and seeking to ensure that there is proper uplift where those crimes are committed and that they are recognised properly by the justice system – by the judge when a judgement is being made.

Suddenly of course we are told all sorts of things. I know many of my colleagues have used some of the notes of what Labor MPs and ministers said previously. They accused the opposition of being heinous in every regard because we called for greater community safety, because we called for proper penalties and because we said enough is enough. Belatedly now, years later, the Premier wakes up with a jolt and says, ‘Oh dear, I’ve got to do something.’ Do you know what, she is suffering in the polls because of the way she has behaved, because of the crimes that have been committed in the community and because of her government’s failure to attend to that most basic and important role of government, and that is keeping the community safe and ensuring that people can go about their business, their lives, their homes, their shopping and their recreation in safety. The government has failed on that most basic of tasks.

Then the Premier had this jolt moment, this wake-up moment: ‘Oh, dear. Oops. There are people being hurt.’ There are people being savaged, people being confronted with machetes, people facing home invasions – all of that – and the Premier did not listen until very recently. Then she said, ‘Oh no, we won’t work with others in the Parliament. We’re just going to confront them with a bill. They can take it or leave it.’ That is effectively what is going on here: we can take it or leave it.

The Greens, Legalise Cannabis Victoria and other parties have got some different views to us, and that is entirely proper. They would want to see a different bill in front of the Parliament. They would want to see the bill modified in a whole range of ways. But they have not been able to put their case properly because of the truncated time period, nor have the opposition. The opposition have, truthfully, got a little bit more in the way of resources and we have put a lot of effort into this over time. We understand through the good work of Mr Southwick and Mr O’Brien that a number of the bits of work that needed to be done were done ahead of time. We did have draft bills in position. We did have earlier iterations of some of the amendments that we will seek to put in place. That was already dealt with, and we did that because we knew that the community needed tougher bail laws. This had to happen. You cannot have people just completely and utterly flouting normal rules, normal conventions and normal arrangements. There needs to be a clear message sent.

The government’s bill is not tough enough. It is weak. It does not go as far as opposition amendments previously have sought to go – the ones the government has rejected – and that is a mistake on the part of the government. They have said they are going to do more later. There will be a second bill. There is urgency now. We cannot tell you what is in it until 6:30 on the night before, but there will be another bill later which will be tougher. This is just another sign of a government that is chaotic. Its legislative program is in absolute and utter chaos.

The list that the whip sent around last week had three bills on it. None of them were this bill. The bail bill was not on it. We did not know about the bail bill until much later. The government decided it was going to do this and just pushed this through.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

David DAVIS: But you could have done the work weeks before. You should have worked your way through it a long time before – that would have been the way to deal with it. You could have brought the briefing forward. If you talk to Mr O’Brien, he was promised the bill on Monday at an early point, ahead of the briefing which was listed at 3 o’clock. He got to the briefing, he still did not have the bill. He texted the Attorney-General several times asking, ‘When is the bill –

Jaclyn Symes: I think Michael O’Brien can say his own stories. You don’t have to give his stories.

David DAVIS: Well, you are engaging with me, so I am giving you the explanation and the detail.

Jaclyn Symes: I did not ask that question.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Thank you, members. I will just remind you to go through the Chair.

David DAVIS: Through the Chair, Mr O’Brien sought the bill ahead of the briefing, because he wanted to consult, he wanted to talk to people and he wanted to read it. On Monday, once it became clear there was going to be a bail bill, people said, ‘Will it be amended? Will you amend it?’, and we said, ‘Well, we haven’t seen the bill. We don’t know whether we can amend a bill that we haven’t seen.’ Like very recently –

Jaclyn Symes: I thought you said you would amend it before you saw it.

David DAVIS: No, no. We made it clear about the line that we wanted. We were hopeful that the government would do a proper bill, but the government did not do a proper bill. The government has got a half-baked bill that they have cooked up over a short period of time in a panic. That is the truth of the matter. It is a panic. The government did not know what to do. They thought, ‘We’re going to put this bail bill in.’ It is a half-baked bill that does not go far enough, and the truth of the matter is even the government knows it does not go far enough because they have said they are going to do more at a later period. You should have listened a lot earlier. You should have worked with the community and you should have worked with others in the Parliament so we could have had a sensible and reasonable process.

Ms Payne made the point about the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, and I agree with her. Normally with a bill of this type, which does clearly have an impact on the rights and privileges of members of the community, you would have SARC look at it. It is a point of regret that we could not find a way in the chamber to deal with having SARC look at this bill even in a truncated way over recent days. We have had two days where it could have done something and actually looked at the bill. Sometime on Monday or on Tuesday it could have got the bill, and it could have perhaps done some work on Wednesday and delivered the details of its judgments and views to both chambers this morning. That would have been a sensible way forward. It might not have been the perfect time period that is required for the most detailed report, but it would have been better than the one we have got now, which is nothing. Major impacts on rights – no check, no balance, no proper scrutiny by SARC. I agree with Ms Payne – it is a bad principle, and we should try to remedy that in future.

Returning to the details of the bill and the opposition’s amendments, we do want to see that for people who commit offences on bail there is a proper uplift, and the proposals in the bill do not provide the proper uplift and the proper recognition of the seriousness of the offence of committing a particular action whilst on bail. These are very modest, reasonable points that we are making. We want to change the name of the bill because the government, in line with its panicked spruiking, has given the bill a name that is not commensurate with the actual bill. It is sort of a name that is designed just to spruik that the government is trying to do something – anything. ‘What on earth are we going to do?’; you can feel the panic of the government in the name of this bill.

I ask that the crossbench and the government reasonably look at these proposed amendments. They have been thought through. Mr O’Brien has been working on some of these areas for some time. As the government understands, there have been bills already in this chamber –

Jaclyn Symes: They’re different to what he has done previously.

David DAVIS: Well, the essence of them is actually very similar.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

David DAVIS: The essence is very similar to what was proposed earlier with a number of these amendments.

Jaclyn Symes: It is desperate overreach.

David DAVIS: No, it is not. It is actually thoughtful and reasonable.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

David DAVIS: I do not think that is right, actually, Treasurer.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I just remind members to go through the Chair.

David DAVIS: Acting President, I take your guidance on that, but the truth of the matter is the government is panicked. The government did not know what to do, and the –

Tom McIntosh interjected.

David DAVIS: Seriously? What I would say is that the government has got this very wrong. We see the crime statistics that are out today with very significant increases in a number of the categories that should concern people, violent crime categories. A significant part of that is its failure on these bail matters and the failure of the government to have proper penalties in place over a longer period. The government can say what it likes, but the community knows the penalties have not been clear. The ability of certain people to get out on bail repeatedly, to commit offence after offence after offence, has been understood for some time, and the government’s failure to act is what has caused the problem and worsened the situation. The worsening of the situation is not just some academic thing; many people have been hurt and property has been damaged. That failure is the fault of the Allan Labor government, let us be clear. Jacinta Allan, her Minister for Police and her Attorney-General have got to accept that they are part of the problem here and that their longer-term failure to grapple with these points has put the community in a terrible position.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:25): It is with much regret that I have to debate a bill embarrassingly called the ‘tough bail’ bill. It is a bit weird. The government all of a sudden wants to look tough, and they have literally called the bill the ‘tough bail’ bill. Apparently the opposition is upset because they want to look tough too and they do not want the government to look tough, and they are so upset about it that they want to amend the title to take out the word ‘tough’. It is all a bit of a joke. But I will say this much on the toughness – I mean, both major parties this week seem so scared of Victorians being able to defend themselves with non-lethal weapons that they would not even support that. I would say if you are too scared of your own people to let them defend themselves against violent crime, then you are as tough as wet lettuce. I would say that.

Members interjecting.

David LIMBRICK: You guys and the Greens and other members of the crossbench deserve criticism for that as well.

It is clear that there is a problem with the bail system, and it is good that the government has acknowledged that. Bail is an interesting philosophical area for libertarians. We prioritise freedoms of people, but we also believe in the harm principle, where people should be free to do what they want as long as they do not harm other people. The types of crimes that have been listed in this bill, I am very pleased to say, very much do fit within harm to other people or property. Crimes like carjacking, like home invasion, like arson and other crimes that are in this bill very much do fit within causing harm, and we have seen the harm that has been caused.

It is clear that the presumption of innocence and the rights of people who are accused have to be balanced against community safety. I noted when I was listening to the Greens speak about this that they seemed to have a lot of compassion for the accused but did not seem to have much compassion for the victims of crime, of which there are many in this state – victims of very serious crime. I do not know whether this bill will get the balance right. I have seen too many bail bills come through this place, and it seems like every single one of them has caused problems. I do not know whether this one is going to fix it, but I hope that it makes things better than the status quo.

The Libertarian Party will not be opposing this bill, despite my reservations and despite my annoyance that it was only given to us this week. I did oppose this being debated using urgency procedures in Parliament. I much would have preferred to have another two weeks to consult with stakeholders on such an important thing, like I normally do. There are a range of stakeholders who are interested in the justice system that we often speak to, and we simply do not have an opportunity to do that. Nevertheless I am forced to make a decision. I do believe that we need changes to the bail system, and my team’s analysis of this bill is that we are cautiously not opposing it today. But I am still eternally frustrated by not just the government but in fact the opposition and also members of the crossbench not tackling, not even acknowledging, many of the root causes of crimes that are being committed.

One was brought up earlier by Ms Payne around cannabis. As it would be clearly known to anyone that has listened to me in here, I am a long-time supporter of the legalisation of cannabis. Ms Payne brought up the fact that in some jurisdictions where they have legalised cannabis they had a drop in crime, which should be obvious to anyone because something that was illegal is now legal and it is no longer a crime, so crime should drop. But the bill that Legalise Cannabis Victoria put forward would not have that effect at all because it does not address the critical issue of supply chain, other than people being able to grow it a bit for themselves, but I imagine that would be a very small part of the market in a legal market. As we have seen in other markets, just about any market where cannabis has been legalised, some people do grow it themselves, but ultimately it is delivered through a system.

In Victoria that market exists. We have a very high rate of cannabis consumption in Victoria, and it is all controlled by organised crime and has all of the stuff that happens with that. One way that we could rip billions of dollars out of the hands of organised crime would be to legalise cannabis – not just legalise possession of it but allow it to be legally traded and sold to adults. That is one way we can fix it.

We could start acknowledging, as well, the other problem, which I have spoken about many times – I know the state government cannot fix this; they think they can fix it, but they cannot – around illegal tobacco and vaping. The state government has said that they are introducing a licensing scheme. Organised crime has already responded to this, by the way. They have already started adapting their business models, and they are just selling it in places that are not tobacconists. It was pretty obvious how they would respond. They are selling it in $2 dollar shops, discount stores and all sorts of other places. At least, the state government could acknowledge it and say out loudly to the federal government, ‘You’ve got to do something about this excise tax because we are having arson attacks every other day. We’ve had murders and all these other crimes that are associated with it. Please do something about it,’ which they have not done. I hope if there is a change in the federal government, maybe the Victorian government might actually start attacking the federal government, which would be great, because they deserve to be attacked for their position on this. I do not think that the opposition at the federal level would be much better than the current government on this particular matter, which is unfortunate. They are both one and the same on this – too scared to stand up to these public health people that have built their careers on selling what has turned out to be catastrophic policy. No-one wants to turn around and say they were wrong. Well, I will say it: they were wrong, and their policies have resulted in arson and murder all over the state. Maybe we should think about that.

I will give credit to the government for one thing they are doing – expanding pharmacotherapy. Another market – heroin. I do not want organised crime selling heroin in Victoria, but the fact is that they are. One thing the government is doing is expanding the pharmacotherapy system, including a new trial of hydromorphone. To my mind, it is nowhere near big enough. It does not have enough scale to have that much impact, but at least it is a start. I commend the government on doing that, because every person that starts pharmacotherapy is a person that is no longer supplying money to organised crime in this state. That is a good thing.

The government also needs to acknowledge, and I think sooner or later they will, that many of their policy settings, as I spoke about earlier this week, have turned out to be opportunities for organised crime. I gave one example – the most unlikely thing that you would have thought at the time – the Gender Equality Act 2020. It has turned out now that we have organised crime taking advantage of this in the form of labour hire companies. This is not just with the Gender Equality Act but the entire procurement process for government projects. They are taking advantage of this, and now it has resulted in a situation where women are ending up on sites where they are in danger. We saw what happened this week. I do not think anyone thought that that would be a consequence of this type of legislation, but that is what has happened. We need to acknowledge that and say, ‘Well, there are problems with some of the policy settings here.’

The other thing that I would urge the government to put the brakes on or at least reconsider is what they are doing with the tobacco licensing scheme. They think that more law and order will fix the problems with the violence and everything associated with tobacco in this state. I do not think that that will happen. Black markets operate like any other market. They have incentive structures, and when you create massive fines and jail terms as penalties for committing certain crimes, like selling illegal tobacco, what you are doing is raising the stakes. We know that these people are violent people. What are they prepared to do to avoid a $300,000 fine? What are they prepared to do to avoid jail sentences for this sort of stuff?

They commit arson like it is nothing in this state. These people commit murder, they commit arson, they commit standovers, they bash people, and we do not even know about the dark crime – how much crime is being committed and people just do not report it to police? I think there must be a lot of it, because there are a lot of people getting threatened and stood over by organised crime in this state, and they do not say anything. They stay quiet or they do what they are told. We never hear about it, but it is happening; I am certain it is happening. We only hear about the arson attacks because everyone sees it when a building burns down. We hear about the murders because we see a dead body on the street. But when someone gets bashed or threatened, often we never hear about it, and it is terrible.

Some of the other things that could reduce crime, which I spoke about earlier, include enabling citizens to at least have some form of self-defence. What we passed earlier this week with the machete ban is legislative virtue signalling; it is not going to achieve anything. People can easily substitute a different weapon. Anyone that looks around their house does not have to go any further than their kitchen to find a weapon that could be used to harm someone. This idea that, ‘We’re doing all this new legislation and we’re going to solve crime through these things,’ I just do not think is going to work. But nevertheless there needs to be some sort of change to the bail system. I have seen it fail so many times now that I am still sceptical about this as well, but I will not be opposing it. As to changing the name, I am not going to be supporting the opposition’s amendment to take away the word ‘tough’. If the government want to call themselves tough, then they can call themselves tough as far as I am concerned. But whether or not this turns out to actually help stop crime, we will wait and see when it comes into effect. That said, I am hopeful. I am hopeful that it does what the government expects, and I am hopeful that it does what we all hope it does, which is reduce crime and reduce the number of people that become victims of crime in Victoria.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:37): I rise to speak on the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025. The coalition has been asking for tougher bail laws for years now, and despite the name being the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill, my first observation is that even after this bill passes, bail will be weaker than it was one year ago. It is more government spin, it is a campaign slogan and I was staggered to hear about how it came about. I am happy that the Premier has finally had her aha moment, but for over a year now we have been coming to this chamber and telling stories about how our constituents have been living in fear, have been the victims of crime. For some reason those stories have been water off a duck’s back, until the Premier took to her Instagram or Facebook or whatever it was the other week and said that she finally heard a story that actually touched her heart about a young kid who was at home alone, his home was invaded and he hid in a cupboard. When I hear that, I feel for that child, but I think, ‘My gosh, if you had listened to all of the suffering and all of the stories a year ago, that child may not have had to have gone through that terrible, horrific experience.’ What about the rest of the people that have suffered? I just want to say that I am very thankful that the government has finally had its aha moment, but I also want to say: when will it have its aha moment in other areas, for instance, on emergency management days?

It was about six weeks ago now that I had a debate on a petition where thousands and thousands and thousands of Victorians signed their name to ask that violent and high-risk offenders not be eligible for emergency management days in prison. What that is is if you were locked up in prison during COVID you got up to four days off for every one day that you were locked up due to inconvenience. Despite the thousands of signatures, despite Katie’s family sitting right up there – a beautiful girl that was murdered by her partner who has now had 427 days wiped off his sentence, which takes him below his non-parole period – the government still fails to grasp that that is actually important.

I hope the Premier and the minister have their aha moment very soon so that young women, or not even young women, just women in general, Victorians in general, can actually be safe in this state and that people who commit violent crimes actually have to face the consequence of what they have done.

This government is so out of touch, in my opinion. I am glad that their moment of enlightenment in one area has finally come, but I am disturbed that the other stories of the suffering of Victorians have not touched them at all. They are deaf to the suffering of everyone else. They have been deaf to the pleas of the opposition. They have been blind to the soaring crime statistics until they hit them where it really hurts, and that is in their polling. Then all of a sudden we are in this place. We get an urgent bill coming in with not even time to consider it, not even time to have a proper bill brief. We were not even given the courtesy of being told, ‘Oh, here’s the bill we’re going to brief you on.’ They did not even provide that. It is nothing more than a stunt; it is nothing more than a campaign slogan. I hope that soon this government lift their eyes above their own jobs and start doing what is best for Victorians.

I think we actually have to restore a bit of compassion, not just to the offenders but to the people that are the victims of these offenders. I have been confused listening to the Greens’ speeches. I think we have known for a long time that they hate anything that makes the community safer. They hate anything that makes violent and high-risk offenders actually take a bit of responsibility for the crimes they have committed. It is just so confusing listening to them saying that tougher bail laws are somehow a bad thing for the community, are somehow making vulnerable people more vulnerable. No, it is about protecting the vulnerable in this state.

So that is emergency management days. I just want to say on that as well that during COVID in this state violent and high-risk offenders had over 1000 years shaved off their prison sentences. I am really upset, I am actually distressed, that the government has failed to act on that. I am so distressed that the government has even failed to grasp what the community are asking. Minister Erdogan said that it is really tough. He said although he feels sorry for the people whose families have been murdered and the people that have been left here grieving, it is really hard because of the retrospective nature of what we are asking. Well, I am going to tell you what we asked. Petitioners requested:

… that the Legislative Council call on the Government to, as a matter of urgency, remove the eligibility for violent and high-risk prisoners to access Emergency Management Days and ensure that any sentence reduction due to Emergency Management Days cannot reduce the time served to less than the minimum non-parole sentence.

I do not know if you noticed, but there is nothing about retrospectivity in that – nothing at all. We have had so many people come in here and say we need a change. There is nothing. This is about a change from here on in. Families are suffering and the government just seems to miss the point. I hope that one day soon, as with that poor child that was locked in a cupboard because he had a possibly violent offender inside his house, the stories of devastation and loss from everyday Victorians begin to touch their hearts too, so they can begin to make a change.

I am also staggered that regardless of the fact that the Law Reform Commission of Victoria gave 45 recommendations to strengthen stalking laws in Victoria after the violent murder of Celeste Manno, that story has not touched the government’s heart. I am staggered that, years on, still nothing has changed. Can we organise some polling for that so all of a sudden they can notice that, hang on, if we do not actually fix this and make young women safer in Victoria by giving them more rights than violent stalkers, that actually could affect our jobs. Because if that happens, maybe – like we are seeing today – we will see an urgent bill come through this house that may actually protect people.

Celeste was killed by a violent stalker. I have spoken about this in this house almost until I am blue in the face, not that it has landed a blow on the attitude of the Labor government, because nothing has changed. Her cause of death was a stab to the heart by a violent murderer who broke in through her bedroom window and stabbed her 27 times until she died. She died in the place where she should have felt safest, in her own home, yet the government has just left that report on the shelf. I see you shaking your head there, Treasurer, but at the time you were the Attorney-General. When you were asked about it at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee you said you were under no obligation to respond to that report. I think it is really upsetting that these stories of Victorians that have been irreparably harmed and families that have been irreparably harmed have just been, in a sense, put to one side.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Renee HEATH: I am being truthful. I have raised this many times, and I hope that given the Premier’s comments on this bill that have lead to some change – I do not think it goes far enough, but in the interests of time I cannot go into that – things will change soon, before more lives are lost and more harm is done.

This bill does not go far enough, and here is why these changes and this bail law – this campaign slogan is a sense – are not going to make Victorians safer. The so-called toughest bail test for repeat serious offenders is not in this bill. The government has failed to deliver on this promise and is now saying that any change will be delayed for months. The offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail is being reinstated, but it will have no impact on raising the test for bail, when previously a person charged with an offence faced an uplift test to stay on bail. The offence of breaching bail conditions is being reinstated but in a weakened form. People under 18 face no criminal sanction for breaching bail conditions. Like Mr Welch said, if you are a teenager under 18, it is impossible to breach bail because it is not in this bill. Serious offences, including burglary and robbery, are not listed as schedule 1 or schedule 2 offences, meaning alleged offenders receive a presumption of bail and the weakest test to receive it. And Labor has refused –

Jaclyn Symes: What is the bail test?

Renee HEATH: I am sure you know the test. Labor has refused to reverse its cuts to Court Services Victoria, including over $19 million cut this year and a $58 million cut in the budget looking forward to 2027–28. This contributes to the justice system being under pressure. You can roll your eyes as much as you want, but I am thinking about Victorians here.

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, Dr Heath is misleading the house by pointing at me and saying I was rolling my eyes. I did no such thing.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): There is no point of order.

Renee HEATH: My sincere apologies if I offended you by misreading what I perceived to be an eye roll. I am sorry about that.

If the best Labor can do with bail laws is come up with a bill that has the word ‘tough’ in it – I agree with what Mr Limbrick said: this is legislative virtue signalling. They probably had a bit of a brainstorming session and said, ‘What would be a great headline? What about if we had a tougher on bail bill? Beauty, let’s do it.’ But the substance of it is not even strengthening the bail laws to what they were a year ago.

I think Victorians know there is a major problem. If you look at the statistics that came out this morning, you see that they are not heading in the right direction. There are people that are terrified inside their own homes. I am glad that the government is finally doing something. I just want to say: may the Premier and the government have many more of these ‘aha’ moments so we can have a safe Victoria once again.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (14:50): My colleague Ms Payne has already made a substantial contribution to this debate, so I will keep my remarks fairly brief and reiterate that Legalise Cannabis Victoria will not be supporting the bill in its current form and that we will be supporting the amendments put forward by the Greens and the amendment to change the title of the bill, as suggested by the opposition. I would also just like to say, before I launch into it, that I think there are certain things that everyone in this house shares. I think we all share the view that every citizen has a right to feel safe in their own home. I think we all share a view that every citizen has a right to feel safe in public irrespective of the place, the time and the circumstance, and nothing that is said here should be deemed in any way to diminish the pain or the trauma that have been experienced by victims of crime. Where we disagree, and I think often quite profoundly, is on how we respond to that.

And to us in Legalise Cannabis, it is frankly quite astounding to be here once again amending bail laws that have been in effect for less than a year, amendments, as members will remember, that were prompted by the recommendations of the coroner’s report into the entirely preventable death of Veronica Nelson. These were necessary amendments to bail laws that were described by that coroner, His Honour Simon McGregor, as being an ‘unmitigated disaster’. It is, I think, a tragic coincidence that this bill was first-read into the Assembly on the birthday of the late Veronica Nelson, who would have been 43 were it not for the failed bail laws of the day, which the government is apparently now so keen to reintroduce.

Those amendments were developed through painstaking and thorough consultation with justice, human rights and community advocates. So what did it take to get this government scrambling to dismiss all that expert advice? What did it take for them to deliberately ignore evidence of the disproportionate impact that these latest changes will have on Aboriginal Victorians? What did it take for them to reintroduce regressive bail laws that will usher more people into our criminal justice system, young people already experiencing significant disadvantage – or, for example, cannabis consumers picked up for low-level drug offences?

I would like to just step back for a second and commend Mr Limbrick for his comments on the question of cannabis law reform; albeit some of the other stuff seemed to be a little bit out there.

Apparently all it took was a campaign by the Herald Sun and a couple of weeks of Fifi Box venting on Fox FM to have the Premier of this state turf out well-formulated laws. I am not saying they are perfect. I am not saying they are without fault, but the government instead takes its policy cues from Fifi, Fev and Nick.

To hear the Premier’s chest-thumping, tough-on-crime kind of rhetoric, to hear the Premier all but boast about the increase in the state’s prison population after these changes, let me just say that it leaves me feeling profoundly, profoundly disturbed. The Premier stated, to Fifi Box no less, that ‘I have listened and I have acted.’ Well, she clearly has not listened to the relevant stakeholders who are overwhelmingly horrified by the prospect and the impact of these proposed reforms.

Rueben Berg, a First Peoples’ Assembly co-chair, noted in his statement on the new bail laws that:

First Peoples in Victoria share the broader community’s concerns about violent crime – we are impacted by it too. But the evidence is clear: rushed, knee-jerk reforms will disproportionately harm Aboriginal people, lumping petty offences together with serious crimes under the same laws.

The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service have echoed these sentiments, noting the profound and devastating impact these new changes will have on First Nations people. We know the impact the previous bail laws were having, particularly on Aboriginal women. Incarceration rates for Aboriginal women soared prior to the 2023 bail reform. Can I just say the sense of despair I felt reading the Premier’s press release, where I think in the second or third sentence she talked about preparing the system for an influx of prisoners. I mean, seriously, that is so disappointing.

Most stakeholders are questioning why the laws are being changed before they have had a chance to have any impact assessed. Greg Barns, the Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson on criminal justice has called the proposed bail law reforms:

… an alarming backwards step that ignores local and international human rights principles and will not work to make the community safer …

Isn’t it startling when you have someone of that prominence and that knowledgeability saying that this will breach human rights principles that the government would put this bill before the house without it being reviewed by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and without actually testing this law against basic human rights principles? It is shameful; it is just shameful. Mr Barns, like others, is urging the government to instead invest in intensive support to reduce the risk of offending and address the real causes of youth crime. The tough-on-crime response to youth offences will really only result in vulnerable young people being entrenched in the criminal justice system and caught up in a cycle of recidivism – what Les Twentyman, an old mate and a great youth advocate, called ‘graduation to college for crime’.

That is the problem with the ‘lock ‘em up’ approach. The connection between incarceration and recidivism is profound and very, very real. If we want to make the streets safer, perhaps we should not be training up so many criminals in our jails. Let me be very clear on this point, and I just want to reiterate that: we all have the right to be safe in our homes and we all have the right to be safe on our streets, and we are not in any way seeking to diminish the impact of violence on the victims of crime, nor am I dismissing the concerns of the residents who are feeling unsafe, but the fact is we have been on this merry-go-round many times before and it has not worked. We know that poverty and disadvantage are huge determinants of criminalisation rates. Statistics show that young people in my electorate, the Western Metropolitan Region, are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than to have committed a crime. They are more likely to be isolated, to be living in poverty, to have undiagnosed mental health issues and to have experienced early and ongoing contact with the police. These are complex issues. These are issues that need sophisticated responses from thoughtful government, and that is not what we are witnessing today.

Reactionary and populist ideas that go tough on crime may give the illusion of something being done, but they do nothing to reduce the root causes of crime. The Youth Justice Act 2024 sought to address some of the structural issues, but as noted, it has not come into force yet and there has been no proper budget allocation for its planning and its implementation. The government should be looking at the causes of offending and investing more in support programs to minimise reoffending. Recently in this chamber I spoke about just such a program taking place in my electorate that seeks to break the cycle of disadvantage and vulnerable children being funnelled through the criminal justice system. Target Zero is jointly administered by Westjustice, Victoria Legal Aid and the Centre for Multicultural Youth and is supported by a coalition of over 20 local stakeholder organisations. It aims to end the criminalisation of First Nations young people, multicultural young people and young people in residential care within the Brimbank, Melton and Wyndham LGAs. This sort of whole-of-community approach is seeking to end the over-representation of kids in the justice system by supporting them to stay in school and to be active and engaged in their community.

The first pilot is being run out of Wyndham community college alongside Project 100, a parallel program which aspires to 100 per cent year 12 completion. If you want to keep kids out of prison, keep them in school – keep them supported in school, keep them supported in their community. Programs like Target Zero that keep kids at school and engaged in their communities have a far, far better chance of interrupting that cycle of disadvantage, which leads to criminalisation. That would be a far, far better use of taxpayer funds than administering these new bail laws, and, to put it bluntly, a damn sight cheaper. To those who say we cannot afford such programs, it is worth noting that it costs $7500 a day to keep a child in detention compared to $6000 a year to keep them in school – $7500 a day; $6000 a year.

I was listening to Dr Heath’s comments before and she talked about bail reforms having cut prison sentences by a thousand years. Well, multiply that by $7500 a day and you get some pretty bloody interesting numbers. We will be supporting the Greens amendments to this bill as well as the opposition amendments to change the name of the bill. We will also be asking questions during committee.

In closing, I would like to just say that it kind of feels like a dark day when a Labor government chooses to respond to alarmist media campaigns and manufactured panic from Herald Sun editors rather than backing the expert advice of legitimate stakeholders, who worked hard to help develop the sensible bail laws that the government is now so desperate to undo. They are strange days indeed when a Labor government wilfully ignores the impact that laws will have on First Nations people and marginalised communities and when it would prefer to sink money into administering laws that are destined to fail rather than invest in programs that will help break the cycle of recidivism and disadvantage. Those are core Labor values that this government is walking away from, and it is shameful.

What is more, these new laws are likely to see our bail system clogged up with people involved in low-level offences rather than the hardened, machete-wielding crims that they are purportedly targeting. We understand that a second round of bail law reforms will be before this chamber in three months, after a comprehensive process of consultation with stakeholders. We welcome that consultation process. Wouldn’t it be better to hold off pushing through this atrocious bill until after that consultation has occurred? When announcing these new reforms the Premier conceded that the 2023 bail reforms did not meet community expectations and that the government had got it wrong. I do not believe that is correct, to be honest, but I agree that this is too important to get wrong – whether to get wrong again or just to get wrong in the first place. It is not too late for this government to show both wisdom and courage and halt the passage of these rushed and ill-conceived reforms to give further consideration to how these changes will impact those vulnerable communities it should actually be protecting.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:04): I rise to speak on the bail amendment bill 2025. I am not even going to put the focus group word ‘tough’ in it; that is a complete euphemism. We have heard from some Greens members the theoretical arguments against bail, but there is another side too. I will come later to some of the detail of the law and Labor’s flip-flopping, but I will start by challenging the apparently sacrosanct idea we hear from the Greens that we should avoid bail at all costs and the more cynical position of the government that a lack of resources means we need to give bail. There are some simple and compelling arguments against bail. I will run through some quickly.

On public safety, there are three points. First, the risk to the community – bail should be denied if there is a reasonable belief that the accused will commit further crimes while released. This is particularly relevant in cases of violent offences or repeat offending. Second, the protection of specific victims – victims, especially in cases of domestic violence or gang-related crime, may be at risk if the accused is released; keeping criminals in custody prevents intimidation, retaliation and further harm. Thirdly, preventing offenders and crime from escalating. We know from experience and indeed studies that individuals who reoffend while on bail very often escalate their crimes. A more cautious approach ensures that small crimes do not turn into serious ones. There is also the issue of deterrence – there should be consequences for criminal behaviour. If offenders come to expect bail whatever happens, they will not take the justice system seriously and they will have no respect for the police or the courts or the community as a whole. We need deterrents.

Chronic offenders – and we all know the stories – should not be given multiple chances to break the law without serious consequences. Just today, crime figures released showed 20 offenders were responsible for more than 300 aggravated car thefts last year – that is 15 each. I have got my own theft story: a repeat offender, having been bailed multiple times, stole a car of mine in the middle of the day in the middle of the country and got off again on bail. He has gone on to commit multiple more offences – I understand he had a $2000-a-week drug habit – so all that happened was that he continued to be a drug user and a criminal offender. Giving him bail on multiple occasions did nothing to solve his problems and nothing to keep the community safe or their property safe. That is just ridiculous.

To come back to the theoretical arguments, there is also public confidence. The stories we see on social media, TV and newspapers cannot fail to undermine confidence in the justice system. A weak bail system causes serious public concern. Then there is the issue of human rights. We have heard that people deserve bail and they should not be locked up. But what about the duty of the state to protect the innocent? Don’t we have a moral obligation to prioritise the safety of law-abiding citizens over the rights of those plausibly accused of serious crimes? Whatever some on the other side might say, the reality is that some criminals will just offend, offend and reoffend. We would love it to be different, but it is not – and sometimes they target the same person; offences on bail involve repeat victimisation, stalking or domestic violence, for example. Our justice system ought to protect victims rather than give offenders more opportunities. As a state, we risk normalising serious criminal behaviour. If we choose to repeatedly release offenders, the message is clear: we do not take crime seriously. That has a psychological effect and eventually it spreads through society. It is like the Overton window in politics.

Now to deal with the more cynical objections to bail, that we do not have the resources to keep people locked up – well, perhaps we should. What about the waste of police and court resources caused by police having to constantly rearrest the same individuals and the courts having to deal with them, and the economic cost of reoffending? It may cost more to have more bail justices – mind you, the bail justices do not get paid anything anyway – courts and prison places, but the economic cost to society of reoffending is great. Property crimes, thefts and assaults often lead to insurance claims, medical costs and increased policing. Victorians pay the price yet again. The idea that people deserve a second chance is not unreasonable, but that is not what we are talking about here. The problem is caused by habitual criminals, not first-time offenders. Innocent until proven guilty might be a fundamental legal principle, but it does not trump every other consideration, or we would not have any form of bail whatsoever.

We would just leave everyone, even mass murderers, free to roam the streets until we could get them in court. Bail is about managing risk, not determining guilt. As a society we have to balance individual rights with community safety, and the truth is, as any Victorian can tell you, this Labor government has not been doing very well.

To be more specific now, here is just one story which I spoke about here earlier this year: two cases in Ballarat in the same week. A 32-year-old man pleaded guilty to a 12-hour crime spree, including car theft, a police chase and bashing and imprisoning a woman, and a teen allegedly stole $150,000 in jewellery, threatened commuters at knifepoint and broke into homes, all while on bail. Across Victoria as a whole there has been a 15 per cent increase in crime, particularly violent assaults and serious youth offending. Every day an average of 19 residential aggravated burglaries occur, while vehicle thefts take place every 20 minutes in this state. Young offenders were responsible for over 20,000 criminal incidents last year – a 20 per cent escalation on previous figures. That is the situation now despite what the Labor Party claimed last time around were carefully designed strict new bail laws.

I have got some quotes from members here. It is quite amazing what the Labor Party members on the other side of the house said. Mr Berger, you are here. You said the:

… purpose is to address and solve the problems with the current bail laws while ensuring there remains a focus on community safety …

How has that gone? Ms Shing said:

The reforms we are now introducing seek to ensure that all members of the community are protected …

That has not gone too well; in fact it has gone very badly. She said there should be consequences for breaching bail – there have been none. She said she wanted to emphasise that accused people must comply with their bail conditions and that alleged offending while on bail is a serious matter. Well, you have done absolutely nothing about it. These were your bail laws in 2023 – absolutely hopeless.

I wonder if I have got something from Mr Erdogan. Did you say anything, Minister? I do not know. But Ms Ermacora from my own electorate said:

These are the toughest bail laws in Australia –

well, hello –

Instead the Bail Act will have a balanced and fairer categorisation of offences to specifically target those accused of serious offending.

That has not worked, has it? Oh, my goodness. Now we have the ‘really, really tough bail bill’, as if changing the title makes a difference. What focus group did you use to get that? It is a marketing gimmick, like ‘new and improved formula’ on washing power – no different. The legal system does not care if a bill is called the ‘Iron Fist of Justice Act’ or the ‘Marshmallow Bail Reform Initiative’; what matters is what it contains.

The bill itself, let us go to that. A mere 12 months ago breaching a bail condition in this state was deemed an indictable offence. This not only rendered the offender guilty of a serious crime, but it also imposed a stricter test to remain on bail, reflecting the principle that bail is a privilege, not a right. Failure to comply warranted a higher threshold of scrutiny. Yet what does this bill deliver? It reinstates the offence of breaching a bail condition but reduces it to a summary offence rather than an indictable one. Consequently no escalation in the bail test applies. Offenders may receive a minor penalty, but they face no increased risk of losing their liberty, enabling repeated breaches with little consequence. More astonishingly, the government contends that this offence should not extend to those under 18. A 17-year-old repeat offender – and we know there are many of them – perhaps wielding a machete in residential homes can violate bail conditions without facing any criminal sanction under this so-called tough legislation. What a misnomer. What a fraud. What a disgrace you lot are over there. Far from being the toughest laws in Australia, they fall short of the measures we had in Victoria just a year or so ago. You have got less tough, not more tough.

Additionally, the government points to the reclassification of certain offences as schedule 1 and schedule 2, intended to impose more stringent bail tests. While this applies to specific crimes, significant gaps remain. This administration does not consider robbery, burglary or even arson worthy of such tests. None are designated as schedule 1 or schedule 2 offences. As Mr O’Brien noted in the other place: how will the tobacconists across Victoria feel to see arson left out while they face firebombings nightly?

I have got time, so I think it is worthy to quote some more of your comments when you were talking about the bail laws in 2023. Mr Batchelor said:

This legislation will make our bail laws fairer for vulnerable and disadvantaged people while continuing to take an appropriately tough approach to those who pose a serious risk to Victorians.

What? He also said:

The government hopes the amendments to the Bail Act will effectively achieve a proportionate balance between the protection of the community and the protection of the human rights of those accused of crimes.

There are repeat offenders on bail, and they are snubbing their noses at you. Every time they get out on bail, they go and offend again because they can. How is that acceptable at all? Nothing you are going to do is going to change this.

Mr Galea even said:

The Allan Labor government holds that remand and custody should be used to keep Victorians safe …

You all talked about keeping Victorians safe, and they have become incredibly unsafe. Now you have had a rush of blood to the head because, as others have said, the media and others, and certainly the opposition, have advocated that you actually need to do something about this extraordinary situation. But you have not done anything in reality that will keep Victorians safe. These bail laws will not keep Victorians safe. You are a disgrace.

Ms Watt said:

With this bill we are recognising that there is a problem, but most importantly we are acting on it.

No, you did not. She also said:

The truth is I could go on and on about how this bill could and will reform our bail laws for the better …

Well, you certainly did not do that, and now you are still not doing it.

Minister Symes said:

This has certainly been a priority of mine, and it is somewhat surreal to know that we are so close to making some significant reforms … it is why the government have put forward reforms that, we are of the view, strike the right balance between ensuring people are not unnecessarily remanded and seeing that we have sufficient safeguards to maintain community safety.

Well, sorry, Minister, and sorry, Labor – you have failed.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:18): This Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025, the so-called tough bail bill, has been brought before this Parliament under the guise of strengthening our justice system. But let us just be clear: this bill does not exist because Labor believes in firm, fair justice; this bill exists because Labor’s last set of bail reforms in 2023 directly led to an explosion of crime across Victoria. It exists because public confidence in our legal system has rightfully and justifiably plummeted. It exists because the people of Victoria are rightly outraged. Labor did not introduce this legislation because they believe in justice; they introduced it because Labor believe in their own political survival and an election is coming.

The truth that every Victorian really needs to reckon with is that Labor’s political ideology is incompatible with public safety. The reason Labor just keep on failing on bail laws – the reason that they keep tightening and then weakening and then tightening them again – is not because they lack intelligence or even because they are incompetent, although you can make those arguments separately; I believe it is because Labor do not even believe in justice at all. Listen to them closely – they believe in social justice, and those two concepts could not be more different. Under social justice, criminals are victims of society and must be given endless opportunities, even when they show no intention of reforming.

Under social justice, actual victims of crime are invisible, irrelevant, and in some cases, they somehow brought it on themselves by being members of a class who did things in the past that they had nothing to do with whatsoever at all. Under social justice, the law is not about fairness; it is just something that you use to redistribute power and influence in society – away from little innocent boys on bikes and into the hands of bikies, for example. Under social justice you have two choices. You are either a horrible monster who just wants to lock up kids and black people, or you need to let crime run rampant in society. But that is just not true.

A responsible government that cares about the people that it is governing for can create a system where we have fair laws applied fairly. A responsible government and anybody with common sense – any teacher, any mother, anybody at all – will tell you that justice, as in consequences and accountability, is actually part and parcel of rehabilitation. You cannot be rehabilitated unless you admit what you have done, unless you know it is wrong. You pay for your crime, you do the time, and then you are forgiven.

It is a pattern that repeats. Every time Labor has changed the bail laws it has not been because of careful governance or sound policy but because they were forced to react to public outrage – never to prevent tragedy, always to protect their political reputations.

In 2017 Labor’s bail laws allowed a career criminal named James Gargasoulas to walk free – it is not a laughing matter – despite a long history of violent crime, armed robbery and drug offences. There were clear warnings that he was a danger to the public. He had already ignored court orders but continued to break the law, yet under Labor’s laws he was allowed to walk free, and what was the result? Six innocent people were killed; dozens more were injured. I do not know about you, but I still remember the image of that pram on the car, because it was the same pram that I had with my babies. The whole community was shattered, all because Labor’s laws had prioritised something called bail fairness over public safety and justice and just basic wisdom. Only after this massacre, when the public demanded action, did Labor tighten the bail laws in 2018. They did it because they had no choice. They knew their approach to bail was costing votes. But their true colours always come out, because just a few years later they weakened the bail laws again, not for public safety but to appease activists.

By 2023 crime had stabilised thanks to the tougher bail laws, but rather than maintain these strong laws that had worked, Labor caved to activist pressure, claiming that the bail laws were somehow, all of a sudden, too harsh, especially on youth offenders. Despite all the lessons learned from Bourke Street, Labor watered down the bail conditions. Despite all the evidence that predictable consequences and fair laws fairly applied do deter crime, they made it easier for offenders to get bail, and the results were immediate. A 17-year-old gang member had already been arrested multiple times for carjackings, armed robberies and home invasions. Under Labor’s laws, despite having breached bail conditions four times, he was still granted bail again. Two weeks later he violently attacked a pensioner during an aggravated burglary, leaving that person hospitalised.

This is predictable. This is preventable. Weakening bail laws has deadly consequences. We all know that offenders, once emboldened, keep breaking the law. They imagine they can get away with it because they do. This is what political survival demands of Labor, and that is what they are willing for all of us to pay.

By 2024 Labor’s 2023 bail changes had actually sparked a surge in crime. Violent offenders, including repeat domestic abusers, were now walking free under the weaker bail system. A domestic violence offender with a long history of breaching intervention orders was arrested again for making threats against his ex-partner. Under Labor’s 2023 laws he successfully argued that his offences were not serious enough for automatic remand, and two months later he tracked her down and nearly killed her. This was a direct result of Labor’s ideological approach to crime, where offenders deserve leniency but victims do not deserve protection.

And then not only did they wipe out the possibility of being done for repeat offences, they decided to erase offences altogether by raising the minimum age of criminal liability from 10 to 12 and eventually to 14. So now you have got a whole class of victims who will never be acknowledged under the law. If you think there are not 14-year-old girls who have been raped by 14-year-old boys who are not absolutely traumatised by the fact that it is not recognised in law, you are delusional.

Here we are in 2025 and we have this backflip. After the rise in crime, the public outrage and the plummeting polls, Labor is backtracking again, claiming that these new laws are the toughest in Australia. But they are still weaker than the laws we had in 2018. They do not automatically remand repeat offenders and they still allow criminals to breach bail conditions without serious consequences – and people are just ignoring it. The new member for Werribee even had the gall to say that the reason people were talking about crime so much was because they were somehow rich snobs. I do not know how the three mothers of the murder victims feel about their local member saying that, when three murders happened during the by-election which elected him to Parliament. It is one thing to disagree on policy, it is another thing entirely to debase the trauma and the experiences of the actual victims that you are supposed to represent.

Labor’s history on bail laws is not an accident, it is a pattern. They weaken bail laws in response to activist demands in order to win votes, and then when crime rates inevitably rise, they are forced to backtrack in order to win votes. They are not interested in long-term stability; they just repeat the cycle again and again.

What we actually need is justice and law and order. We need governance. Instead, from Labor we get self-serving misuse of power driven by ideology rather than evidence. We need laws that are applied equally, and we need a justice system that protects the innocent while ensuring that those who break the law face consequences based on their actions, not on their identity. That is why I am no longer a fan of Labor. That is why I am a Liberal, because this party may not be perfect, but our base philosophy is that parliamentary democracy should serve everyday Victorians, who deserve to feel safe in their own homes, not activist groups and not self-serving election cycles.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:27): I rise to speak to the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025, and I do so because, like members on this side of the house who have made their contributions in relation to how the government has gone about this, I note the concerns of the community over many years about the community safety aspect and the increase in crime that has occurred on our streets and in our homes. We have had the crime stats released today which show the extraordinary uptick in crime because this government has been soft on crime for many years.

What this bill does is a complete turnabout, because the government had to react to the polling where it was being exposed for failing to address this very serious issue. The community were speaking out – they were speaking out in droves. But can I just come to the point about this bill – it has been rushed into the Parliament. On Monday when the opposition was to have a bill briefing and many of us connected via the link to have that bill briefing with the minister, there was no bill provided. How the hell can you have a bill briefing without even a bill? The Shadow Attorney-General quite rightly said what a farce it was – and it was. You cannot have a bill briefing without a bill, without seeing the legislation. It was amateur hour at its best, and to be told by the state’s Attorney-General ‘We’ve got concerns in the community about safety’ was just an absolute slap in the face to everybody who was wanting to get some information and understand what this bill was going to do. But more importantly, it was a slap in the face to every Victorian and every victim of crime. This government has been absolutely hopeless on so many areas within government, and crime is just one of them.

In these latest stats that have been released today, which are very, very shocking, I am actually one of those stats. I am a victim of the crime that we are talking about today; I fall into the statistics for last year, because I was subjected to an aggravated burglary.

Somebody tried to get into my home – tried to kick down my door – and it was terrifying. They did not succeed, thank goodness. I was home alone. I have spoken to so many constituents in my community who have far worse accounts of violence and aggravation. They have terrifying accounts of when somebody comes into their home when they are asleep in the middle of the night. They stand over you wearing balaclavas. One woman told me that she thought she was going to be raped and murdered. She screamed, her partner woke up and another one of these thugs came into her room. These four thugs that came into this constituent’s home had been out time and time again, released on bail. They are part of the complete circus that has been bail in this state.

We warned the government, when they weakened the bail laws back in 2023 that would come into effect in 2024, that there would be an uplift, a surge in crime, and guess what, it has occurred. What is more, they were warned by the former Chief Commissioner of Police, who got the sack, and the deputy. In the frank and fearless advice that was provided to government they were told they needed to toughen up on this, because once you weaken it the crime stats will increase. Well, they have. And yet when we were talking about that in this very place and when we were arguing the point to make it clear to the government why we were concerned about the government’s approach in weakening the bail laws, there were members of the government who just went on a frolic and criticised. Some of those members are in the house now and some are not, but I want to quote from a couple of them. Mr Galea said:

Engage, do the work properly, do not just come into this place with half-baked bills.

Well, that is exactly what we have got. We tried to have a bill briefing on Monday and we did not even have the legislation. This government has rushed this. We have had an Attorney who was in the position for five years. She is no longer in that position. She has been turfed off to the side and is now the Treasurer. She thinks that job is fun. The ongoing failures and the inadequacy of this government to understand the severity of what is happening in our communities are just staggering. They had the arrogance to say to us, ‘No, you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about.’ Every single one of those government MPs should be ashamed of what has occurred in this state under the bills that they have passed under the watch of Jacinta Allan. Ms Ermacora was talking about the Bail Amendment Bill 2023:

… the Bail Act strikes the right balance between vulnerability, offending and community safety.

Now we have got an apologetic Premier who says, ‘We got it wrong. I’m listening.’ Why weren’t you listening years ago when so many members of the community were saying this would not work and your own police command was saying this would not work? You were not listening, Premier. You were not listening at all. You say you were, but that is just a political fix. You were not listening at all, because if you had been, you would have taken the advice of police command to understand that weakening bail laws would have the impact of a very shocking increase in crime in this state.

In the latest statistics for my area of the Southern Metropolitan region, criminal incidents in the City of Port Phillip, which takes in the electorate of Albert Park, including St Kilda and South Melbourne, have increased by 19.3 per cent. I have had people from that community speaking to me the entire time. I have raised in this house on so many occasions the out-of-control crime in St Kilda. Nothing has been done. If the Premier was actually genuine about listening to and hearing from the community, she would have understood, or her member representing that area would – these people have also spoken to her. Mr Berger, you are in the house. You represent this area too. You have done nothing to help these people. They have been talking about the increase –

John Berger interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: I am not making decisions. I am just making the point, Mr Berger, that you are an absolutely useless member when you are not representing your community on this issue.

John Berger interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order!

Lee Tarlamis: On a point of order, Acting President, Ms Crozier is engaging with members across the chamber. She should be addressing her remarks through the Chair.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Let us not indulge in cross-chamber little chats. Let us just go through the Chair, thanks.

Georgie CROZIER: Through you, Acting President, I make the point though that the member, who is very sensitive, was interjecting on me. I was making the point that the members of this community have been ignored by Labor. For the Premier to say she has been listening is disingenuous and frankly not true. We know it is not true.

In Bentleigh and Bentleigh East, in the other area that I represent, there has been an increase of 7.5 per cent. The numbers are staggering; the uptick in crime in these areas is staggering. This is an area that has been firebombed, with arson in tobacco shops.

I want to make a point, which has been raised by a number of members but which Mr O’Brien made very, very significantly in his contribution, about the recategorisation of certain offences to make sure that they go to schedules 1 and 2. Unbelievably, there are crimes like robbery, burglary and arson that do not cross the tougher bail test. As he said, if you keep committing a crime of arson, you might not be reaching that test. Therefore they are not strengthening the bail laws – they are not strengthening the laws at all. How can that be? Why is that omitted? The government is talking about tough bail laws and the Premier keeps saying these are the toughest in the country, but we know that is baloney because this is one bit of legislation that they are going to do and then they going to bring in another bit of legislation down the track.

This government is about spin; it is not about substance. It is completely out of its depth. It is more interested in trying to keep favour with those who are supporting it. We need a higher degree of confidence in this state. The community deserves to have a Premier and a government that is truly committed to putting victims first rather than the failure of what has gone on over many years. These statistics have been on the increase, whether it is aggravated burglary, whether it is family violence, whether it is car theft or whether it is retail robbery, it is just out of control. We have been debating this week about machetes. Who would have thought that in this city, in this state, in this country we would have vision of the most violent young people wielding knives and threatening innocent Victorians? These are shocking images, and we see them day in, day out on our weekly news items. We hear about it day in, day out on radio stations and we read about it day in, day out in newspapers. Over social media it is prolific. That is where we are at. It is an appalling state of affairs, and this government has got it wrong.

I want to go back to 2023, as Ms Watt walks into the chamber. I am going to quote from her contribution then. She said:

This bill reflects that those opposite lack a commitment to making Victoria a safer place for all.

Well, didn’t she get that wrong? She continued:

I think it is worth noting that the opposition has been quick to call this a weakening of bail laws, and they could not be more wrong.

I will tell you who could not be more wrong. It is you, Ms Watt, because now we have got the consequences of the weakening of the bail laws with these out-of-control crime figures and a government that is trying desperately to back-pedal out of this monumental mess that it has got this state in, this very significant issue. As I said, I have had so many constituents speak to me. I have had neighbours and I have had groups of people who have just said, ‘We are now patrolling our own streets. We are setting up our own WhatsApp chats just so that we can keep our eye on one another.’ And it is not the police’s fault. The police told me when they came to me – when they were just fantastic – that 10 years ago we were lucky to have one aggravated burglary every few months. Now they are doing them several times a night. It is just out of control. They were worried, but they did not have the resources. They never got the guy that tried to get into my home, but they did everything they could. Who knows where that person is? Who knows what else they have done, what other crimes and what other homes they have broken into and terrified.

And then there are the elderly people in my electorate – the shocking instances where they have been bashed by machetes. I mean, it is just quite terrifying. It is a disgrace that our great state, our great city, has descended into this dreadful state of unlawfulness, where society is breaking down, where there is no respect for the law, where people thumb their nose at the law. But the government have contributed to that, because they have not held these perpetrators to account. Every single victim of these horrendous crimes, because of the weakening of bail laws, deserves a full apology and more.

Just in closing: the opposition have tried to fix this over many years. Michael O’Brien, the Shadow Attorney-General, introduced private members bills in February 2024, August 2024 and February 2025. We knew the government had got it wrong. They have, and I am not sure that this bill is going to fix it.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:42): I rise to speak on the bail amendment bill, the so-called ‘tough bail’ bill, of 2025. The title of this bill says ‘tough bail’, but the closer you look at this bill, the weaker it gets. It should be the Bail Amendment (Weak Bail) Bill 2025. The so-called toughest bail test for repeat serious offenders is not even in this bill. The Allan Labor government have failed to deliver on that promise that they gave, and now they are saying that any change for that will be delayed for months. The offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail is being reinstated. It will have no impact on raising the test for actually gaining bail. Previously a person charged with this offence faced an uplifted test to stay on bail, but this is not in Labor’s bill, and any change will be delayed for months.

The offence of breaching bail conditions is being reinstated but in a weakened form, as contravention will not result in the offender facing a stronger bail test. People under the age of 18 years face no criminal sanction for breaching bail conditions, undermining the reason why bail conditions are imposed. Serious offences, including burglary and robbery, are not listed as schedule 1 or schedule 2 offences, meaning alleged offenders receive a presumption of bail and the weakest test to receive it. This bill is delayed and diluted; it is too little and it is too late. It is better than nothing, but it is certainly not a tough bail bill. This is a weak bail bill, a slap in the face to all Victorians who have suffered because Labor has lost control of crime.

We saw new crime stats released today, and crime is rising rapidly in Victoria. The number of criminal incidents recorded by Victoria Police in the year to 31 December 2024 was 456,453. That was up by 18.7 per cent on December 2023.

Crime is up all over the state, but there are very large jumps in regional cities and towns in my electorate. In Greater Bendigo criminal incidents jumped from 8002 to 9541, an increase of 19.2 per cent. In particular, sexual offences increased by 22.15 per cent. Theft saw an increase of 48.96 per cent and burglary and breaking and entering jumped by a massive 54.73 per cent. You can see why people in Bendigo do not feel safe in their own homes when breaking and entering has jumped by a massive 54.73 per cent. In Greater Shepparton criminal incidents also jumped from 5719 to 6843, an increase of 19.7 per cent. Greater Shepparton had the fifth-highest rate of offences in Victoria, with 14,697.2 offences per 100,000 estimated resident population. That was up by 19.6 per cent. In the Macedon Ranges shire criminal incidents jumped from 1494 to 1906 incidents, an increase of 27.6 per cent. In the City of Whittlesea criminal incidents spiked from 9588 to 12,929, an increase of 34.8 per cent. I know people in the City of Whittlesea do not feel safe in their own homes, because I am kept up at night by a WhatsApp group that I monitor to hear some the incidents that are happening in that area. The chief statistician for the Crime Statistics Agency, Fiona Dowsley, said that the rate of theft offences being recorded per 100,000 Victorians has exceeded historical peaks, driven by record-high stealing from motor vehicles, stealing from retail stores and motor vehicle thefts.

The government has moved to treat this motion as an urgent bill. I wish they had shown some urgency about community safety last year when Victorians were crying out for the Labor government to do something about the crime wave, but Labor ignored them. So many lives have been harmed and so many people have been traumatised by the wave of crime that was unleashed when Labor weakened bail laws. Repeat offenders have been constantly let out on bail over and over again. Teens laughed at police because they knew there would be no real consequences for their behaviour. All over my electorate of Northern Victoria people are living in fear in their own homes as break-ins, car thefts and burglaries continue to rise. The latest Crime Statistics Agency data that came out today gives an overall picture of the crime wave in Victoria.

But it is the personal stories that captures the true horror of what is happening in our communities. I mentioned just before the WhatsApp group that I watch for residents of estates that are off Donnybrook Road in the City of Whittlesea, and this does keep me up at night while I monitor the fear of my constituents in that area as they talk about break-ins that are happening, attempted break-ins, car thefts – in fact there were four cars stolen a couple of nights ago. But the break-ins to utes to steal tradies’ tools and stuff are just out of control in this area. There is a lot of suspicious behaviour happening on those estates as well. People are starting to take matters into their own hands, and this really concerns me. It concerns me that they feel the need to try and protect themselves and to protect their families, that they feel unsafe in their own homes. But it also makes me fear that they could actually end up being hurt by one of these people who are on their estates that should not be there, that are there for the wrong reasons. They are there to break into homes, or they are there to steal cars or to break into utes. But the people who try and protect their family could end up being hurt if they confront one of these people, and that really concerns me. It also concerns me that they may accidentally end up on the wrong side of the law just because they are trying to protect their families and their property.

I spoke with one woman from Donnybrook who was at home with her sister when someone tried to break into their home. They heard the break-in happening, and they raced down the stairs to get to the front door as a guy with a hammer opened the door and was coming in.

They threw themselves at the door and forced the door back to close it, but the sister of this lady said she could see the guy hitting her sister with the hammer and she feared that he was going to kill her before they could get that door closed. They were absolutely terrified, but they managed to hold the door shut while the attacker was trying to attack them. Thankfully they were unharmed in the end. But many are not as lucky as they were. There are so many similar harrowing stories from residents all over my electorate. In Bendigo just in the last sitting week we had an incident where a group of youths attacked a security guard and a blind man at the marketplace. This happened right opposite Jacinta Allan’s electorate office, and yet she still kept her head in the sand. It was only very belatedly last week that she made a change to say that she was sorry. The crocodile tears have been absolutely amazing in her performances on TV and radio. She has been dragged kicking and screaming to make these changes and she is making these changes not because she is sorry about what is happening to people in Victoria but because she is sorry about her own opinion poll ratings going down. That is the only reason that she has moved to act on these bail laws now.

The Allan Labor government needs to take responsibility for what has happened on their watch, because they have weakened bail laws. They were warned about what would happen, but the warning was ignored. Labor were driven by ideology instead of facts, blind to the horrific reality of crime that was spreading all throughout Victoria. The buck stops with the Premier, and she is ultimately responsible for the devastation, and in some cases the deaths, caused in Victoria by criminals who should never have been on bail in the first place.

The Premier went in front of the TV cameras, as I said, and said she was sorry and cried all of her crocodile tears, but is she really sorry or is she only sorry about those dropping poll numbers? If she was really sorry, she would have supported the changes that the Liberals and Nationals were asking for all last year. On three separate occasions the Liberals tried to introduce private member bills into Parliament to reform the bail laws, but every time we were blocked by the Labor government, who insisted on defending their weak bail laws.

They ignored the advice, which was so short-sighted. Labor would not even listen to their own Chief Commissioner of Police. A recent report revealed that in the weeks before he was fired former Victoria Chief Commissioner of Police Shane Patton submitted a proposal to strengthen the bail laws, but his advice was ignored. Inside sources said the proposal was rejected by the Allan government because of the cost and also the lack of prison beds needed to keep more people in custody. I was astounded to hear the government claim that they were short of prison beds, because in July last year they shocked the local community in Greater Shepparton with the surprise announcement that the government would close the low-security Dhurringile prison within a few weeks. Labor’s short-sighted decision reduced the capacity within Victoria to move prisoners through the prison system and out of the remand centre, leaving fewer prison beds available to keep dangerous repeat offenders on remand while they await trial. Now the government is scrambling to find more beds within the prison system so that they can keep more people in custody. It is hard to imagine a more incompetent and short-sighted government than the Allan Labor government, which closes prisons one year and then rejects the police commissioner’s proposal to tighten the bail laws the next year because they do not have enough prison beds.

Jacinta Allan is moving from one crisis to another, making knee-jerk responses to bad polling instead of focusing on good policy. The opposition will not be opposing this bill, because it is better than nothing, but it is not good enough, and we have a lot of amendments to make it better, to make it stronger and to genuinely give Victorians the protection they deserve. Firstly, while the government claims this is an urgent bill, its default commencement date is 29 September 2025. If this bill is truly an urgent bill, then it must come into force sooner, and we will move to bring the commencement date forward by three months to 30 June 2025. We will move to include the serious crimes of robbery and burglary in the list of schedule 2 offences, meaning bail applicants will have to give a compelling reason to be released on bail. We will remove the exemption for minors for the offence of breaching bail conditions. I have heard directly from police how frustrated they are to arrest and charge youths only to see them immediately released and go on to breach bail and commit more crimes the very same day. Bail is a privilege, not a right. If people abuse that privilege by failing to comply with their conditions, it is only right that they face a tougher test to stay out on bail.

Our amendment will mean that teen offenders who breach bail conditions will be uplifted to a tougher bail test. For adults we will reinstate both the offence of breaching a bail condition and the offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail so that both of these violations will result in an uplifted bail test, meaning it will be more difficult for repeat offenders to get released.

There should be consequences for breaching bail and when someone commits a new offence or fails to comply with conditions, but right now the consequences are not strong enough. Criminals are no longer afraid, and teens laugh at police because they know there is no consequence of their behaviour. And they will continue to laugh at the police, because this bill does not even include people under 18. The justice system is no longer taken seriously, because offenders know that they can keep being released and keep on offending. The highest priority must be the safety of the Victorian community, and that means the bail settings must be changed to keep criminals in check.

A crime wave has been unleashed across Victoria by Labor’s weak bail laws, and it is time to fix it. The Liberals and Nationals will not oppose this bill, but we do urge the chamber to support our amendments to make the bill the strong bail reform bill that it should be.

Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:57): Mark my words: we will be back. It is prophetic that I can say that, but we will be back here. I am less sure of the sun rising than I am of the fact that we will be back in this chamber changing bail laws within two years. That is the average right now: every two years. If that in and of itself does not paint a picture, and a very disturbing picture, then perhaps nothing does, because this is the fifth time in 10 years that this government has considered substantial changes to the Bail Act 1977.

If we go back some time, to 2015, the dilemma, the problem, one of the challenges faced and one of the reasons that there were reforms was that we had too many children in jail. In particular we had too many Aboriginal children in jail. The Attorney-General at the time, Martin Pakula in the other place, said that remanding children should be a last resort. Under a section that was then added to the Bail Act and that came into effect in 2016, courts were then required to:

… consider all other options before remanding the child in custody …

In 2023, in the government’s last changes to our bail laws, this government further required courts to:

… impose on the child the minimum intervention required in the circumstances, with the remand of the child being a last resort …

Let us never forget that in 2023 it was Minister Carbines who told this Parliament that the tightening of bail laws in 2018 got it terribly wrong.

History shows there was a trebling of the number of people in Victoria on remand. There was overcrowding of our jails, and yes, tragically, there was the death of Veronica Nelson, an Aboriginal woman who died in custody while on remand for a series of minor offences. Incremental changes could have prevented the kneejerk, last-minute, rushed, panicked response we now see before this Parliament today. Many in the chamber have already made that observation on this side of the chamber and also on the crossbenches. On three occasions the opposition sought to introduce a bill to this Parliament to improve the status quo: on 20 February 2024, on 1 August 2024 and on 6 February 2025. I hope that when this period is studied by scholars or students or the media or someone who is just interested and cares, the one thing they will take from today is that those who are opposed to many aspects of this bill are opposed perhaps for differing reasons but with the ultimate concern that what is being proposed today actually does not hit the mark.

It takes a unique government to bring all the opposition and crossbench together in their opposition to what the government is doing. Notwithstanding there is some commonality among us – some, not all; I am the first to acknowledge that. How has this government monumentally managed to please nobody in the process of this bad policy? I am reminded that good policy is good politics – that makes sense. I have always said it; I will always maintain it. Bad policy, by contrast, is bad policy. And guess what? It is bad politics. I suppose what causes me most concern about what we are asked to consider today is that it does nothing to tackle the root causes of the crimes in the first place. This has been mentioned by a number of speakers today already. By the time bail is a consideration, the horse has well and truly bolted – an alleged crime or crime has actually already occurred.

Today of course we have seen the release of the latest crime statistics. I do not wish to be salacious, I do not wish to be in the slightest bit inflammatory, but I will let them speak for themselves. In Maroondah the total crime incidents are up 20.8 per cent – that is up from 5436 incidents to 6567 incidents. In Whitehorse, criminal incidents are up 17.1 per cent, from 7387 to 8650. There are a couple of points about these statistics that are of interest. In Maroondah, of the total criminal incidents, there have been 32 per cent where charges have been laid – one in three, 32 per cent. I actually thought it would be a lot higher than one in three. In 17 per cent of the cases, no charges have been laid – we can round it off to 20 per cent. And the other 50 per cent are completely unresolved – 50 per cent of 6567 criminal incidents go unresolved in Maroondah as of the last reporting period.

When you look at the location types for these incidents, top of the list for Maroondah is houses – homes – 1476 for the previous period. Whitehorse is the same. Their figure is dramatically more: 1901. For Whitehorse the number of charges that have been laid is considerably less; it is 22.4 per cent – that is one in five. 66.3 per cent, or two-thirds, of all of those incidents in Whitehorse – the number of incidents is 8650, which is numerically significantly more than in Maroondah – are unresolved. They are unresolved at a time when we know that the police station at Box Hill has 15 too few police officers – fifteen, 1-5. Is it any wonder that 66.3 per cent of the 8650 criminal incidents remain unresolved? That ought to be cause for concern. It ought to be cause, in fact, for alarm. Maroondah is no different. We have at least five too few police officers in Maroondah at the Ringwood station.

Some have spoken today about the name of the bill. It is perhaps a silly subject. I tend to think it is silly. I am less interested in what it is called and more interested in what it does. But it does tell us that someone in either the Premier’s office or the minister’s office thought they would be clever – a little too clever. The last time this government was that ‘clever’ they decided to rename the Maroondah Hospital. Some of you might recall that. It went down like a lead balloon, as has this silly name.

But karma is also a funny thing: it comes back to haunt those who do wrong. By being called the tougher bail act, I think in very many respects this bill will come back to haunt this government. It will haunt this government because this government has satisfied no-one, not even itself. They have not satisfied the crossbench, and rightly so. Those who bothered to listen to the speeches today would have heard some very articulate, intelligent arguments, some genuine concern for those in our community who are vulnerable, notwithstanding that the acts some of them have committed are atrocious, heinous and shocking.

But their focus, without verballing them, sought to prioritise in one respect a number of other aspects, that is, how we prevent these crimes occurring in the first place. How do we deal with social disadvantage? How do we ensure that no-one is a victim of crime, much less a perpetrator? It is much harder to solve these questions, and yet there has been report after report. The government has had some of the answers. The truth is that this government has, sadly, failed not only itself, but it has failed the entire community here in Victoria. It has allowed a situation to develop where we are at the point we are today: we are all rushed, we are all dissatisfied, and none of us – not even those opposite, if they were being honest with themselves – believes this is any kind of solution.

We have absolutely failed those who have been victims of those who have committed these crimes. There has been little, if any, thought of them until recently, and as has been said by Mr Ettershank and others, until it became an electoral problem, a polling problem, this government did not even look like it was going to act. And while I commend those who have brought this matter to the attention of the government, the truth is it has been in front of the government for years now; they have simply failed to respond in a meaningful way.

They have failed to understand that the changes they made had some unintended consequences. They have also failed to engage, in many, many respects, the communities and the individuals who are perpetrating these crimes. What does it say about us that we are doing so little that these crimes continue to be perpetrated again and again and again and we are failing to fix the problem? We are clearly failing in our preventative measures. I would probably go a step further and say we are failing those new immigrant communities here in Australia, because with every new community that joins us here in Australia there is always a teething stage. It does not matter whether we are talking about the Vietnamese, the Ukrainians, the Greeks, the Italians, the British or the Irish; among all our communities we have always had challenges. We have always had challenges when communities integrate, when one generation grows into the next.

We have abjectly failed in our primary task of not only keeping people safe but also ensuring that we keep those who would err, those who would commit crimes, those who are wayward or those who are marginalised somehow off the streets, out of trouble and in their homes. That is a collective failure. It also does not diminish our own failure individually of course. I will end this where I started: we will be back here in less than two years.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:12): I want to take this opportunity to thank every member who has contributed to the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025 debate. I would like to acknowledge everyone for their sincere contributions. Hearing the stories was quite harrowing, but I do believe that most people approached the debate in good faith, although I might not necessarily agree with their viewpoints and their conclusions.

Those of us on this side of the chamber are in agreement, as the Premier herself has acknowledged, that the current system is not tough enough and does not reflect the expectations of the public. The public has a right to not only be safe but feel safe. That is why the government is taking action by making these important changes to target higher risk repeat offending and to improve community safety. We know that a small group of repeat youth offenders is driving the increases we have seen in offending. Reoffending is a serious problem. Today’s crime statistics confirm that fact. The reforms before the house tonight squarely target these serious and repeat offenders by putting community safety above all in bail decisions; removing the principle of remand as a last resort for a child; making it harder for high-harm offenders to get bail; elevating offences like aggravated burglary, home invasion, carjacking and armed robbery to the toughest bail test; and ensuring respect for the rules with new bail offences, including the second strike rule for offenders.

I am mindful that behind these crime statistics are victims. There is a human cost to high-harm offending. In my former role as Minister for Victim Support I met with many victims of crime, and I understand the trauma and disruption that victims of crime and their families experience. It can be profound and long lasting. As we have this important and necessary debate, my thoughts are with victims of crime. To those listening, know that the government is doing the work to improve the justice system and bring it in line with community expectations. At the end of the day, we make no apologies for doing what it takes to stop crime in its tracks. I commend the bill to the house, and I call on everyone in this chamber to join the government’s mission to improve community safety. I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell

Noes (30): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendment negatived.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (30): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Noes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:25)

For the benefit of the chamber, I will ask all of my questions at clause 1. I thank the minister for his discussions on this bill. I will just ask all the questions at once, and I am sure that I do not have as many questions as the Greens, so I will try to get through my questions as quickly as possible.

Minister, who made the decision to insert a political slogan into the name of the bill? Was it the Premier, was it the Attorney-General or was it the Premier’s staff?

The bill is obviously an Attorney-General’s bill, as the minister responsible and as the first law officer, so I think it is expected that it would come out of the department of justice and the minister’s office.

You said the department of justice and the minister’s office. I would have thought it would be entirely inappropriate for the department of justice to put a political slogan into the name of the bill such as this. Can you confirm it was the minister’s office that made this decision?

For clarity, it was in fact the minister’s office.

It is just incredible that the first law officer is much more interested in sloganeering and is tampering with a bill. My apologies to the department of justice – I knew that they would not be involved in a political decision such as this. Given the bail test in this bill is still weaker than the last time your government amended it, do you not think you are misleading the Parliament with sloganeering in the bill?

With all due respect, I feel as though the only people politicising the name of this bill are the opposition. I notice the amount of amendments that relate to the name of the bill. I think the bill is quite clear in its objectives – it is to improve community safety and have a higher threshold for bail for people that are causing significant harm to our community. I think the goal of this bill is quite clear – if you are a repeat high-harm offender, you will face a tougher test.

But not as tough as March 2023. What is the cost to the budget associated with this bill?

There will be a budget process in relation to the costs, and they will be accounted for in the normal way. When you are introducing new legislation, especially legislation such as this, the full impacts on the system will take some time to show. As a Parliament and as a minister, when you introduce laws the effects of those will play out through law enforcement and the way the courts interpret and implement these changes.

You do not yet have a cost, and it will take some time, is what I got out of that answer. During the bill briefing the Attorney-General mentioned that additional staff within Victoria Police and the corrections system would have to be employed due to a predicted increase in individuals on remand. How many additional staff does the government forecast it will need to hire for Victoria Police?

I think Victoria Police are well resourced. Our government has made record investments in Victoria Police of over $4.5 billion since getting into government. There are a number of vacancies at Victoria Police, but what you will notice is that police are doing an amazing job in bringing those responsible to account with a record number of arrests in the last year.

Given the Attorney-General’s comments in the bill briefing, how many additional staff does the government forecast it will need to hire within the corrections system?

I thank Mr Mulholland for asking a question about my corrections system. In Victoria we are currently hiring, and I launched a big campaign for recruitment for our corrections system earlier this year in relation to our Western Plains prison, our new state-of-the-art maximum-security prison out in Lara. But in terms of recruitment, we currently have a strong complement of staff across our corrections system but we will continue to hire as well. Like any frontline service there will always be attrition, where people leave the system and enter the system, but we are looking to hire hundreds more roles within corrections, many of them at our Western Plains prison but across the system as well.

Was the Attorney-General wrong to state that additional staff at Victoria Police and corrections would need to be hired as a result of the changes in this bill?

I think it is fair to say that since the Premier announced these law changes, we are expecting more people to be put into remand, which will mean greater demand on the corrections system and the youth justice system in my portfolios. We will always look to hire more staff into our system, but currently we do have a strong complement to manage the population.

How many individuals are currently on remand across the state, and what is the government’s expected figure once this bill is implemented?

I might just go to the box for the exact figure on that one – so the amount of people on remand?

Mr Mulholland, you will appreciate that the remand population does fluctuate from day to day, but I understand it is roughly 2500 today – roughly, but it does change from day to day. The last time we looked at the data it was around 2500.

How do you see your cuts to Court Services Victoria impacting the effects of this bill, and do you foresee as a result of this bill that those cuts to Court Services Victoria might need to be reversed?

I think the Premier was very clear that we will adequately resource the justice system to meet any demand that flows from these changes.

Did the government receive any advice from parliamentary counsel or the clerks about the inadvisability of inserting a slogan into the title of this legislation?

No.

If this is called the ‘tough bail bill’, will the next instalment of the legislation be called the ‘tougher bail bill’ or maybe the ‘tough bail bill 2’?

I like the sound of that in terms of the name. But let us get back to what we are doing today. What we are doing today is responding to a real issue out in the community, of high-harm repeat offenders. We need a tough approach to that element within our community to stamp it out and hold them to account. In terms of the name, irrespective of the name, these will be the toughest bail laws in the country.

I gather from your answer that the next bill will be the ‘toughest bail bill’ instead of just the ‘tough bail bill’. I just cannot believe how silly it is putting a political slogan into a piece of legislation. Obviously courts and court decisions examine legislation and look to legislation and look to committee stages but particularly all legislation, including the titles, in making decisions. Have you received any advice about how the name change and the name of the bill might influence a court decision?

No.

The Attorney-General mentioned during the bill briefing that existing staff would have to undergo training as a consequence of this bill passing. What is the cost of that training?

In terms of training for the courts, training magistrates and the courts is a matter for them. But I think the Premier has been clear. We will be adequately resourcing the justice system to meet any extra demand that is needed as a result of these laws.

Minister, I was in this Parliament when we were successful in getting a statutory two-year review into the last round of bail changes that we made. What happens to the two-year statutory review that was passed with the bail changes in March 2023? Will that statutory review be done, and will that statutory review review the bail changes that have been in effect for the past year?

In terms of the review in relation to those bail changes, it was initially planned for March 2026 and to be concluded within six months. In light of these further changes to the Bail Act 1977, we will do that review together, to incorporate these changes, and it will be approximately two years after – therefore March 2027 is when there will be a review of the bail changes from last year and this year.

If history is any judge, we are probably going to be back changing the bail laws twice, on my estimate at least, by 2027. So we will have the tough bail bill, the tougher bail bill, the toughest bail bill and probably an even tougher bail bill after that. Can I ask, Minister, when the text of this legislation was finalised?

I might just go to the box on that one.

Mr Mulholland, without breaching cabinet confidentiality, cabinet normally meets on Monday, and this is the kind of matter that obviously could only be decided or settled through a cabinet process. Monday was when cabinet met, and that is when I guess this bill had the full support of the government.

I note that the Attorney-General refused to give a copy of the bill to the opposition prior to a scheduled briefing on Monday. Was this because the text had not been finalised?

Mr Mullholland, as I have outlined to you – and I might have even pushed the boundaries here – there is a cabinet process in a cabinet-led government. That process, which was on Monday, finalised this bill to be supported and introduced to the Parliament on the next day of sitting.

Why is the so-called toughest bail test that the Premier spoke fondly of for repeat serious offenders not in this bill?

I think the Premier has been very clear. I am focused on this bill, and this bill does strengthen the Bail Act. There will be a further package of reforms to strengthen the bill. In particular it will include an uplift for the offence of committing an indictable offence, and that will come in that second bill, which I believe Mr Mulholland is referring to. It is right, in terms of the second bill, that there will need to be some additional consultation, and the Attorney-General’s office will need to make sure, in line with that section, that appropriate safeguards and caveats are developed.

While I look forward to seeing that bill, I suggest you pick up my bill that I introduced in this place in March of last year, which you voted against. That might be a good starting place, and you might be able to shepherd it through cabinet pretty quickly because it is already prepared. We might not have needed to be back here. Was the decision made to put half of the reforms promised by the Premier off into the never-never? Why was the decision made to split that bill, rather than just getting the job done with one bill?

I think it is important to clarify, Mr Mulholland, that the community will be a lot safer after we approve this bill and it gets royal assent. In relation to the second package – which I do not believe should be the focus today because we have already got a significant package before us that will strengthen bail – as I outlined in my answer to the previous question, in terms of an additional uplift offence of committing an indictable offence, that will come in the second bill. I am just giving that as an example of the further strengthening work to be done. I think the Attorney-General’s office and the department will make sure that they are developed in such a way that there are appropriate safeguards and caveats in place to ensure proportionality, and we will consult on them. I think broader consultation is needed, because you would expect that this will have a further impact on the justice system.

You said that that will need further consultation. Does that mean that consultation was not done on this particular bill?

There has been significant consultation on this bill, and I think it is important for especially the crossbench to hear this. The Attorney-General has been very forthright in having an office and a team that she has dedicated to hearing from stakeholders. In relation to the development of this bill, as one of the justice ministers, we hear regularly from Victoria Police. The Attorney-General hears from the courts, and I hear from my youth justice and corrections team but also important community partners – the Aboriginal Justice Caucus and the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria. There has been consultation across government in the development of this bill. Obviously there is always iteration. That is a new bill. That is why I do not want the focus on the second package, as that work is still going to be undertaken. I think it is important to understand that we want to obviously consult further and also make sure that we avoid any unintended consequences.

Minister, the Premier has acknowledged that prison rates will increase as a result of this bill, as has the Attorney-General. If that is the case, why are you decommissioning Dhurringile Prison, if the bail laws are anticipated to increase prison rates?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I will be interested in this.

I know this an issue that the Deputy President is very interested in. I think we have sufficient capacity, both operational and physical capacity, in our adult corrections system, and what we are planning to do is to scale up in the safest way possible. That means looking at the mix. Currently our remand population is about 40 per cent of the system. Prisoner placements are important work. You need to take in a number of factors in doing that work, such as affiliation, gender, people’s health conditions and their security rating, so to speak – it all needs to be worked through. We want to do that in the safest way possible for our staff. I think having that time will help staff adjust to the new demand but also to the make-up of the prison, going from roughly 40 per cent remand to a much higher remand population.

I will just go to the commencement. Part 1, clause 2, provides a default commencement date of 29 September 2025. Given this bill is so urgent that the government is ramming it through and considers it an urgent bill, why is the default commencement date more than six months away?

The Premier is very clear that we are expecting these changes, these reforms, the tough bail bill, to jolt the criminal justice system across the board, not only at the back end in corrections but also in the courts, law enforcement, the police, the prosecutors and the legal fraternity, to be frank – they will all be jolted by these changes. We need to allow them time to adjust. People have practices that they implement based on certain rules. We are effectively changing the rules to make them tougher, so we need to give them all time to adjust.

In relation to that commencement date, I want to be clear that the Attorney-General and Premier have stated our goal is to proclaim this much earlier. Some of it will be proclaimed immediately, some a bit later, but I think that is being worked on. The key is that it will be proclaimed earlier, but we need to allow everyone affected by this the time to adjust.

Given that some would be a bit later, what provisions in the bill will be the last to be made operational?

The changes to schedules 1 and 2 will commence a bit after the other changes. Community safety has the highest – I was going to say ‘goal’ but more so an overarching principle. Also, remand as a last resort for children will be immediately applied. But some of the changes to schedules 1 and 2 will be commenced slightly after.

I will just take you to the bail guiding principles, referenced at part 2, clause 4 (1AA). The number one guiding principle within the current Bail Act states that:

The Parliament recognises the importance of –

maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible …

Given the extremely minor alteration this bill makes to the existing number one guiding principle, isn’t it true this change is entirely cosmetic?

I would not accept that. I think this is clarifying, if you look at the purpose of the bill, which we are discussing, which is to make sure maximising community safety is the number one principle is important. It is important to have it at the beginning and also to have a bill that outlines that that is the reason for these changes. If you read the second-reading speech, I point to community safety as a paramount consideration. That is our view in terms of bail considerations, and I think this bill is all about prioritising community safety. I think to have it highlighted as a change is an improvement. It is key to sending a strong message.

Just on that same reference, has the government received any advice that this minor change would actually better guide the decision-making within the judicial system?

Yes.

Minister, can a copy of that advice be published so that the Victorian public can better understand the government’s thinking?

The government does not intend to waive legal privilege, so therefore I cannot provide that, Mr Mulholland.

Can the minister explain the government’s thinking?

Mr Mulholland, the drafting in relation to the bill states the guiding principles which will sit now above. They are:

The Parliament recognises the overarching importance of maximising, to the greatest extent possible, the safety of the community and persons affected by crime.

I think it is important to add that additional layer on top which makes it the first and paramount consideration before all others. I think it does provide greater clarity for the judiciary in their decision-making.

Minister, in clause 4 (2) of the bill, why hasn’t the government prefaced those other factors by stating ‘subject to subclause 1AA’ to make it absolutely explicit that the safety of the community is a paramount factor and the other factors are subsidiary?

I think those other factors are also important principles of our justice system, such as taking into account the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty, promoting fairness, transparency and consistency in bail decision-making, and promoting public understanding of bail practices and procedures. I think they are all principles that still have a role, but clearly we are saying that Parliament recognises the overarching importance of maximising, to the greatest extent possible, the safety of the community and persons affected by crime, elevating community safety and victims to the top. But those other principles are still important principles to maintain in the Bail Act, understanding that bail is there to protect the community, but in the use of these powers they are done fairly and proportionally.

Does this specific change have any cost implications for the government?

In terms of the costs in this change, I think what the Premier has already discussed is that we are expecting an increase in the remand population and will see some of these repeat high-harm offenders appropriately end up in a custodial setting. So there may be a cost at that back end initially. We might see some more appearances in court potentially, but I think they are much more difficult to quantify, because some of these people are already appearing in the courts and it is just that they are obviously getting off under the current settings, which are not working. That is why we are making tougher tests to ensure that more of them are captured and put into a custodial setting.

Have you advocated or has the Attorney advocated for public service staff that might interact with these bail changes? Obviously there is going to be a lot of work that is exempt from the government’s current Silver review, given the increased capacity and pressure that is going to be on the justice system.

I know the Silver review is outside the remit of this committee stage, but what I will say is I think the Treasurer has been very clear that the goal of that is not to focus on frontline services. But in relation to this bill, the Premier has been clear that we will adequately support the implementation of this bill. It is always difficult to assess demand before legislation goes through Parliament and is applied through the courts, but it is clear that we will see more people end up in custody as remandees.

Just on clause 8, new section 30B, ‘Offence to commit indictable offence while on bail’, the bill reinstates the offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. Why does it have no impact on raising the test for bail?

Mr Mulholland, if you are referring to the double uplift that existed in the 2018 legislation, we have no intention to return there. We did see a disproportionate impact on people that were effectively committing low-level offences and quite tragic consequences of those reforms. So we have no intention, not in this bill nor in any subsequent bill, to return the double uplift that previously existed, which I understand that the opposition is proposing.

I think you might be a bit confused. The government has said that it will propose this in the second tranche previously, to reinstate the offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail in terms of the raising of the tests. This is not doubling up; this is the raising of the test.

I was just clarifying that. We are not confused. We are uplifting the compelling reasons in the second tranche, so it will not be going to exceptional reasons but to compelling reasons. In the past when there was that double uplift it was going up to the exceptional circumstances test, which is a much tougher test. We are not going to be returning there, but in the second tranche we are going to be uplifting to compelling reasons.

Why is this new offence not a schedule 2 offence, as it was before Labor abolished it?

It is because of the disproportionate impact we saw with the previous bail act, in that iteration, and that is why we do not intend to return to that position.

The justice system is used to applying an uplifted bail test when a person commits an indictable offence whilst on bail, so why is the government delaying the implementation of this as a consequence?

In terms of the implementation and the second tranche of it, I have previously answered this. There is an element of making sure that we have appropriate guardrails, safeguards and caveats in place to make sure it is proportionally applied and drafted, but also safely implemented. We are even with this bail bill expecting an increase in the remand population and in custodial settings. Across the criminal justice system it will mean a different level of workload to ensure that we space it out and give the staff that work in our criminal justice system the time to adjust and plan to have the right mix. As I said, in our custodial settings at the moment we have about 40 per cent remandees. We are expecting that to significantly increase as a proportion. There are a lot of decisions to be made about the placement and treatment of people as they enter the system to make sure it is done as safely as possible.

You voted against this uplift in our amendment to my bill. Why aren’t you doing the uplift as part of this bill? Why wait?

The Premier is committed to uplifting the offence of committing an indictable offence on bail, but that will be in the second bill. I want to be as clear as possible. The Attorney-General’s office and department will need time to make sure appropriate safeguards and caveats are developed and to ensure that that uplift is proportional. They commit to undertaking significant consultation as part of the second package.

I will just refer you to the schedule offences, part 2, clause 12. Why has robbery not been listed as an offence under this section?

Mr Mulholland, we are elevating armed robbery, aggravated burglary, home invasions and carjackings to the toughest test. It is important to state that these are the offences that we have seen, and the crime statistics tell us, have had the most significant growth, and it is important that our bill is targeted to those offences.

Robbery has not been listed as an offence and, from my understanding, neither has burglary. Would I be correct that it is only armed robbery and armed burglary that would be considered offences?

That is right, Mr Mulholland.

Minister, we obviously saw the crime stats today, and I can only look to our community in, say, the City of Hume where theft from a motor vehicle is up 57 per cent. Would this be classified in the schedule of offences, given that it is not necessarily armed?

If it co-occurred with an aggravated burglary, it would fall straightaway into the highest bail test, where people will need to prove exceptional circumstances to be granted bail, but theft alone would not qualify.

Just to confirm again: theft from a motor vehicle which is not aggravated would not result in an offence under this schedule?

Yes.

Wow. Minister, isn’t it correct that by not including robbery and burglary as schedule 2 offences, the presumption of bail still exists for these offences?

Can you just repeat that question?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, isn’t it correct that by not including robbery and burglary as schedule 2 offences, the presumption of bail still exists for these offences?

Enver ERDOGAN: Theft of a motor vehicle co-occurring with dangerous conduct is going to be in schedule 2 – that means if they steal a car and go on a dangerous drive, so to speak. But more broadly, you are correct that they will not be at schedule 1 or 2, as standalone.

Does the government not consider burglary and robbery serious?

I think they are very serious offences, but at the same time we are seeing that the highest level of harm is being caused with the aggravated nature of burglaries and armed robberies. We have heard too many harrowing stories of home invasions and carjackings where people are directly involved, where the person is directly affected and it is quite traumatic. What we have tried to focus on, in having a really targeted bill here, is at that really high level of harm. Those other offences you are talking about are very serious, and they are concerning to our community – I know, because many of my constituents tell me about the big effect they have had on them, but clearly this bill is targeted at the highest level. That is why it is the armed robbery, aggravated burglary, carjacking and home invasion, of which we have seen way too many in our state.

Minister, you admit that it is a concern for your community. I get the same constituents contacting me about this in our community. We have seen, as I said, a 57 per cent increase in theft from a motor vehicle in our community, which is having a big impact on people. Yes, I agree, obviously the aggravated thefts, robberies and home invasions are having a big impact on people as well, but no less serious are other thefts, robberies and burglaries. Why is the government opposed to making bail applicants satisfy the show-compelling-reason test for robbery and burglary offences?

We are adding a number of crimes to schedule 2 in particular, one of which is related to the theft of a motor vehicle – that is, those certain car-theft-related offences linked to dangerous driving, where we see there is, again, a big potential for not only causing great harm to others on the road but also harm to themselves. That is what we are targeting here; that is why that is in schedule 2. This bill is also about targeting repeat offenders, and that statistic is quite scary, the statistic on the growth in motor vehicle thefts we have seen of late. That is why this bill and in particular the second bill will have a strong effect on those people that repeatedly offend.

So by not adding robbery and burglary to those schedule 2 offences, is the government not concerned about the number of robberies and burglaries?

Mr Mulholland, we are concerned. We are concerned with what we are seeing, and that is why we are focused on making sure that aggravated burglaries, home invasions, carjackings and armed robberies face the highest tariff, but also in schedule 2, that car thefts which are linked to other forms of dangerous driving are on schedule 2. That means that they will have the compelling test straightaway, but if people keep repeatedly offending, there will be consequences. There will be opportunities to raise those offences to compelling reasons, but with the greater focus on community safety our goal is that when people deliberately breach the rules and breach their bail conditions, they will be held to account, and we are providing the courts with the tools to be able to implement that.

So you are concerned, just not concerned enough to add them to the schedule 2 offences. I will go to the changes to the Summary Offences Act 1966, reference part (3), clause 14(2). New section 49F(2) goes into conduct conditions of bail undertakings. The existing Bail Act outlines one conduct condition, namely, that the accused not consume alcohol or use a drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 without lawful authorisation. Is contravention of this condition an offence under the new section, or is it exempt?

Mr Mulholland, I might kindly ask for you to just repeat that question.

No worries. I am sure all in this chamber would be interested in me repeating it. New section 49F(2) goes into conduct conditions of bail undertakings. The existing Bail Act outlines a conduct condition, namely, that the accused not consume alcohol or use a drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 without lawful authorisation. Is contravention of this condition an offence under the new section, or is it exempt?

My understanding is that the only exception to the offence of breach of bail is if a person fails to attend bail support services. I will refer you to clause 14 and new section 49F(2).

Can the minister provide a full list of bail support services which are exempt from this new offence of contravening certain conduct conditions of bail undertakings?

There are many bail services, but I do not have on hand a comprehensive list. When people on bail there could be orders in relation to alcohol and drug treatment, there could be orders in terms of mental health and there are many, many service providers. I do not have at hand a comprehensive list to provide unfortunately.

The offence of breaching bail conditions used to result in an uplifted test for remaining on bail. Why has the government reintroduced the offence but without consequences?

I strongly reject your characterisation of what we have done. It is a summary offence like it was before, and people face an additional potential three months imprisonment for a breach of that nature.

Isn’t this an example of how the government’s claim that these are the toughest bail laws in the country is not correct? This provision is not even as tough as the bail laws that existed 12 months ago.

I was waiting for this question. I think that the Shadow Attorney-General may have been confused when he stated that these offences were previously indictable offences. They never were; they were summary offences, which can have consequences of up to three months imprisonment. Therefore we would say this is returning it back to what it was. This is consistent with what existed previously.

Just for reference, in part 3, clause 14, new section 49F(3) exempts children from this new offence using the definition of ‘child’ from the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 that places the age of a child as above 10 and under 18. Why have children between these ages been exempt when we know that youth offenders are driving a significant portion of the crime wave?

What we are doing with this bill is improving community safety, and we are reintroducing the offence of breach of bail conditions as it was in 2018. It has never applied before to children, for a whole range of reasons. Our government does understand that youth offending is an issue, and that is why as Minister for Youth Justice I will share that in late April we will have electronic monitoring to be able to supervise young people and provide the wraparound support to address their offending behaviour in a more comprehensive fashion whilst they are out on bail. But I think it is appropriate that we go back to what the rules were in 2018 and the settings in relation to this provision.

What I will say is that we are holding young people to account, and it is about being proportionate. The Bail Act has a separate section, section 3B, which focuses on the application to children, of which I have joint coverage with the Attorney-General, and I think we understand the need for a nuanced approach for people so young.

Minister, why do people under 18 face no criminal sanction for breaching bail conditions? Doesn’t it send the wrong message that a 17-year-old can repeatedly breach conditions of bail and not commit an offence at all?

I think it is important to understand that young people’s response to some of these measures will be quite different to that of adults. That is why I said the Bail Act, in terms of committing an indictable offence on bail, will capture the conduct that the community is concerned about. It depends on what offences they commit whilst on bail. If it is the carjacking and aggravated burglary that we are seeing, then they will face a higher test, an exceptional circumstances test. But for the lower level offending, or breaches so to speak – and a breach could mean, in some instances, turning up late to appointments – we feel for young people in particular that would be a disproportionate response.

The last question for now. I do not have a clause to refer to, but in reintroducing the offence of breaching bail conditions, why have you ultimately decided to weaken it, given contravention will not result in the offender facing a stronger bail test?

Just for clarity, as I stated earlier, we are not going back to a situation where there will be an uplift on these types of offences, but people do face the consequences of an additional charge, the summary offence charge, which does mean the potential for an additional three months imprisonment.

Minister, I am asking my first question on this bill on behalf of Aunty Donna Nelson, the mother of the late Veronica Nelson, a proud Gunditjmara, Dja Dja Wurrung, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta woman, who tragically and unnecessarily lost her life in police custody as a result of Victoria’s previous bail laws. Aunty Donna asks:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Many of your current ministry looked into my eyes and apologised for the circumstances that led to my daughter’s death and promised never again. You have now said that the reforms implemented in response to the coronial inquest into her passing were a mistake. Would my daughter have been granted bail under the proposed amendments?

Thank you, Ms Copsey, for that question. My thoughts are with Aunty Donna. The previous Attorney-General, not I, had the opportunity to meet Aunty Donna in Shepparton, where she discussed what happened. We here were able to reflect on what had occurred to Veronica. I think it is important to delineate this bill from the bail settings of 2018, and I think Mr Mulholland asked me a question that prompted a response about the fact that it is not our intention to have a double uplift, which applied to Veronica at that time, about bail decisions. They would still be decisions of the court. But in Veronica’s situation, we will not have the double uplift that she was subjected to in this legislation. The sole focus of this legislation is on improving community safety, in particular in relation to those offences we are seeing causing significant harm to Victorians.

Minister, my next question is also from Aunty Donna Nelson, the mother of the late Veronica Nelson, who would have been celebrating her daughter’s 43rd birthday this week. She asks:

How are we meant to trust in your government when I sat opposite so many of the Ministers here today, while your crocodile tears fell, to have you turn around and walk back the necessary reforms that would have saved my daughter’s life?

Ms Gray-Barberio, with all due respect, I refer you to my answer to Ms Copsey’s question. We are not returning back to the double uplift that existed in 2018. This bill is focused on the high-level repeat offending we are seeing. The offending that we have introduced and elevated to schedule 1 is a good example of those types of offending where we are seeing significant growth. In terms of ministers, I know that the previous Attorney-General was quite sincere in the fact that we are never going to return to that situation, and Premier Allan has reconfirmed that commitment.

Minister, I have some questions in relation to the guiding principles and community safety. We have heard from Aboriginal community controlled organisations who fought hard for the 2023 bail reforms, who now feel like the government is turning its back on them. How can the government possibly square this bail approach with its commitment to a treaty for Victoria and self-determination for Aboriginal peoples?

I think our government is committed to improving community safety across the board for all Victorians. In my previous portfolio I was the Minister for Victim Support, and Aboriginal people are disproportionately victims of crime themselves. This is about protecting all Victorians, including Aboriginal Victorians. But where people enter into the criminal justice system – and we want to keep as many Aboriginal people out of the criminal justice system as possible – we will work together with our Aboriginal partners to ensure we have the safest possible systems.

In my portfolio, in corrections, we have had a longstanding agreement and partnership with the Aboriginal Justice Caucus, who provide us with guidance and also lead many of the improvements for Aboriginal people in the system. Of course we do not want to see more Aboriginal people in custodial settings, but where people do make contact with the criminal justice system it is important that we provide support. As I said, in my portfolios we have Aboriginal wellbeing officers, we have an Aboriginal healing place and in the women’s system we have improvements for Aboriginal places, but that is not the place where Aboriginal people need to be. I think many of those commitments that governments have made are outside the criminal justice system, and they start at the beginning with early childhood and go all the way through the education system and across health and many other portfolios where the government has a commitment and will continue to work with Aboriginal people and move towards self-determination.

Just to follow up to that question, just to clarify, does the government believe that these reforms are compatible with their commitment to treaty?

Our government is committed to community safety and is committed to treaty, and they go hand in hand. Aboriginal people are disproportionately victims of crime, and that needs to end.

Minister, the Premier has stated that the safety of women and children is part of the reason for these amendments, but for Aboriginal women and children, prisons are inherently dangerous places, as you have just acknowledged yourself, where hundreds of Aboriginal people have died in police and prison custody. What actions will the government take to ensure these changes do not lead to more Aboriginal deaths in custody or put Aboriginal people in harm’s way in police and prison cells?

Definitely that is a focus of the work we are doing. I can probably reflect more on the work within the corrections space than the police, as the Minister for Corrections. We are focused on a more culturally safe system, not only for Aboriginal people but for all prisoners. In particular a specific focus has been on the historical disadvantage and historical over-representation of Aboriginal people, which still continues today. Within the correctional setting we have invested in Aboriginal wellbeing officers and appropriately cultural spaces at all our facilities, which we are working on together with the Aboriginal Justice Caucus. We have Aboriginal-led programs that we are working, and we are even working on additional programs in this space. But obviously the real goal should be, and I think this is a goal of our community and of our government, less Aboriginal people in custody and less Aboriginal people coming into contact with the criminal justice system in the first place. Custody is at the end of the road. But in my system we are focused on working with our Aboriginal partners to make all our facilities as culturally safe as possible.

Just to follow up to that, again to clarify, I understand that the government is undertaking work in this space already, which you have just listed off, but what action will the government take in relation to these reforms that have been proven to disproportionately impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?

I think the Premier has been clear. We will make sure that there is support and in particular that these systems are adequately resourced. I think that is the commitment we give. In Victoria I have been proud to talk about the relatively lower incarceration rates of Aboriginal people in our youth justice system compared to any other jurisdiction for Aboriginal young people, for example, and in the adult system as well. Obviously there is always more work to be done, but I think the Premier has given a commitment to adequately resource these systems so that we can make sure that we can support everyone that enters into our system.

I just want to be really clear, and I am genuinely not trying to be difficult: has the Premier made a commitment to adequately resource in relation to these reforms or do you believe the Premier will?

The Premier has made a commitment to support our systems and to scale up as required, and part of that is making sure that the supports that we have in custody are available to support the new people that will enter our system.

Minister, you spoke earlier about consulting with Aboriginal community partners. Can you please expand on which Aboriginal community partners you have consulted with for this bill?

The community safety review was led by the Attorney-General’s office and also the Minister for Police’s office. I will get some clarification, but I know the Aboriginal Justice Caucus reached out. I know that the Premier met with the First Peoples’ Assembly. I understand that the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service met with the Attorney-General. I will see if there are any others to add to the list.

Thank you for waiting, Ms Gray-Barberio. I can confirm those three.

Thank you, Minister, for your earlier response regarding Veronica’s situation. In response to that question, you referred to and relied on the fact that the government is not reinstituting double uplift. However, getting rid of bail offences was an explicit recommendation of the coronial inquest into the death of Veronica Nelson. I would like clarity on reintroducing bail offences through this bill. How do you reconcile that with the recommendations? Do you intend to go against the recommendations of the coronial inquest?

The bill is focused on improving community safety, and it is clear that the current settings are not working. The crime statistics were out today. What we have is a situation in the youth space, because obviously I pay close attention to it as the Minister for Youth Justice, where we have a declining number of children committing offences. That is a positive outcome. That is because of the work we have done in early intervention, diversion and the work we have done throughout different systems of government, whether that be in early childhood education through to the education system through to the health system. But with a decrease in the amount of young people committing criminal offences we are seeing an increase in the amount of offences. We have got a smaller cohort of high-level offenders – well, high-level offending from a smaller cohort of young people. This bill is focused on that cohort. It is about making sure if you are doing repeat, high-level harm and offending, you will be captured by this legislation and face a tougher test when you apply for bail. I think Victorians expect us to do that. The Bail Act is designed to focus on balancing those rights between community safety and, obviously, the right to the presumption of innocence. That is why we have a bail act, and that is what we are trying to achieve today. It is not about targeting the low-level offenders; it is the people that are doing the carjackings and the aggravated burglaries et cetera.

Thank you, Minister, but forgive me: the changes you are instituting are not just targeted at 300 young people – who, by the way, deserve to have their rights respected in our criminal justice system as well. These bail offences will apply to Victorians across the state. How on earth can you claim that reinstituting sweeping bail offences that we know have contributed to deaths in custody is a targeted response?

Ms Copsey, with all due respect I point to the additional schedule 1 and 2 offences that we have listed. We have been explicit on which type of offending we are focusing on, but overarching is the focus on community safety in terms of the principles that are needed. It will capture many more people, and some appropriately so, because I think the community to an extent has seen that people are getting bailed and repeatedly offending, and that is causing quite considerable harm in our communities. As the government for all Victorians, we have a responsibility to act.

With respect, I asked specifically about bail offences in that question. You did not touch it. Can you please respond? How is reinstituting sweeping bail offences – committing an indictable offence while on bail and contravening bail conditions, which apply across the board, not just to 300 people – a targeted response?

The Premier and the Attorney-General have assured us that in terms of the work for the second package we will make a focus on ensuring that the low-level offenders are not captured and that there are appropriate safeguards so vulnerable cohorts are protected. These reforms are focused on broader community safety, but in particular those schedule 1 and 2 offences.

You are going to have to excuse my memory, because crim law was a long time ago for me, but theft is a schedule 2 offence, is it not?

No, it is not.

Katherine COPSEY: I will revise my question. Is theft an indictable offence?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, it is an indictable offence.

If I recall correctly the circumstances of Veronica’s case, it was as a result of theft as an indictable offence while on bail that saw Veronica locked up in custody, and that was what contributed to her death. Please can you answer the question that I asked originally about whether the provisions that you are enacting in this bill would lead someone who is in Veronica’s circumstances to be locked up on bail?

I think community safety is the overarching obligation of bail. I do not want to relitigate that case in particular, because there were many errors in relation to Veronica’s death. Some were failings in the custodial settings, not just in the court process or the law enforcement process. There are many errors that contributed to her death. In terms of a scenario where someone commits theft a number of times, they will be potentially pushed to a higher test, the compelling reasons test, but I might just get some more clarification about the specifics of your question.

Just to clarify, in Veronica’s situation she faced a double uplift, which meant that she was subject to the exceptional circumstances test. In this legislation we are not returning to that. What we are returning to is the potential for someone to go to the compelling reasons test, the lower test, if they repeat. I will also add that under section 3A of the Bail Act, which you would be familiar with, there are considerations for Aboriginal people. We expanded them in 2023, and we are not going back on that.

Minister, can you please define for me ‘community safety’?

It is not defined in the act, but you would appreciate, I think, that it is people’s welfare in their homes and in the broader community. It is their physical and mental wellbeing in our society. Community safety, especially in light of the legislation before us, is their sense of welfare in their own homes in particular and when they are out in public and when they are out in the community. That is the way I would envisage community safety.

How will adding community safety as an overarching guiding principle influence bail decision makers when deciding whether to grant or refuse bail, in practice?

I think in practice the expected outcome is that greater weight would be given to the potential of the alleged offender and if there were risks to the broader community if they were released back into the community. I would say there would a greater weight on the likelihood of that person offending whilst out on bail. That is what I would expect would be the outcome. If that was interpreted in that manner, then what we would see is more people remanded as a result, because greater weight would be placed on the potential impacts on the broader community and not on the impact on the alleged offender.

Minister, is it the government’s intention that this overarching principle also guide police decision-making, and if so, how?

Yes, it will guide police. I might go to the box in relation to how.

I think the police will apply that. On how they will apply that, I think there is always an operational aspect, and I guess they will update their guidelines. But I think it is fair to say, in light of the new laws, that police may seek to remand more people. Law enforcement do have a lot of discretionary powers, and they may seek to remand more people based on the new laws, under which they have a greater prospect of succeeding.

Minister, with the amendment to the guiding principles and the emphasis on community safety, can the government confirm that this amendment is not intended to affect the operation and consideration of section 3A of the Bail Act by bail decision makers? Section 3A sets out mandatory considerations to be taken into account that arise due to a person’s Aboriginality. Can you confirm that the overarching principle does not affect bail decision makers’ consideration of section 3A requirements?

I think the overarching principles apply to the whole act, but 3A will still have operation and those considerations will still be a factor in decision-making. In terms of the overarching principles, they apply throughout the act, including to children.

So despite those considerations being mandatory and set out in law, you intend for those considerations to be changed by the change in emphasis that the government is introducing with the overarching community safety focus?

I think the intent is that they apply the same way they do now. The bill obviously has an overarching principle that has been elevated, but in terms of the way those provisions work, whether it be 3A or 3B, they interact with other sections of the act as they do now. But yes, there is a greater weight overall to community safety in the bill.

Minister, the Victorian government’s policing budget has almost doubled from $2.4 billion to $4.2 billion over the last decade, and the number of uniformed police officers has increased from 13,000 to 16,000, yet the government tells us that we are in the midst of a crisis of crime. How can the government justify this increase in spending when it is clear that locking people up and additional police are not an effective response to community safety?

Victoria Police play an important role in keeping our community safe. They have made record amounts of arrests, and I think their role has been key in protecting our community, so I want to thank Victoria Police for the work they do. We do not apologise for investing in Victoria Police and will continue to do so. But in terms of broader community safety, police also play a role in terms of being a deterrent of crime. We see that in communities, and that is why as members of Parliament we always get requests for a more visible police presence. There is definitely a major role for frontline community safety initiatives being led by police, and we make no apologies for those investments.

Minister, there are a few questions in this one, so I will go through them. They are all related. In a very tight fiscal environment, where is the evidence that spending on police is effective to reduce crime? Minister Carbines is quoted as saying that VicPol is being resourced to provide programs that address the root causes of offending. What are these programs and what evaluation has been undertaken of these programs? If there is no evaluation, on what basis has the government made the decision to defund community crime programs while continuing to increase resourcing for police?

The government does invest in a range of diversionary programs in a number of portfolios that are focused on a mix of targeted services in terms of alternative education pathways, skills and programs. Police do play an important role in the criminal justice system. There is a youth crime prevention early intervention program that has been very successful, but we do have other services as well. There is the youth support service for Aboriginal young people, with 1200 people having had access to that. We have got close to 500 people getting youth justice community support. I talked about, during question time, multisystemic therapy. That is more of a youth justice program that assists over 70 families, but there is a lot of work being done together with police.

We do want to address the root causes of crime, and some of that work is crime prevention and diverting young people away from the criminal justice system in the first place. There has been quite a bit of publicity about the role that police play in educating people and giving them cautions and the success that has had. I must admit some people have been critical of it, but it has been a success in keeping young people out of the criminal justice system. Usually police are the first point of call when there is an incident in our community, and we need to respect the role they play there. They do play a role in enforcing the laws, but they have a lot of discretionary power to encourage positive behaviours in young people, and we see that every day. The cautions program is an example of the good work that police have done in diverting young people away from greater interaction with the criminal justice system. We do not want to see young people interact with the criminal justice system. That is why we have a number of programs and continue to invest in youth crime prevention but also youth offending early intervention programs across government, and we will continue to do that work.

You listed some of the programs. Just following up on the question – and I understand there were a few in my own question – has an evaluation been undertaken of these programs and their effectiveness?

Many of the programs we engage in are evaluated, and they are quite successful. Recently I did a bit of an audit of some of the youth justice programs in my portfolio, and we found them very effective for the young people they could reach in terms of addressing some of the behavioural issues and providing support not only to them but to their families. We know when young people display offending behaviour, there is usually an underlying cause, and we are strongly committed to resolving those underlying issues and supporting young people through that process. But police are part of that, and especially the crime prevention initiatives that are led by police. There is of course more work to be done in this space, and we will continue to work with partners to do that work.

Just to follow up on the programs, obviously there has been a big focus throughout this debate and in the committee process on youth, and they are the programs you have listed, but this bill also impacts and poses risks to adults. What programs are there for adults?

Yes, that is right. I think a lot of the focus is on young people, but there are programs tailored to adults as well in crime prevention. There are also a lot of programs that are not directly criminal – alcohol and drug programs or mental health programs – that support people out in the community. What we find is that a lot of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system do have these underlying issues, and we see it through the admissions to corrections when we do an initial assessment of people. We find very high levels of mental health illness and psychological issues. We will see very poor health outcomes in people that enter the corrections system. Work is being done across the board, in health, education and many different portfolios of government that do target both adults and young people. We will continue to do that work and make those investments.

But in terms of police’s role, I want to be clear that it is not ‘and/or’. I think it is important that we continue to do both – support law enforcement to arrest and hold to account people causing high levels of harm, and at the same time try to address the offending behaviour in the community and make sure that people get the support they need and we can address those needs before those issues escalate to high levels of harm.

The government has also said that these laws are targeted, but targeted laws would only address instances of people being bailed for serious violent offending. The government knows that reintroducing bail offences will sweep up people accused of low-level offending, which is why the Premier has publicly stated that remand numbers will significantly rise. I note that you have also said the same throughout this committee process. Given the inclusion of nonviolent offences that do not endanger community safety, can the government explain what the purpose of reintroducing these broad bail offences is?

I would say that the bill before us today is squarely focused on targeting the high-harm repeat offences that evidence shows people are committing whilst on bail. The community expects us to do this work, because people are repeatedly causing harm. We especially see this with aggravated burglaries and in particular carjacking offences. A very high proportion of those repeat offenders are actually committing offences whilst on bail. That is why there is an elevation for them. But I also think many people need to understand that if you are granted bail, you need to comply with the rules, and there needs to be consequences, even for others. Bail is not just something people should take for granted. They should comply with those rules whilst the initial charge goes through the criminal justice system. Our expectation is that people will follow the rules that the courts have given them. It is an important factor for maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system.

Minister, sweeping up people accused of low-level offending who do not pose a risk to community safety with the bail offences will unnecessarily clog up courts, doing the exact opposite of keeping the community safe. Courts will not be able to finalise matters quickly, and as has occurred previously, many people will again be released after time served with no rehabilitative program provided and no supervision going back into the community. There is substantial evidence indicating the criminogenic nature of periods on remand. What evidence does the government have that bringing back bail offences is going to have any positive benefit for community safety? Evidence please, Minister.

To that I would say that there is evidence that people are getting bail and reoffending out in the community. As I said in response to the previous question, a high number of people that are committing these offences, such as carjackings and aggravated burglaries, are in fact on bail. Sometimes 30, 40 per cent of these offences are being committed by people on bail. What I would say is that the community needs to be kept safe, and for these people to stop repeating their offending they need to be placed in a remand centre so that the community is kept safe from them.

You have restated the problem, but you have not provided any of the evidence that I asked for. I will ask you again: what evidence is there that sweeping people up on bail offences and warehousing them in jail avoids the criminogenic effect of that? Isn’t that going to supercharge reoffending, not address it?

I need to make it clear that if you are charged with a bail offence and found guilty, there are consequences, but that does not necessarily mean you will be placed into remand. People are at times found guilty of breaching their bail conditions but are granted bail again. Not every person that breaches their bail conditions will be automatically remanded. But in terms of access to programs whilst people are placed in custody or on remand, in youth justice one of the changes that I was proud to make to the Youth Justice Act 2024 last year was that criminogenic programs will be available to all young people upon entry into custodial settings. It is quite common, especially for the younger cohort, to be sentenced effectively to time served, so they are back out. In our youth justice system I am proud to say at both our Parkville and our Cherry Creek facilities our young people have access to criminogenic programs to address their underlying issues. Many of those issues are issues that are going undiagnosed out in the community, and it is the same for people in the adult system.

People are coming into our system with major health issues that are not being addressed in the community. Help may theoretically be available in the community but the first time they get attention or assessment is when they enter into our system. For many people it is a break from that cycle that they are facing out in the community. Not for all – I am not going to pretend that that is for all – but we have seen, especially in the youth justice system, examples of where this break has been crucial to addressing the underlying behaviours in young people. In the youth justice system you have access to criminogenic programs from day one effectively. Once they are in, they get assessed and they get access to programs and support. In the adult system it is a bit different, but people are assessed. The goal is to keep people out of the criminal justice system at the front end before they address their behaviours out in the community. Many people have theoretical support in the community but they might not necessarily take that opportunity, especially the younger cohort, so when they enter into our system it is the first time they get some of these issues addressed.

Minister, Australia has endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Victoria has an obligation under this United Nations declaration to consult and cooperate in good faith with Aboriginal people to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting laws and policies which impact them. Why is this government flagrantly ignoring Aboriginal people’s United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples right to free, prior and informed consent in adopting this bill?

I think I have been clear a number of times that this bill is about protecting the whole community, including Aboriginal Victorians. Aboriginal people are 2½ times more likely to be victims of crime than the broader community. In terms of protections for all Victorians, irrespective of their background, that is what this bill is focused on, ensuring that people that commit high-level repeat offending are held to account. I think we will continue to work with the Aboriginal community. We have a commitment to treaty – the first jurisdiction in the nation to do that work. We have a commitment to self-determination for Aboriginal people. Obviously as part of that partnership it does mean we do consult with the Aboriginal community. But that does not necessarily mean we always agree with their views, because ultimately we have a broader responsibility to all Victorians, and that is what we are doing today.

The Yoorrook for Justice report made specific, detailed and reasonable recommendations to amend the Bail Act 1977 to reduce Aboriginal people’s contact with the criminal legal system and protect Aboriginal people’s lives. Why is your government ignoring the recommendations of Australia’s first truth-telling commission and passing laws that will make this state more dangerous for Aboriginal people?

I just want to take this opportunity to thank the Yoorrook Justice Commission for their report into the criminal justice system. I think many of the recommendations they made made improvements across the board, and some we are seeing are benefiting all people in the criminal justice system. One of the recommendations made was around making phone calls cheaper in custody. I know it was not just Yoorrook that was saying that; a number of people in this chamber were strong advocates for that push. That was something that came out of Yoorrook that we have been able to implement, but obviously there are others in areas for the Attorney-General and police. Following Yoorrook, we did make changes to 3A considerations, expanding them in line with what Yoorrook had suggested or based on the findings of Yoorrook. We are focused on community safety, and this is a bill to cover all Victorians.

Minister, I just want to pick up some questions in relation to Yoorrook as well. The now Treasurer but then Attorney-General stated to the Yoorrook Justice Commission that:

It is an unacceptable reality that the number of Aboriginal people charged by police, held on remand, sentenced to custodial settings, and not released on parole, has steadily increased.

How is this bill, which will worsen this unacceptable reality, compatible with what the government learned at the Yoorrook Justice Commission?

I think the Yoorrook process did acknowledge the fact that Aboriginal people find themselves disproportionately in contact with the criminal justice system and then, as a consequence, in custodial settings, but it also was quite informative for the fact that Aboriginal people come into contact with the criminal justice system because of the impact that colonisation has had on Aboriginal people and the disadvantage they find themselves at in our society. It is an issue that I always face because obviously corrections is at the end of the cycle; it is once everyone has gone through and all the other systems have failed. I think it is difficult to say that these issues about contact with the criminal justice system and law enforcement and then ultimately who is in custody are issues that need to be addressed before people display their offending behaviour. If people create a high level of harm in the community, there are going to be consequences. That is what this bill is really about. It is about recognising that there are a group of people that are creating significant harm to Victorians, irrespective of their background, and there need to be consequences to meet community expectations.

Minister, I am just not totally sure what you mean by that response. The question is how is it compatible with what was heard at the Yoorrook Justice Commission? If it is not compatible, does the government disagree with what the former AG said?

I think you would need to ask the former Attorney-General about that. I do not want to reflect on her comments. I think it is clear that Aboriginal people are over-represented in the criminal justice system. Why are they over-represented in the criminal justice system? There may be many reasons, one of which, Aboriginal stakeholders say, is the way the discretionary powers within the justice system operate. That is one reason that Aboriginal people say, but I also believe it is because of the position that Aboriginal people find themselves in in our community. That is the impact of colonisation and the disadvantage that we see in Aboriginal communities. I think the policies that have been implement over 200 years are not going to be fixed with a single piece of legislation. This legislation is for all Victorians, and it is about community safety. That is the goal today. The goal is to make sure that we have settings that appropriately respond to high levels of harm caused. That is why I focus on particularly the schedule 1 and 2 additions we have made. They are the offences we are seeing and the statistics show are increasing in large numbers. We are talking about some of these offences increasing 500 to 600 per cent over the last 10 years, and the community, to be frank, has had enough. They are expecting governments to respond, and that is what we are doing.

Minister, just speaking about colonisation: how is this bill balancing Aboriginal safety and over-representation in the justice system and the colonial agenda that this bill is pursuing?

I think this bill is focused on balancing the right of any accused to the presumption of innocence with the community harm risk. That is what bail legislation is about, fundamentally; it is about balancing those. For some offences there is a high test to be granted bail, but that does not mean you will not get bail. Some high-level offenders do get bail, but the point is that it is about where you put the settings. What we are saying is for certain offences you should be compelled, or sometimes there should be exceptional circumstances, and there should be a high test, because the level of potential harm to the broader community outweighs the potential detriment to that individual.

I think that is what it is about, putting the community interest more. It is about rebalancing it. As the Premier said, it is just factual that the current settings are not working. We are seeing in our communities that the balance is not fair at the moment, in terms of the outcomes. We are seeing people committing high-level-harm offences, effectively being continually bailed. It is just not good enough, and we are going to have to balance that out. That affects all Victorians, including Aboriginal Victorians.

Minister, does the government agree that funding Aboriginal community controlled organisations and community services to provide bail support programs that help people on bail to address drivers of offending are necessary to achieve the government’s overarching aim of community safety, and what programs will the government fund to ensure this?

That is a really good question. I think that definitely investment in Aboriginal-led programs is what works. In my space this work is ongoing, whether in custody or out in the community. But I think we do need it. One of the programs I am really proud of is more in the South Sudanese community space, but there are equally programs in the Aboriginal community that come to mind, where they are led by lived experience and by mentors with a similar cultural background that can understand the issues that Aboriginal people face. In my portfolio there are a number of these programs that I have seen work. We are going to continue to invest in them because they are important and they are vital, and I think the Premier has talked about that work being ongoing and making sure we have adequate resources to implement it. In my system we have Aboriginal wellbeing officers, but there are many, many roles in the community as well that we as Victorians invest in. No government has invested more in Aboriginal-led programs than the Allan Labor government.

Minister, today is Close the Gap Day. How can the government justify a bill that will undermine its obligations under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap?

Dr Mansfield, I do appreciate your question, but I think there is a similar theme here. I think the reason why we are here today is that we are seeing a higher level of harm being caused in the community by people who whilst out on bail are reoffending, and they are reoffending to an extent that is just frankly unacceptable. This is not about one community or another. This is about all Victorians, and that is why we are focused on community safety. Our commitments to Closing the Gap remain, and we will continue to build on what we have done. No government in the history of this state has done more to work with Aboriginal people than the Allan Labor government.

Can you explain to me what impact this bill will have on Closing the Gap targets 10 and 11, which relate to reducing incarceration of First Nations adults and young people respectively? Can you explain what impact you expect this to have on those particular targets?

I think the impact will be similar to what we will see in the broader community. We will see an increase in people incarcerated. Aboriginal people are already over-represented in our youth justice system and in our adult correctional system, and therefore that will mean that there will be an increase in that over-representation in the system.

I have to say it is pretty astounding that that is okay. But anyway, I will leave that commentary. You mentioned before that being incarcerated is the end point. You really see this as the end point of the result of colonisation on First Nations people. But if you look at the system, for example, many First Nations women are in prison on very low-level offences like shoplifting necessities and unpaid fines. You have said that there are a whole lot of things that have gone wrong in the first place. Why is it that there is such over-representation for such low-level offences for First Nations women in our criminal justice system, and how can you say that the criminal justice system itself is not inherently racist and driving that over-representation? How can you justify a bill that will only exacerbate this?

Dr Mansfield, just respectfully, the amount of people in for low-level offending within the women’s system is not as high as it once was; it is actually quite a small number, since the changes we made. Consequently, we did see quite a drastic decrease in the amount of women in custodial settings. There was one stage where I believe there were about 500 women in custodial settings; it went down to about 300, and proportionally you will see a large number of Aboriginal women also were released as part of previous reforms we have made.

There is always a risk that we could see that go up as well. The case now is that not a lot of people are ending up in custody, both in the men’s and the women’s system, for low-level offending, even when it is repeat, to be frank. But there is a risk with these reforms. That is why we need to monitor them, and that is why the review of these reforms is crucial, to ensure that they are targeting those who they are intended to be focused on as part of the implementation. That is why the Attorney-General is going to take the time to make sure that when we bring the second bill in place we can have a look at these settings and have caveats and guardrails in place.

Minister, just to clarify, in the answer you previously gave you said you expected that as a result of these laws we will see an increase in the over-representation of First Nations people incarcerated and that you expect that to be an outcome of this bill. So does it not follow that, despite the progress that had been made on reducing the number of women in prison on low-level offences, it will increase as a result of these laws? And if not, what safeguards do you believe are in these laws that will prevent that from occurring?

I think we are expecting an increase in the remand population across the system. I think that is fair to say, and I have said that a number of times today. I think in terms of the safeguards, the way that the legislation has been drafted is quite clear on what offences are schedule 1 and 2 and the tests to be applied to them. I think they are really important to clarify. But I think, to be frank, if people are causing a high level of harm, we do not make apologies; they should be incarcerated. The community needs to be kept safe. If people are not taking the opportunity to address their behaviour and they continue to cause harm to members of the public, we have a duty as the government to protect everyone, to protect the public. That is what the people expect of their government. We are a government for all Victorians, and we are not going to be apologising for that.

Minister, I just want to pick up on your comment before about there being a common theme among these questions. We are all in here tonight because we are deeply concerned about the impact of these laws and what they will mean for our First Nations people. Just before when questioned about rising remand rates, you seemed to refuse to acknowledge that this could disproportionately impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. If the government has so much faith in these laws, are you as a minister willing to commit that will not be the case?

Thank you, Ms Purcell, for allowing me to clarify. Yes, I do expect an increase in the amount of people on remand overall. More Victorians that are reoffending will end up in custody. It is difficult to tell or predict who will make up that additional cohort in remand, to be frank; that is not as easy to predict. Just as when Mr Mulholland was asking me about my predictions on the increase in remandees – you know, governments set laws, but they are interpreted and applied by the courts, the independent judiciary. There are considerations for Aboriginal people, and rightly so, that we strengthened in 2023 and that will remain in 3A for the courts to consider, but there will be an increase in those on remand.

This is obviously not an untested system; we have been here before and we have seen it happen. Is the government willing to at least acknowledge that they are taking the risk that they will be locking up more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, despite apparently doing the work to prevent that?

I think we have been very clear and the Premier has been clear that we expect an increase in the remand population, and that will be for all Victorians that offend.

Minister, I just take you back to a response you gave earlier about prisons often being places where people can access health care and address their health needs. One of the last reports from the Victorian Ombudsman was an investigation into the provision of health care for Aboriginal people in Victorian prisons. It was pretty scathing in its findings and identified that particularly First Nations people in prisons are not receiving the same quality of care that they may be able to access outside. It is not culturally appropriate. There are significant delays in accessing care. It has been a contributor to deaths in custody. How can you justify the comments made earlier that these bail laws may allow people to access health care or better services and that potentially being a benefit of these strengthened laws?

I think it is a really important issue, health care in custodial settings. I might give a shout-out to the department, because when I started this role at the end of 2022 one of the first actions was to talk about health services and provisions within custodial settings. That report was really based on the previous experience, and since then we have had new contracts in place in the adult men’s system. We have transferred the women’s system into public health care – Western Health is the primary caregiver for health services at Dame Phyllis Frost. I have read that report, but a lot of those findings were based on the old system. Since that time we have had significant uplift in the level of service given to people in custodial settings, and that is a significant investment by this government.

I can confirm, without going into specifics, that it is a significant expense to taxpayers, rightfully so, because we want a more effective and efficient system, and addressing healthcare needs is one of them. The women’s system is now in public hands. We have a new private contractor. We have an Aboriginal health check, for example. That was a part of the design of the new contract, and I remember speaking very clearly to the department to make sure that it was consistent with what is available under Medicare for Aboriginal people in the community and it is – Aboriginal people have that level of care and have a range of additional services. Since then we have done really good programs not just for Aboriginal prisoners. Aboriginal people have also benefited from hepatitis treatment programs as a focus, and we have had great success there. Hundreds of people in our custodial facilities have been treated for hepatitis, which did not exist at the same level. There have been improvements across the board, and it is really transformative.

I would encourage those crossbenchers that want to come and see to reach out. I always think that it is important to see for yourself the work that is being done in our custodial facilities. I do want to take this opportunity to thank the staff. The health professionals and the custodial staff really care about the people in custody, and that has been the transformation that has come out of a number of reviews, including the Ombudsman review, to lift that. Our approach is we are proud of running a modern system that is focused on rehabilitation, and that happens when you have health supports in place. It is not a perfect system; there is always improvement to be made. I think that is a longer journey, but we are committed as a government to doing that work.

Given you expect that there will be a significant increase in the number of people incarcerated as a result of these laws, is the government going to commit to increasing the healthcare resources available to prisoners, including drug and alcohol services? At the moment there are limited options for people in prisons. It is a critical part of rehabilitation. Given we are expecting an influx of prisoners, what are you going to do to ensure that health care is adequately resourced?

We have committed to hiring additional staff, and that is part of the safe implementation plan we are working on. But in terms of demand for services as you have outlined, I think some of these demand challenges are similar to what exists in the community. Demand outstrips supply with some of these services. We are in discussions with the commissioner about what is needed, but we do have quite flexible contracts. I do not want to get into them too much, but Western Health is a good example because they are a public provider. We have provisions for many more women. We have contingency. We have got a lower population; it might go up. Western Health will be able to meet the needs of women that enter the women’s system, as an example. Being a public provider, already in our contracts there are provisions to do that work. If we do see a dramatic increase in women in custody, we will have health services for them. Obviously we do not want to see more people necessarily in custody, but if people breach these new laws, in particular the high-level repeat harm, then a custodial setting is appropriate.

Minister, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that detention of a child under 18 must be a last resort and only when all other options have been exhausted. How can this government justify breaching the human rights of our youngest citizens when its youth crime rate remains below the national average?

I think it is important to state that our act is fully compliant with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. In terms of custody as a last resort, under section 3B, I do pay very clear attention to it in terms of the general laws, being in charge together with the Attorney-General. But we will still keep the need to impose on the child the minimum intervention required in the circumstances, although there might not be remand as a last resort.

I think the reason why we are removing that, to be frank, is to give the courts greater discretion, because what the courts are telling us and what we are seeing is that people that probably should be on remand are effectively – and there are cases, as others opposite have discussed – getting off 10, 20 times and still reoffending and causing harm in the community. We need to balance that with what is happening. There have been instances where courts have referred to this provision as a ground – although they believed that probably, for community safety, custody should have been a real option – and have decided to grant someone bail again. I think the community expects that that cannot continue, so we are removing that provision. But we are still keeping the need to impose on the child the minimum intervention required in the circumstances. Courts will have greater discretion now. I think the Children’s Court will have greater discretion to make that assessment. But for some of these young people it is clear that a custodial setting might be what breaks the cycle.

Minister, I am curious about that answer. I think I heard you say that the courts have given you feedback that they want greater discretion. What format was that feedback provided in, please?

I think we have seen judgements that have displayed that. I think there has been some – I will not say discussion, because it was not at my level – feedback that people have passed on, but I might just seek some guidance on that.

Just to clarify, Ms Copsey, I think in the Attorney-General’s office, in the course of their work in terms of liaising with the courts to find out how these principles and the legislation are being applied, that was one of the examples given, where it effectively limits, in terms of why decisions are made in such a way. It seems that that provision was an issue that would come up in terms of the reason why people were granted bail although they have consequently, on multiple times, breached bail and caused significant harm. Also from my point of view it comes through the judgements. You read the judgements that are coming out where magistrates are saying, ‘If it were not for this provision, this person should be in a custodial setting.’

Sitting suspended 6:29 pm until 7:33 pm.

Minister, just before we broke you referred to feedback or advice. I cannot remember the words you used – feedback or advice – that you had received from the courts –

Enver ERDOGAN: It was more feedback from stakeholders.

Katherine COPSEY: That is a good clarification the minister has just mentioned. It was more feedback than advice. That is good, because that was going to be one of my questions. My recollection is that you said it had come through discussions with the Attorney-General and was evident from the judgements. I just want to understand: were those discussions with the Attorney-General documented in any way?

I think I was referring more to informal discussions with her office, but the judgements – I think some of them have been publicised.

I do not think that judgements constitute a form of the courts trying to give feedback to the government, do you? I do not think that is the purpose of a court judgement.

I think the purpose of a court judgement is to make an outcome on the specifics of a case before them, but what we have seen is that there are many instances where people who have caused a high level of harm and have repeatedly done so are not being remanded as a result of that provision. The community does not accept that outcome. We have had a lot of feedback and, as all good governments do, we have responded to the community’s expectations in relation to these matters.

I just want to go back to the therapeutic service provisions that are part of the incarceration process. You acknowledge that there will be a significant increase in people on remand. I am just wanting clarification around whether therapeutic service provision such as rehabilitation, alcohol and other drugs and mental health support will be available to people on remand, or only once someone is sentenced?

In youth justice there is a greater availability in terms of offence-specific treatment and treatment for young people whilst they are on remand. In the adult system there are some limits on what is available, so it is not as comprehensive as what is available for sentenced prisoners.

Are you able to provide just a little bit more clarity in response to that? If someone is an adult on remand, there is only a limited amount of service provision available in comparison to if they were sentenced and in the prison system, for example – am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, that is right. I might just seek from my office a couple of examples. I do not have them at hand, but I will seek them, and maybe later in the committee stage I will be able to update you.

Minister, last year children in youth detention were subjected to ongoing lockdowns due to staffing issues. These young people were disconnected from schooling and family visits due to these lockdowns. How will you ensure that these reforms do not result in lockdowns that equate to isolation and confinement for children on remand before they have been found guilty by the court?

From the outset I want to make it clear that isolation is only ever used as a last resort and cannot be used as a form of punishment. When it is required, it is done in line with legislative instruments, in particular giving careful consideration to the human rights of the young person. When young people are isolated, they continue to have access to support and education at times, but it is important that these assessments are made on need in a dynamic way, and the staff making them do not take that task lightly; it is a very serious consideration. I have been clear that we will be adequately resourcing our adult corrections system and also our youth justice system to meet the needs of the increasing population.

Just in relation to isolation and confinement: typically how long will a child or young person be in confinement or isolation?

I am advised that most isolations are for a relatively short period. I can follow up with more information, but usually about 2 hours is what I am told. I go and visit our youth justice facilities, and I speak to the staff there, and they always tell me that isolation, especially when there is a danger to the person themselves or to other young people in the system, is not a form of punishment but to prevent harm, in particular to others in the system. The staff there really do want to make a difference to these young people. In one description of some of these incidents, where these young people do sometimes struggle to regulate their behaviour, it is viewed as a bit of a timeout. They might be put into isolation for their safety and security, and the safety and security of other young people, and placed in isolation as a bit of a timeout in their room, effectively. They still have access to education and entertainment offerings within their room, so to speak. But these are not decisions made lightly.

There are dynamic risk assessments made all the time in custodial settings. They are complex environments, and the staff take the safety of their fellow staff and the young people in their custody very seriously.

Minister, if I can take you back to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the then Labor government sort of committed itself to a fulsome and forthright and any number of other adjectives implementation of the findings of that royal commission. I note that the successive Labor governments have reiterated that commitment. I guess I would ask firstly the question of how you see this legislation being consistent with the government’s ongoing commitment to those findings, including can I say most recently obviously refreshed with a number of ministers’ testimony before Yoorook.

From the outset I want to be clear that this bill is focused on community safety for all Victorians, including Aboriginal Victorians. Aboriginal Victorians are overrepresented in the crime statistics – in fact 2½ times more likely in the statistics. I believe that figure would be a lot more in fact, because we know that Aboriginal people are less likely to report as victims of crime, and that is something that the government is looking at as well and working with the Aboriginal community to address but also with law enforcement.

In terms of that commitment that we have made – exactly as you have outlined, Mr Ettershank, in the Yoorook process – we are continuing to work with Aboriginal partners to focus on improvements across the justice system even before Aboriginal people end up in custodial systems. I have already talked about the investments we have made in custodial facilities, whether it be an Aboriginal healing unit in the women’s system, Aboriginal wellbeing officers across our system or Aboriginal health checks. We have got a new deputy commissioner that is looking at these matters as well. In particular we are creating Aboriginal cultural places at all of our men’s and women’s facilities. This is all part of making sure we have a culturally safe system.

But the real goal is, you are right, to keep Aboriginal people out of custody. Some of that falls outside my portfolio, and may I dare say, Mr Ettershank, falls outside probably the purpose of this bill. It is more the work we need to do to bridge the gap in health outcomes, employment outcomes, educational outcomes for Aboriginal people so that they do not end up a statistic in the criminal justice system, because that is what happens and that is an over-representation that we do not want to see.

This bill is about creating a safer community for everyone, because the crime statistics will tell you there is a real issue with people reoffending, especially the types of offences we have targeted here with carjackings and aggravated burglaries et cetera. I think that is the target really. Obviously it is difficult to see who will be captured, difficult to predict, but Aboriginal people are already over-represented in the criminal justice system.

I promise I am not taking the scenic route here. To go back to my question, is it fair to say that the government is still committed to the implementation of the findings of that inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody?

Yes, we are very committed, and we are committed to obviously treaty with Aboriginal people as well. Truth and treaty are core commitments of this government, and we will continue to do that work in partnership with Aboriginal people. I can understand that some Aboriginal communities do not necessarily support this legislation; I think that is very clear. But this bill is focused on making the community safe for all Victorians, and we will continue to work with Aboriginal people.

If this government is still committed to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, I note recommendation 92 of that commission, which called on governments to legislate that imprisonment should only be used as a last resort. Why is the government going back on this recommendation for children?

I think what we have seen is that the way that that part of the legislation in 3B has been interpreted has meant that some young people that have caused significant harm have been released back into the community and endangering the lives of the broader community, time and time again, and therefore in light of that we have decided to remove that provision. It is a response to what is occurring out in the community. It is very real, and it not a decision taken lightly by this government, but it had to happen.

I do not want to play gotchas or anything, but given what you have said about the inherent result of this legislation in resulting in increased imprisonment and given that we know it is going to particularly adversely affect First Nations youth, I am afraid I have real difficulty understanding what you are saying there when you are suggesting that is in fact not the case.

It is a fact of the case that there will be more people incarcerated. Who that will be in terms of the broader community is always difficult to ascertain, because we are being very specific in who we are trying to target. I do not want to speculate on who that will be in terms of which members of the community will be disproportionately affected through these laws, but even without this legislation Aboriginal people already are over-represented in the criminal justice system. There is going to be an increase, but I am not sure if that increase will mean further over-representation of Aboriginal people, because it is difficult to distinguish who will be the cohort that will be captured in this legislation.

Thank you, Minister, I appreciate that, and I appreciate your candour. I think I particularly appreciate your candour with regard to the reality of what this legislation may mean by way of perverse consequences.

Can I take that proposition and extend it to what we understand, perhaps not well, in terms of how this legislation relates to the second tranche, on which I believe consultation commenced today in fact with some of the agencies and some of the stakeholders. Could you perhaps elaborate a little bit for us on the rationale behind it and what is actually happening with that consultation process with stakeholders for tranche two, if I can call it that?

Mr Ettershank, I like the fact that you appreciate my candour on these matters and on the fact that there will be an increase in the remand population. In terms of the second package it is difficult for me to get into details, because obviously there is still going to be work, but there will be a tough new test if you cause high harm in the community whilst out on bail. The definition of what that new higher test will look like is obviously still going to be worked through by the Attorney-General’s office, so I have not seen it.

That work obviously will be consulted on. There will be broad consultation before that is implemented. There will also be a test for indictable offences. Where you are out on bail and commit an indictable offence, you will be facing the compelling reasons test. Again, an indictable offence is currently not a schedule 2 offence, but if you commit an indictable offence while also out on bail, it will be treated like a compelling reasons test, equivalent to the first instance test for schedule 2 offences. That will be I guess the single uplift in the second package. I do not have more detail than that, to be frank.

You asked a good question about consultation, and it is my expectation that the Aboriginal community will be consulted, and so will other stakeholders, Victoria Police being an important one and the legal fraternity being another important stakeholder. I am expecting much broader consultation, obviously, given that we will have additional time to do that work.

The reason why the Attorney-General believes we need this additional time is to make sure that caveats and safeguards are in place. We are talking about a definition which I do not have at the moment, because that is going to be subject to some of this consultation or feedback from stakeholders about a high new test, a new test that is different to this for high-level harm whilst out on bail. I am being very forthright.

I genuinely appreciate that. I understand you are saying that you have got limited eyeballs on where it is at. I presume in your second part there you were talking about what people are calling the two strikes-type provision. I am sorry; I am just curious: what is the high test that you were talking about? This is a genuine question; I just did not understand quite what you were saying.

It is a really good question. That work is being led by the Attorney-General, but broadly speaking, I think an example would be a high degree of probability that a person will not reoffend. So not only is the test about community safety, it is putting the onus back on the judicial decision-maker or bail decision-maker to be confident that there is a high probability that the person will not reoffend whilst out on bail. So it is a high test. I think New South Wales has a high-confidence test, for example, which they are trialling at the moment. I am speculating a little bit here, but I am trying to be as forthright and as informative as possible. It is still very early, in terms of the Attorney-General going in with an open mind, but it is going to be tougher. There is going to be a higher test than what exists in the next tranche. I can reveal that the high test that the Attorney-General is intending for the next package, which I do not want to get into because I am focused on this bill, will focus on adults and children. So that will be a significant lifting of the standard to be granted bail in certain circumstances where you have caused a high level of harm. That work is still going to be undertaken. There will be broad consultation, particularly with First Nations but also with other stakeholders in the justice system, such as the courts, the police and the legal fraternity. I am sure the Attorney-General will do all that work in that time. That is why there need to be appropriate safeguards as well. When you have higher tests, you have got to make sure you mitigate the risk of unintended consequences.

Just following this conversation, you were talking about consultation in the process leading up to these high tests and the two-strike provision. Good on you; I think that is great. That is terrific. I think we have also heard and discussed that there will be some serious consequences and some pretty high-impact potential changes from this legislation, some of which are foreseeable and others which may not be. I want to come back to that point in a minute. If we accept that there are potentially serious perverse consequences or unforeseen consequences to both tranches of legislation and the government is consulting on the latter, I guess my obvious question is: well, why haven’t you consulted on the first, specifically to identify those potential risks?

I think the Attorney-General and the police minister have consulted, even with the first package. I am focused on today’s package because I think we will have another opportunity. I am sure the crossbench will be keen to interrogate every clause when we get to the second package and when the Attorney-General has worked on those settings. But I do not necessarily, and we do not necessarily, accept that there will be serious unforeseen consequences. This is a very targeted bill, and I think this bill is about high-harm, repeat offenders in particular. We have signalled, you could say, with the schedules who we are targeting. If you are committing those types of offences repeatedly, then you may need to be remanded, and that is why you will face a tougher test.

I think that is appropriate. The high test will mean that many of those people that do repeat forms of these crimes that the community, to be frank, has had enough of, will need to be remanded. So I do not necessarily accept that there will be unforeseen circumstances out of this package, and we will get a chance to talk about the next package when the bills are introduced into Parliament.

My intention was not to actually take us into that terrain, but rather I suppose to find a comparator. I mean, I think the proposition was put to me this morning that you are going to end up with more severe treatment under this proposal for stealing a car than you will for a sex offence. That is probably contestable, but probably George Pell is rolling over in his grave with some happiness at the prospect.

That said, and I probably expressed myself poorly, Minister, but I guess it still comes back to my original question, which was not to talk about tranche 2 but to ask: if there is a logic there to tranche 2 consultation, why is this being rushed and we are not seeing consultation associated with it, because my understanding is – in fact, everyone I have spoken to, and we have spoken to a lot of people, as I am sure you have, whether you have wanted to or not – that there has not been that consultation. So I am just trying to understand the logic that would say, ‘We’re not going to consult on this one, but we will consult on the next’ when both of them will have profound impacts on young, vulnerable multicultural communities – all of the people we know are typically at the wrong end of the justice system.

I think the Attorney-General and police minister would say that we have undertaken consultation. It may have been truncated because of the seriousness of this crime that we are committed to stamping out, but there will be broader consultation with the next package. We know the views of First Nations people. I gave an example of the people that were consulted. We know the views of Victoria Police, who have been forthright about what is needed. We know the views of the community. You know, we are elected representatives, and we spend our time in our communities and our electorates hearing from people of their experiences and consulting on what they believe are some of the options for resolving some of this high level of crime. But we will continue to do the work.

In the end, these tougher bail tests will ensure community safety if you pose a risk to the community; people will still be getting bail even with this legislation if they can give compelling reasons, if they can prove exceptional circumstances. But to be frank, if you have caused this high level of harm repeatedly, obviously this test will be much tougher on you, and that is the intended goal.

I understand what you are saying about the intent. Yes, that is good; I get it – I may not agree with it, but I get it.

I think Ms Payne and I have probably heard 30 or 40 different major stakeholders in the justice system, and when you say there has been a process of consultation, I guess I would say: putting aside for a moment VicPol, putting aside for a moment Bec Judd and putting aside for a moment Fifi Box, can I ask who else has the government consulted with in formulating this first tranche?

I will just go to the box and find out, because this work was led by the Attorney-General’s office. So I will just ask.

Mr Ettershank, on your point, I think it is clear to say as one of the justice ministers that we regularly consult with people that are interested in the criminal justice system – you might call them stakeholders. Some of them are in fact very important partners of ours. I do not want to elevate them, but they are very important. Between the justice ministers and the department of justice we know their views on some of these settings. With some of them respectfully we will disagree on this issue, especially in relation to these laws. There might not have been direct discussion about it clause by clause, but on the direction of where we believe the laws need to sit I think it is clear what the views of the different stakeholders and partners are on these matters. They would not be difficult to ascertain, because we work with them on a daily basis. I know one that is familiar to you, so I will use it as an example – maybe they are watching – Westjustice. I know Westjustice and the activists there would not support this bill. I do not think we need to necessarily take it out to them. This was a government decision to strengthen the bail laws for this cohort of offenders. We know their views and we respect them, but at the same time we believe this is what is necessary to stop this high level of harm.

I am sorry, Minister. You are just getting under my skin a little bit here. We work closely with Westjustice, as do you. There is a lot of respect there and a lot of love there for many of the things you have done, but something is almost implicit within your suggestion : if we talk about the Criminal Bar Association, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, the Law Society of Victoria – any number of professional legal bodies – well, they say success has many parents and failure is an orphan. Can I suggest by way of parallel that this legislation is likewise an orphan. It is deeply unloved, unfortunately, so I guess I am trying to understand, when you say there is this broader group and you have looked into their minds, have you ignored them or have they not really been involved in the consultation process?

I think it is clear that the government’s commitment is to community safety, and we believe these settings are needed in response to what we are seeing. Some of those stakeholders, to be frank, have similar views to each other, and a different philosophical basis for those views, but I think what we are seeing right now is not working and that is why we need to strengthen the bail laws. We hear from victims groups, obviously, and other stakeholders regularly about the need to balance the rights, as I said, of the accused with the rights of the broader community in terms of their immediate safety, and that is why when bail comes into it ultimately the decisions will still be for the judiciary. There will be settings, but bail decision-makers will have to weigh all the different aspects in making that decision. We are saying greater weight should be given to community safety in those decisions. Many of the stakeholders, although very loud and very effective, are not necessarily always right. I think I have pushed your buttons.

You have not. I am going to move on and I am going to segue from one of your points there, if I may. The beauty of this place, I am sure, is that we can agree to disagree, and ultimately we will vote on it, and we will probably lose. You talked about influence and you talked about the bail decision-makers, the magistracy and suchlike. I am cognisant there were some questions and some discussion before with Mr Mulholland, which I listened to with interest. Thinking about the bail decision-makers, they are not Supreme Court justices. They draw direction from this place and from your statements and those of others. I am having a lot of difficulty understanding what it says to those people – and I have a lot of respect for them – when you give them a piece of legislation that says that this is a tough bail bill. What does it say to them when they hear ‘tough, tough, tough, tough, tough’ and when you yourself say there will be more people put in prison as a result of this and there will be more people on remand?

I will start by discussing, I guess, the question of how do you understand the impact of that sort of direction – I think it could be seen as a direction – on really crucial people in the judicial structures?

I think it is fair to say, if you look at the second-reading speech, that the message is quite clear. If people commit these types of offences, it gives greater weight to the potential risk to the community. It is our expectation in law – it is not just our expectation; it will be in law – that greater weight is placed on those factors. That is why it is our expectation that, at the end of this, if we are successful and pass this legislation, more people will end up on remand. We obviously want to have greater guidance, but the guidance is community safety should be given greater weight.

Taking on board your logic there, given everything that has been in the public domain – the Herald Sun or whatever – but more importantly, I suppose, what has been raised in this discussion, I read the Premier’s press release, and I guess this is right into your budget, when the Premier was telling the corrections system to prepare for a lot more prisoners and a lot more people on remand, if we accepted that – I mean, they are people; they are not immune to that – is the government proposing to seek to correct that potential judicial interpretation by trying to clarify that this is not simply some sort of new form of show trial, that it is not a negation of a balanced approach to a judgement on the evidence before the court or the bail rulers? I mean that specifically in terms of some formal mechanism or some formal guidance rather than just relying on the community and the debate within this chamber.

That is why second-reading speeches – and I remember this as a law student – are very important. The second-reading speech finishes by clearly stating:

The intent of the Bill is not to punish people who have not yet had their day in court. It’s about stopping reoffending before it happens and protecting community safety.

It needs to balance that out, and that is the message here. We believe that the current balancing is slanted in a certain direction that is not appropriate with what the community expects, and that is why we have removed custody as a last resort. But in the end we have an independent judiciary. They are quite intelligent people. They will be able to make their decisions, and I am sure they will look for guidance in the second-reading speech.

Minister, currently publicly released crime statistics in Victoria do not really provide a full picture, because while the chief statistician receives Victoria Police data, they do not currently receive court data. From May this year the chief statistician will receive data from the courts, thanks to recent changes passed through this Parliament. As Minister Carbines noted in the second-reading speech in relation to those changes:

Statistical linkage of court data with other justice data can predict future impacts on the justice system more broadly and help build proactive policy actions to safeguard the delivery of justice services.

But the public will never be able to see this data unless the government commits to publishing whole-of-justice system data on the Crime Statistics Agency website. It is needed to inform public and government decision-making. With the passage of this legislation, will the government commit to ensuring the Crime Statistics Agency publishes accurate, objective and accessible evidence and information about crime and justice, including de-identified court data?

Thank you, Mr Puglielli, for a really good question. In terms of the bail data, there is already an existing commitment from the previous Attorney-General to publish publicly available updated bail data. I am just following up on where that is at, but we are committed to maintaining that commitment, so hopefully by – I am loath to give a timeframe on a lot of this stuff, but yes, there is a commitment to release bail data.

On the broader Crime Statistics Agency, I am not empowered to make any commitments there.

I do not mean to push on that one too hard, but can we expect that nonetheless to occur during this parliamentary term?

I will say yes to that. I think that should be the goal, that we see it. I was trying not to commit to a timeframe, but I think definitely in this term of government we should see at least the bail data.

We were speaking earlier about the number of people currently on remand in the state. Are you able to speak to what proportion of people currently on remand are on remand for an accusation that would not result in a custodial sentence if convicted?

Enver ERDOGAN: Can you just repeat that?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Of the people that are currently on remand in this state, what proportion are on remand for an accusation that would not result in a custodial sentence if convicted?

I do not have that kind of specific data, Mr Puglielli.

Do you have data for the proportion that have been on remand for longer than their likely sentence if convicted?

I do not have that on hand. It is easier to comment in relation to the youth justice system. The adult correction system is a much larger system. I would be much more speculative, but what I do find in the youth justice system is many – possibly the majority – of the young people will get time served as the outcome. Even when they do do a stint in remand, it is quite common in youth justice. In the adult system it is a bit more complex than that, and I do not have that level of data.

Given you are the Minister for Corrections, do you think it is reasonable for the public to expect that you would have that data, and as such, will you commit to taking both those questions on notice?

I am happy to take on that data, but I will also add, as the Minister for Corrections I normally do not decide who enters into our system. I think that is a decision at the other end of the system, especially for law enforcement and the judiciary to decide that, and we welcome everyone into our system and try to provide them with – we do run a rehabilitative system. We keep the community safe but also try to rehabilitate people where we can, and we will keep doing that work.

I always try to get more data, as much data as I can. It is important work that our corrections team do when people enter into our system. I cannot make a commitment that we will have more data, but I will see what I can follow up with the department.

While I understand you do not have the data to hand, for those two proportions that we have just been speaking about – so people on remand for an accusation that would not result in a custodial sentence if convicted and people who have been on remand for longer than their likely sentence if convicted – do you expect either or both of these groups to expand following the passage of this legislation?

That is very speculative, Mr Puglielli. I think what I do expect is the remand population to increase. That is clear.

The Youth Justice Act was passed last year after five long years of consultation with Aboriginal community controlled organisations and the legal sector. Why is the government rushing changes to bail laws now, including for children and young people, before Victoria’s new youth justice framework has had a chance to begin operating and positively affect the trajectory of children involved in the youth justice system?

I think the work that we did on the Youth Justice Act – and I want to give credit to everyone that worked on it during that period – is very important. A lot of the work was in the early intervention and diversionary space, with cautions, making sure that we keep young people away from being incarcerated. That work is ongoing – we are doing that work – with a record number of cautions and a record number of early intervention and diversion programs that are making a difference. We have seen a drastic decrease. The statistics show us less children are offending, but what we do have is less children offending more often – the repeats – and that is going on at the same time. That is what this bill is trying to address. I think it complements some of that work we have done in the Youth Justice Act.

Minister, similar bail reforms in Queensland and New South Wales have led to significant increases in the number of adults and children remanded in cells before they have been found guilty. In Queensland we are seeing children held in adult watch houses. What is your government’s plan for ensuring that the children’s prison system is able to cope with these additional pressures without putting young people’s rights and safety at risk?

Currently we have a very strong complement of staff in our youth justice system. The youth justice system does run a much higher level of support to address the needs of the young people in our system. Of course the Premier has outlined that we will be adequately resourcing our youth justice systems. We are already recruiting, but we will continue to recruit more staff to make sure we can support young people as they enter our system. We are in good place in Victoria. We have the lowest incarceration rate in the nation, so we do have physical capacity, and we will make sure we have the staff ready to support those young people when they enter our system.

Minister, the report on government services found that it costs over $1 million annually to lock up a child. Wouldn’t the Victorian government be better placed spending this money on addressing the factors that drive youth justice involvement, including cost of living and poverty?

I think what I would say is that we make no apologies for investing in keeping the community safe but also investing in giving these young people the opportunity to turn their lives around. We are proud of our system. I have been asked this question by the opposition before about the costs per head. I think they are not good comparators because of the fact we have the lowest incarceration rate, so in fact those costs per head will come down because there are economies of scale here. And there are significant fixed costs; as an economist, I can share that with you. Nonetheless we want to make sure that we support young people in custody with all the supports they need, and that means health, education, employment, training – all the stuff that we need for young people to succeed. Connection to culture is an important part of that as well.

We will continue to do that work. It is not and/or. We will continue to invest in community programs. In fact I would say that some of the investments we have made in other portfolios are about early intervention – early childhood education and three- and four-year-old kinder. It is about making better life outcomes. There are the investments we have made in free TAFE. These are about keeping young people away from the criminal justice system, and to a large extent they are working. And I thank you: some of you acknowledge that in Victoria we do do a good job per capita compared to other jurisdictions in terms of youth offending, but we have seen certain types of offending increase, and that is what this bail bill is about – keeping the community safe from this type of repeat, high-harm offending.

What is the government’s advice on the removal of the principle of remand as a last resort for children and how that will breach rights protected under the Victorian charter of human rights?

We have a statement of compatibility which states that this is fully compliant with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, so we say it is quite consistent with the charter. Ms Copsey, I encourage you to read our compatibility report.

Is the Victorian charter of human rights inconsistent with Australia’s international obligations under the rights of the child?

I do not have the UN charter at hand, but I do know that we are fully compliant with our charter and the laws of the state, and that is what we are focused on.

I do not have the charter here either, and I do not claim to know it off by heart, but the rights of the child, as I understand, contains an explicit statement that detention of children should be used as a measure of last resort. So is the Victorian charter deficient in terms of delivering on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

I would say no. I believe there is still a need to impose on the child the minimum intervention required under the circumstances. That remains, and that is an important consideration, but in all bail decision-making there is a need to balance the rights of the individual against the broader right to community safety. We do not apologise for prioritising community safety here.

Last year the government deferred raising the age to 14 years because it wanted to first scope and design the implementation of the alternative service model. It feels like a blast from the past at the moment. Can you please advise the chamber on the progress of the alternative service model panel’s work and when we can expect to see its final report?

Thank you, Ms Copsey, for reminding me. Yes, our government did deliver on its commitment to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12, but we have also confirmed that we will not be proceeding to 14. The independent review was established to provide research and analysis relevant to designing an alternative service response which may be relevant to a number of cohorts. That work is being led by the minister for child protection. Although the work of the panel is not directly related to the bill before us, it is important work, and I will follow up with the minister for child protection and see what I can provide.

I just really want to double-check – and you might seek advice before you speak again – as I thought I heard you just say that the government was no longer pursuing raising the age to 14, which was not my understanding. I understood that that remained the government’s intent, contingent upon the alternative service model’s findings. Do you want to check, or are you actually telling me that you have changed it quietly and not announced it?

I just want to confirm that the government has no plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14. It will stay at 12.

Minister, on a number of occasions you have said that this bill, by increasing incarceration rates for young offenders, will act as a circuit breaker for them. I am wondering what you base that on, given the evidence does not really support that statement. As evidenced by the high rates of recidivism, in fact early contact with the youth justice system and early incarceration actually increase the likelihood of long-term offending, more serious offending and being reincarcerated as an adult. I am wondering how you can justify the statement that this will act as a circuit breaker for young people when the evidence seems to point to that being completely incorrect.

Definitely for kids, especially the younger cohort of 13 and 14, we can see that early contact with the criminal justice system can have that effect. But I was pleased that the report on government services this year showed that we went from a very high recidivist rate of above 70 per cent to below the national average, in the low 50s, in recidivism in youth justice. What I do know from my experience is because we have such a small cohort of young people in custody in youth justice they are quite a hardened and complex cohort that there are challenges in addressing. We do a lot of work with these young people and give them opportunities that sometimes the community does not see.

I do not like sharing too many stories of young people, because it is such a small cohort, but for example, three of the young people in our youth justice system are completing bachelors degrees at university. If you look at the history and profiles of those young people I do not believe they would have gone to university if they had been out in the community or had been released back into the community as often, but it is a time in the custodial setting where the youth justice workers, who really care about these young people and are trying to make a difference, have succeeded in addressing the underlying behaviours of these young people and have put them on a better path. I am not saying that is true for all young people, but for some of them it genuinely leads to a difference in their life outlook. We have now got a mentoring program for many people that have lived experience and especially for young people that are successful. Some of them – I am not saying all of them – will tell you that that time in youth justice was what gave them the opportunity to move away from the bad influences in their life. It is really sad when you consider why they are in youth justice in the first place. That was the circuit breaker for them. I am not saying it is true for all young people or even for the majority, but for some it has proven to be the circuit breaker.

You provided some anecdotes, but I am just wondering what evidence you are relying on in making statements about it being a circuit breaker. What evidence have you relied on that can show that this will actually help in the long term to reduce the rate of criminal activity and improve community safety? Given we know that contact with the criminal justice system and incarceration in particular for younger people increases the likelihood of them going on to commit further crimes once they are released and more violent, more severe crimes in the long term, how is this going to benefit long-term community safety? What figures can you provide? What evidence? Not anecdotes, but evidence.

What evidence we have is that young people that end up in our custodial system, because they are such a small cohort, have committed quite significant high-harm offences and have also been involved in a lot of repeat offending. For the vast majority of young people in the end, contact with the criminal justice system is a big negative, and that is why we have done a lot of work to prevent people ending up in custodial systems. When we talk about the criminal justice system, I am talking about the work that we have been doing to divert people away – cautions, early intervention; that works. But for the young people that end up in custody there is usually a high level of harm and there is usually a high level of repeat offending, and at that stage I think appropriately the legal settings need to put the interests also of the broader community here and the interests of victims of crime here. We are talking about attacks in people’s homes. We are talking about quite traumatic high-level violence. We are talking about fatalities. Someone needs to consider their interests too, and I think that is why the bail settings as they are do not work. Community safety needs to come first.

Minister, I have some questions relating to the part of the bill where, if a person on bail is arrested during court sitting hours, police must bring them before a court, not a bail justice. How will the enormous additional pressure on our courts and legal services be funded with the requirement for police to now bring a person arrested whilst on bail before a court?

I might just clarify that these changes are about making sure that people go to court if they breach a bail condition during business hours instead of them being put into a holding cell. The opportunity for them to go to court initially is a positive change in terms of them getting heard. It is only for people that breach bail. Not everyone on bail will go straight to court, but people that breach their bail conditions during business hours will. In terms of the impact of that, again, we have been clear that we will be adequately supporting these reforms.

My question was in relation to how this pressure on our courts and legal services will be funded – or do you not expect anything to change in relation to this change?

I think because it is breaching bail during business hours, when that is spread out, we are not expecting a large impact to the system as it stands. But obviously we will monitor that, and if there is a requirement for greater resources, we will do that work with the Magistrates’ Court.

I have got some questions in relation to it being an offence to commit an indictable offence while on bail. Can the government confirm that the offence to commit an indictable offence while on bail is a summary offence?

Yes, we can.

Minister, will nonviolent indictable offences – for example, fraud or theft offences – be captured under this despite them being unlikely to result in a term of imprisonment or to endanger community safety?

Yes, because being a summary offence, that faces the potential for up to three months imprisonment. That does not mean you will get three months imprisonment. That is an assessment for the bail decision maker and for the courts to make. You will find usually in these kinds of cases, people will not get imprisonment, but that is up to the discretion of the decision-maker. But yes, there will be an option for up to three months, but that does not mean they will get it.

Minister, how will the government ensure that police do not continue to overcharge people with indictable offences, leading them to be remanded for crimes that they likely will not be convicted of?

I think police would say that they do not overcharge. They have a handbook which guides their charging principles, and they would be very firm in saying that. But also I think it is a very hypothetical question to ask – every circumstance is different. But I think police would say they do not overcharge.

I just want to confirm, Minister, that you do not believe there are instances of police overcharging?

Ms Purcell, I may be a bit clearer: I do not want to speculate on hypothetical situations. I think every situation is different, but I might leave my comments there.

I just want to circle back to the offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail, just to get some parameters so we are clear here. Using a fake ID is an indictable offence in Victoria. Is it the government’s intention that someone who uses a fake ID on bail should be charged with this additional offence of committing an indictable offence on bail and be at higher risk of having their bail revoked?

Thank you, Ms Payne. I think that is not necessarily the goal, but it is quite clear that every indictable offence will be captured. If the person is on bail and they commit an indictable offence, they could be charged, that is right. It could apply to them in that scenario. But the goal of this bill is to keep the community safe, and in particular the target is those offences we are seeing repeatedly causing high harm in our communities.

Obviously using a fake ID is a nonviolent crime, so you are saying that that would be captured in a similar –

If they breach their bail conditions.

If they breach their bail conditions – okay.

That could be a summary offence, yes.

In Victoria theft is an indictable offence, which we discussed earlier, but I have concern about people who are either potentially sleeping rough or in unstable home environments. If a person is living in poverty, sleeping rough and steals food from a shop, is the government’s intention that they will be further punished with this new offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail?

I can confirm that, whilst out on bail, if you breach that bail and commit an indictable offence, you will face consequences. This is about respect for the rules, and it will apply to everyone.

I just want to clarify: if someone is living in poverty, they are quite disconnected, clearly, they are sleeping rough and they steal some food from a shop while literally just trying to survive, does this government say it is more appropriate if they are currently on bail that those considerations are not met with other options? Rather it is the government’s position that they should potentially be sent off to prison rather than – I am just trying to clarify the cost of sending someone off to prison for something as small as, say, stealing a sandwich, comparative to, say, them having appropriate access to service provision that would prevent them from doing that again. I am just trying to clarify if that is exactly what you are saying.

What I am really trying to get at is the overarching principles we are putting in about community safety. I do not want to get into speculation about every different scenario, but clearly that situation you are giving would not be a risk to community safety. That is why people have discretion throughout the justice system. Law enforcement has discretion, the courts have discretion. That does not sound like a community safety risk, but what does is aggravated burglaries, armed robberies and home invasions. These are things affecting community safety that we are sending a strong message on.

Thank you for clarifying, Minister. Back to indictable offences, under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act it is an indictable offence for a person to possess or use drugs of dependence, possess a document containing instructions on the cultivation of drugs of dependence or for an owner or occupier of land to permit another person to use that land to cultivate a drug of dependence. Does the government believe it is reasonable and proportionate for a person to be denied bail for minor drug possession; for printing out a document about how to grow cannabis, for example; for letting a housemate or family member grow cannabis in their backyard or for other minor drug-related offending?

Ms Payne, I might need to repeat that a charge of a bail offence does not necessarily mean remand. It is just an option for the court in the circumstances. I think the clear goal of this bill is community safety. When you talk about some of the lower level harm, it is not the intention to capture that, but that is an option. There are rules that need to be followed. But I think the decision-makers will have that information before them before deciding on a case-by-case basis.

I just want to work back a little bit around that scenario that I have put in place, because we have been presented with a case study that was before an inquiry. It was in reference to a person that the police were doing a welfare check on, and what they found when they checked on this person’s welfare was that in the person’s backyard there were a couple of cannabis plants growing. This person was also on bail. The risk to that person and their safety was, I would have thought, paramount, but what happened was that this person was arrested based on the cannabis offence rather than the fact that they were a victim of a crime that was being committed in the house at that time.

I am just wondering if you can clarify if there are some safeguards for victims of crime who fall foul due to committing an indictable offence while on bail. What I am trying to get at here is this particular person, and it was a woman who was a victim of crime, is no longer going to reach out to police if any incidents happen again. Now they do not trust police because what happened was that there was a safety call and that safety call was not met. What was met was an arrest. I am just wondering if there are safeguards in the bill for victims of crime in particular to prevent them from not accessing, say, police if they are at risk of being considered to be committing an indictable offence.

Ms Payne, with all due respect you are asking me to go back over what I said before. I do not want to really entertain every single hypothetical because I do understand these are complex cases. That is why the criminal justice settings are always a challenge for government to balance. I cannot really comment on that individual case.

Minister, during tonight’s proceedings you have indicated to us that the government has abandoned its prior commitment to raising the age of criminal responsibility in this state to 14. In abandoning that commitment you have said you have no plans to make that change. When was that decision made?

Mr Puglielli, let us stick to the purpose of this bill. This bill is about strengthening the bail laws. I know you are interested in raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility, but my focus is on this bill. If we can get to the purpose, that would be helpful.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I have raised this, Minister, because we are talking about to whom these laws apply and how they apply. I would argue this is highly relevant to what we are talking about tonight. Again I will ask, when was that decision made?

Enver ERDOGAN: I felt that was clearly communicated. That is why I am surprised by the Greens. Last August it was announced by the Premier that we would only be going to 12 and would be no longer planning to increase to 14. August last year, I believe – if my memory serves me correctly – was approximately when the government made that decision and the Premier announced that decision.

Were the Aboriginal Justice Caucus consulted prior to the government abandoning that commitment?

Again, Mr Puglielli, I make the point that I do not believe it is necessary for the purposes of this bill – this is a bail bill, very strictly – but I think they were informed of the government’s decision.

Minister, the government admits in its statement of compatibility that bail offences can draw children further into the criminal legal system, which itself has a criminogenic effect. Isn’t the same true for adults? Why has the government reintroduced a bail offence that applies to children in a way that undermines community safety, which you have been speaking to tonight?

I think it is very important – because of the type of offending we are seeing, and the statistics are quite alarming – that 64 per cent of home invasions, for example, have an associated or alleged offender under 20 years of age. We have in the past decade seen a 1000 per cent increase in aggravated burglaries that co-occur with thefts of motor vehicles. We are seeing that young men, in particular mid-teens, 14- to 18-year-olds, have the highest number of alleged offender incidents with a principal offence of aggravated burglary on which they are arrested or issued with a summons. So we are trying to address the issues, and clearly some young people are caught up in this repeat high-harm offending.

I think it is important to also state that although children are captured, there are additional factors required to be considered by a bail decision-maker under section 3B, which provides for a bail determination to take account of special needs of children charged with criminal offences. So although a child might be charged with a similar offence to an adult, you will find time and time again in these decisions that children are more likely to meet, say, a compelling reasons test or an exceptional circumstances test because of section 3B.

I just want to circle back around to you talking about this bill being compatible with the charter of human rights. Are you referring to the statement of compatibility?

Yes.

Yes, okay. I am just wanting to clarify, because it has not been through the appropriate mechanisms of being reviewed through the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC). Obviously, as part of that review process and scrutiny process it is compared to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Is the intent that that would be clarified?

Going to SARC, are you saying?

I am not saying it would need to go to SARC, but you have stated that it is compatible with the charter.

Yes, we say it is compatible.

Can you just please clarify the process?

How we came to this conclusion?

How you got to that resolution, please.

Yes. The assessment on the statement of compatibility is made by the Attorney-General and, per the normal process, it will go to SARC as well.

It is a while since I have looked at it, but I think in the Yoorrook report something like half of all Aboriginal people in incarceration are there because of remand. Is that consistent with your understanding?

Young people?

First Nations people.

For men that is right. For women in fact it is slightly over 50 per cent of Aboriginal women on remand. I am being up-front and honest.

It is really appreciated. I think in a number of forums on these questions of Indigenous incarceration and how it falls, when we have looked at the findings, including I think out of Yoorrook, we have seen a guiding principle that the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty are some of Aboriginal people’s key protections against overincarceration. Is that consistent with your understanding, Minister?

To clarify, I think those guiding principles remain in the bill, but it is also important to note that the Bail Act itself is about striking a balance between the importance of maximising the safety of the community and victims of crime and the right to liberty for persons accused of a crime. Inherently those challenges exist within the proposition of bail itself.

Could you elaborate on that? I think I am at 180 to you on that, but I do not want to jump until I am clear on what exactly you are saying.

Obviously, there are guiding principles that apply more to Aboriginal people. More broadly, the Bail Act is about striking the balance between the importance of maximising the safety of the community and victims of crime, so that is one side, and the right to liberty of persons accused of a crime. There is a presumption of innocence at law and with that comes the right to liberty, but that needs to be balanced with the importance of maximising community safety and the rights of victims.

I wonder from the bells if the Assembly is going to watch this on the big screen and maybe pass a bit of time. Minister, I take on board your comment there. I do get that you are saying it is about balance. If we were talking to any number of stakeholders I think they would be pretty much in consensus that if you were weighing these up, clearly this legislation fundamentally, and particularly if we are talking about remand, undermines the very principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. I just do not understand how you could suggest that it is balanced when manifestly it has got to have that impact on liberty and the presumption of innocence, especially in the context of remand.

In fact we say currently it is not balanced. We are saying the balance is actually too far in favour of the alleged offender, so we are balancing it through this legislation to make it more evenly balanced. That is what we say, so we are giving greater weight to community safety.

Minister, how can you say that, just looking at the levels of incarceration of First Nations people? That just defies logic. If you are right, Jesus, what does the future hold for those folks?

The bill is targeted to all Victorians and all people that commit this type of offending. There will still be the provisions in section 3A that we expanded during the last reforms to the Bail Act, and they are very important, to give consideration to Aboriginal people, but more broadly this legislation is for all Victorians. If you commit a high level of harm there will be greater consequences and greater weight given to broader community safety concerns.

I am going to move on, because we are certainly not going to have a meeting of the minds on this point. Minister, I think we have already talked about the fact that these bail changes will result in more First Nations people being detained in custody. I would like your thoughts on whether or not many of these people will be detained in custody on remand for a longer period than they would be if they were imprisoned or sentenced.

I think this is very speculative. I do not want to speculate in relation to that. I think once the law is implemented we will see the impact. It is important that we monitor those impacts, so I cannot speculate in relation to that, Mr Ettershank.

Can I respectfully suggest that it does not require speculation, that in fact the government already has data which would support that. Even before we do these changes, Aboriginal people are spending more time on remand in many cases than they would if they were sentenced and incarcerated. I do not think this is news.

I think this is a bit of a repeat of what I was asked previously, but like I said, it is a difficult assessment to make. When we have these laws in place we will see the bigger effect, but the goal is to target those high-level repeat offenders.

I would like to ask the Greens some questions about their amendments, if I may. I have had a bit of a look through them, and they are fairly sweeping amendments which effectively, to my view, gut the bill. Who did they consult with to come up with these amendments?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister? Ms Copsey, sorry.

It is the time of the night for promotions. His question is to me, yes. We have had a Deputy Premier in here. Mr Ettershank became a doctor last night, and now I am the minister. Let us do it.

In answer to your question, I do not have an exhaustive list, but there have been numerous legal and First Nations stakeholders who have been reaching out. I know that earlier this week VALS launched a letter signed by at least 92 Aboriginal organisations calling for the implementation of Poccum’s law.

Jeff BOURMAN: FALS?

Katherine COPSEY: The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Mr Bourman. There are a number of stakeholders – legal, First Nations, human rights and Aboriginal community controlled health organisations – calling for precisely the amendments that the Greens are putting forward this evening and much more.

I thought Ms Copsey she said something beginning with F for foxtrot not V, because I know what VALS is. Did the Greens consult with the police or the Police Association Victoria over the effect of this?

No, Mr Bourman, since Monday evening I have not consulted with the police or the police association.

I share your irritation about the lack of time we were given, but this is what we have. Did the Greens consult any victims groups?

Mr Bourman, included in the number of stakeholders that we consulted with are a large number of legal stakeholders who regularly have to defend clients who have become embroiled in the system, as well as people who are victims of crime themselves. I think one of the things that the questions this evening are going to is precisely around the fact we are concerned that many vulnerable people are going to get swept up in the sweeping powers that the government is preparing to give to police in relation to this, and the sweeping powers –

Jeff Bourman: On a point of order, Deputy President, I appreciate what Ms Copsey is saying that people that can be swept up and all that, but that is not what I asked. I asked about victims groups, and I believe that was answered. If Ms Copsey wants to expand a bit further on the yes or no or whatever – I know what they are trying to do, and it is not for me to say whether it is good, bad or indifferent, but I just asked a simple question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think you made your point, but I do not have the ability to instruct Ms Copsey how to answer the question. You have asked the question, you want a certain answer and she is giving you a different answer, but I cannot instruct her to give you the answer you want.

As I was saying, we are concerned that many people will be swept up in these changes. One of the things that has been brought up to us by stakeholders is the misidentification of people who seek help from the police, and Ms Payne has given an example in her questions and contribution to the debate on this as well. We are very concerned that people who are themselves victims of crime are going to be affected by the draconian changes that the government is pushing through. I think I know who you mean, but I would consider that we have consulted with a number of groups that do represent people who are victims of crime.

I am afraid that I have to take that answer as no, because you know who I mean – victims of crime leagues, victims of crime commissioners, anyone that actually represents those groups. I will take your answer as your answer, and I will move on. I went through the list of amendments before and one of them was titled ‘Remand as a last resort’, which is a laudable goal. But what is a ‘last resort’? At what stage do we remand people under your system?

I think that the courts are well-versed in applying this, as it is their current setting for remand affecting children. I will not endeavour to supplement my own off-the-cuff interpretation of that, but that is the current situation under the reformed laws that were passed. The reason that we are seeking that is because this is a common legal standard that is applied through international law. As has been canvassed in committee this evening it is one of the requirements of the UN’s declaration of the rights of the child, and so it should remain the law. That is our view, and it is the view of the stakeholders that I mentioned earlier.

I appreciate that that is your view. We are all entitled to our views; it is a good contest of ideas in this place. But I guess what I was getting down to is that that may be the way it is – that is not the way it is going – but how many offences and how many victims does it take for us to get to a last resort?

One of my frustrations with the state of debate around criminal justice in Victoria is the tendency for politicians to substitute their judgements on these issues for the judgements of the court, who are there to actually interpret the law.

That is exactly my point. Moving on to the removal of the indictable offences on bail part – why would we bother having bail if we are removing all the offences and there is no offence for contravening bail? Why would we just cut people loose to do what they want and just hope they turn up on a court date?

These are very good questions, Mr Bourman. Thank you. In fact if we do not reinstate bail offences – to be clear, the government is reinstating these two bail offences which were repealed.

David Davis: Partially repealed.

Katherine COPSEY: Yes, that is true Mr Davis, actually – they were partially repealed. They are partially reinstating them, I think is the point that you are making. They were repealed following an explicit recommendation from the coroner Simon McGregor in his findings from the inquest into the death of Veronica Nelson, a proud Aboriginal woman who died in a Victorian prison. The state of Victoria’s broken bail laws contributed directly to her death, and the repeal of all bail offences, actually, was Mr McGregor’s recommendation in relation to that. So that is the current situation that we face. The Greens are suggesting that that should remain the case and that the government acted correctly in following that recommendation and should not be reinstating these bail offences. As for people not facing any consequences for the contravention of bail conditions, that is also not accurate. Police actually have current powers to apply to a court for revocation of bail.

One of the other things that police can do, in particular in relation to youth offenders, should they feel it is necessary, is make an application for uplift from the Children’s Court to the County Court. So there are current mechanisms that are available to address contraventions of bail conditions without reinstating broad bail offences that are going sweepingly capture people regardless of the severity, and we have had discussions about people who are in vulnerable situations and may inadvertently breach bail conditions and then find themselves criminalised further. We do not think that that is a good outcome. That is why we are putting forward the amendment to keep the bail offences out.

Thank you for your answer. With the way the system is now – and the numbers are such that this is going to get through, but if it did not – someone can be presented to a court for bail. When you remand someone, it is before a bail justice until you can get to a court. Do the Greens trust the courts enough to deal with this properly? Because in the end it is not the decision of the police to remand someone, except to get them to a court. It is up to a magistrate at some point in time to remand or not remand someone, and that should be the court’s jurisdiction.

Mr Bourman, I can just say I think that the separation of powers is very important. I think that the legislature should do its job, the police should do their job and the courts should do their job. The courts of course are the decision-makers, and the bail decision makers should be interpreting the legislation that is set for them by the Parliament.

Ms Copsey, do you not think it fair to say that the courts, no matter what the law, when it gets down to bail, are in a position to decide whether it is fair or not? I think I heard the case of someone stealing food whilst they are on bail. Absolutely, in my opinion – and I am not a magistrate or a judge – they should not be remanded for that. But isn’t that what we pay the judiciary to do?

Mr Bourman, one of the things that we are trying to avoid through the amendments that we are putting forward this evening are the harmful outcomes of repeated contact with the criminal justice system. So yes, the person may not end up being thrown in jail, but prior to that, there are a number of steps that can be traumatic, unnecessary and might disrupt someone’s housing. If that person is in a vulnerable condition, then even contact with the police when they decide to charge someone with a bail offence, and all of those steps leading up to the actual hearing, can have an impact as well. We seek to avoid all of that, and we also seek to not waste the court’s time by having people who clearly should not receive a custodial sentence brought before the courts.

My understanding of this, and feel free to correct me, is that to save them from contact with the legal system, whether it is the police or the judges and such, we should just let them breach their bail conditions with no repercussions, because that is what I heard.

Then you misheard me, Mr Bourman.

I am pretty sure Hansard will help me with that later.

Actually I have a question for the minister, just to finish off. Minister, earlier in my second-reading speech – and this goes to concerns I have regarding people that are incarcerated for the first time. In 2016 the Australian Institute of Criminology did a study on the suicide rates or attempted suicide rates of first-time incarcerated people. In the first three months there was a 50 per cent higher likelihood of people self-harming or suiciding in custody, as opposed to people that have, unfortunately, been there longer or been there before. I was listening before. This will result in more people and more first-time incarcerees in the system. What is the government doing to help particularly those in their first experience with the system to deal with it? Sadly, First Nations people are more likely to do this, so everything needs to be culturally appropriate. What has the government got up its sleeve to deal with that?

That is a really good question. That is where the greatest risk is, especially in suicides. I know that everyone that enters our system is provided with a health check. Usually we find that the majority of people that are incarcerated for the first time are suffering from quite serious mental health issues. That is quite common; it is quite a distressing process. There are ratings, and according to the ratings people are managed and risk is managed based on that assessment. It is a difficult period for people, especially when they enter the correctional system for the first time. That is why we have those health checks and try to complete those health checks within the first 24 hours of people entering our system and then monitor people according to their rating. The Minister for Mental Health might know the terminology a bit better than me when it comes to mental health, but there is a category of clinicians that do this work to make sure we check up on people’s mental health when they enter the system for the first time.

Minister, the tragic case of Veronica Nelson suggests that there are gaps in the system. Will the government at least commit to investigating further increases in help? Because whilst I am on the right side of Attila the Hun when it comes to law enforcement, I am not into hurting people. If there is a way to stop people from coming to harm when they are in the care of the government, I would like to see it. What we had before could use improvement, which is how we ended up in this spot where we have got a youth crime problem. I feel that the government has an opportunity now to play both sides of the street and work on a system to give culturally appropriate help to people, particularly their first time. Obviously First Nations people have a higher rate of all these things anyway. I think more needs to be done for them. I do not think they should be running around and not answering to bail and committing offences and all that sort of stuff, but I am also not suggesting we should be chucking them into the system and walking away saying job done.

From the outset, Mr Bourman, I think we do not expect people from vulnerable cohorts engaged in low-level offences to be remanded. That is not the objective. The goal of this legislation is to address genuine community safety concerns around high-harm repeat offending. As I said, it is a very different system to what it was five or six years ago. There is a thorough assessment on a range of aspects upon entry into the correction system, and physical and mental health are some of those checks and assessments done on entry into the system. We will endeavour – and that is why we will be hiring more people in our corrections system and youth justice system – to maintain those high standards.

Why is carjacking, often a nonviolent crime, now in the same schedule as murder and subject to more onerous bail conditions than rape and sexual offences?

Just to correct you, carjacking by its very nature is quite violent. You are effectively taking a car off a person, so it is very similar to an aggravated burglary in that sense. But I do respect your interest in these matters, and Victoria is leading the way when it comes to prevention of family violence. The state had a royal commission. There were 227 recommendations, and we have committed more money and more effort than any other government ever has in the history of this state or any jurisdiction in the nation, and we will continue to do that work. I want to be clear that the schedules are not a moral judgement about every offence in the Crimes Act 1958 or the Bail Act. They are squarely focused on targeting high-harm repeat offenders. There were some statistics I had about the fact that people on bail are going ahead with 30 or 40 per cent of some of these offences. Carjacking is a good example: over 30 per cent of people that commit carjackings are on bail. There needs to be consequences to stop them getting bail again and then causing further harm in the community.

I think it is a real concern and it is a real problem. We have seen almost a thousand per cent increase in carjackings over the last 10 years. It is a big issue. I know a few victims of crime that have come and explained to me their experiences of being carjacked. It was quite traumatic to them and life changing.

Minister, I just want to be clear I am not saying carjacking cannot be a violent crime. Of course it can be. But is it really appropriate to be in the same category as rapes and sexual assaults, which are always a violent crime?

Ms Purcell, I must respectfully disagree with you. The nature of carjackings is where you threaten to use force or you do use force to take someone’s vehicle off them, so I would say it is a very violent offence. But it is not a moral judgement and these schedules are not a moral judgement on the level of severity per se. It is a response to the level of harm being caused in the community, and more so whilst people on bail they are repeatedly doing these offences. What is happening is people that commit carjackings are much more likely to commit similar offences whilst on bail, which is really concerning.

Minister, what message do you think this sends to women in this state that crimes like this, which should absolutely be taken seriously, are put in the same category as physical violence against our bodies?

I might be repeating my answer, but I think no government in the history of this nation has done more to address family violence. We had a royal commission, with $4 billion invested. I think these are very difficult decisions in terms of settings, but what we are seeing is a high level of harm being caused by in particular the four offences that were elevated in schedule 1 and the other offences elevated to schedule 2, which are repeatedly occurring whilst people are on bail. This is about the bail laws in particular and how they are operating, and these are the offences that we are seeing repeatedly taking place in our communities, causing quite traumatic impacts on people. I think it is important that these adjustments are made to reflect this high level of repeat harming.

We will obviously have to agree to disagree on that one, but I want to move on to a similar topic but different question. Section 4AAA(1) of the Bail Act prohibits all bail decision makers from refusing a person’s bail for summary offences not in schedule 3. The other summary offences in schedule 3 are significantly more serious than most contraventions of conduct conditions on bail undertakings – for example, sexual exposure, aggravated assault, distribution of an intimate image, food or drink spiking and assaulting emergency workers or healthcare workers. How does the government justify making minor contraventions of bail conditions, such as missing a sign-in at a police station or being slightly late for a curfew condition, as serious as the other schedule 3 offences?

I think it is important to understand that people do have a right to bail, but if they pose an unacceptable risk then they will be remanded.

The question was how does the government justify having these minor contraventions in the same category? I understand they will be remanded, but how does the government justify it?

This bill is squarely focused on high-harm repeat offending. No government in the history of this state or this nation, I would say, invests more in preventing domestic violence, in supporting women and women’s safety, but the goal of this bill is in particular to target those high-level repeat offenders. There are other bills that we have that are focused on those initiatives that complement this work, but the work of this bill is really on those high-level repeat offenders. That is the focus.

Minister, I just want to clarify. Is that a commitment that we will see similar bills coming from the government in relation to addressing the increasing rate of sexual and family violence against women?

I am not here to make commitments or announcements, but I think women’s safety is a whole-of-government priority, quite clearly, with a lot of the initiatives that we have made, and so is family violence, and we will continue to do that work. We have a range of initiatives in this space that already exist, and we will continue to build on them.

Minister, I just want to take you back very briefly to my line of questioning before in relation to sexual offences. I note in your response that you said carjacking is a real problem and is traumatic, which I am absolutely not denying, but of course so is violence against women. I just want to clarify why the government is not responding with the same severity to repeat sexual offenders as it is applying to carjackers. Obviously we are talking about repeat offenders a lot in this bill, so why isn’t the same seriousness applied to repeat sexual offenders?

I feel we are diverging here. I think some of the issues about severity of offending are probably better for the Crimes Act 1958 about the sentencing that applies to those offences and the penalties, whereas the Bail Act is about complying with the rules you have been provided with if you are on bail. If a person commits a schedule 2 offence, like rape or a sexual offence, they will be uplifted to schedule 1. So if they do actually commit a repeat of that offence, then the next time they go through the highest test – that is, the exceptional circumstances test – but about the consequences for offending, you need to understand there is a presumption of innocence. They are not being sentenced whilst on bail. There are conditions to protect community safety that they need to abide by, but if we are talking about broader consequences for them, I think that is more the Crimes Act, about the sentences they receive for the types of offending.

The explanatory memorandum states that where appropriate, having applied the applicable bail test, a bail decision maker may refuse to grant bail to a person charged with this offence and remand them in custody. Does your government have examples of the types of breaches of bail conditions where it would be appropriate or inappropriate to refuse bail?

In relation to this provision it is quite clear that it will not apply if they do not attend their bail support services. It is not applicable in those circumstances, but in every other circumstance it would be applicable.

Minister, I do not understand your answer just there. Can you please clarify your answer?

Enver ERDOGAN: Can you just repeat that question?

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Sure I will repeat the question. The explanatory memorandum states that where appropriate, having applied the applicable bail test, a bail decision maker may refuse to grant bail to a person charged with this offence and remand them in custody. Does the government have examples of the types of breaches of bail conditions where it would be appropriate or inappropriate to refuse bail?

I do not have examples at hand because every case is different and that is for the decision-maker to decide. Except for where someone does not attend a bail-related appointment, let us say, that would be at the discretion of the bail decision maker whether they apply it.

Minister, from the 2023–24 budget to the 2024–25 budget we saw a 46 per cent reduction in resources for community crime prevention programs, which we know are effective at improving community safety, reallocated towards funding electronic monitoring, prisons and police, which has not led to decreases in crime rates. If the government is serious about community safety, why is it cutting funding for programs that are shown to prevent youth offending?

I appreciate Ms Payne’s question. I do not agree. I respectfully disagree with that assessment. There has not been a 46 per cent reduction in crime prevention. Part of this relates to an accounting adjustment made by the department last year in terms of the reallocation of a relevant team as part of an organisational change. The team was not abolished – it was relocated to another department – so that work continues with record investments in this year’s budget.

I will move on to questions about the offence of contravening bail conduct conditions. Is it the government’s intention that this offence would be used for any contravention of a bail condition even if the contravention does not involve any criminal or unlawful activity and does not endanger community safety? That is the offence of contravening bail conduct conditions.

I refer to my previous answer. Except for not attending bail appointments et cetera, it would apply.

What is the purpose of punishing people for technical breaches of bail where no-one has been harmed?

I again refer to my previous answer: people are expected to abide by the rules, and it would be at the discretion of the decision-maker how they are held to account.

Minister, how will the Victorian government ensure this offence is not used for technical breaches of bail that do not threaten community safety or where no-one has been harmed?

There will be a review in 2027.

Minister, just on the same topic, could you provide the house with some examples of a reasonable excuse for contravening a bail condition?

I think a more straightforward example is where, say, someone is 10 minutes late or half an hour late for their curfew and they have a reason like the bus broke down or the bus was running late or a legitimate reason like that.

Minister, can I clarify: who will decide what constitutes a reasonable excuse, and what factors or considerations should they be taking into account?

The bail decision-maker.

I am just going to follow that one up, Minister, since the second half of the question was: what factors or considerations should they take into account?

The act says what is a reasonable excuse in the circumstances. That is very wide language, and so I guess it would be at the discretion of the decision-maker to make an assessment on a case-by-case basis.

Minister, if a person on bail had a medical reason but could not afford to see a doctor, was too unwell to travel, could not get a GP appointment and breached their bail, would that be still seen as a reasonable excuse, or would a medical exception only apply if a person is able to provide documentation?

I refer to my previous answer: case by case.

Are you able to expand on that answer a bit more?

I think I said it was amounting to speculation about different scenarios, but I guess that is why we have decision-makers that make those assessments of what is reasonable in the circumstances. So I do not want to speculate on a case-by-case basis, because the decision-maker would need all the full facts in front of them.

It is particularly challenging for people experiencing homelessness or housing instability to comply with bail conditions relating to residing at a particular address or reporting to a police station in a particular suburb, particularly if they are moving around to temporary housing options or couch surfing, for example. Would contravening bail conditions because of homelessness or unstable housing be viewed as a reasonable excuse?

Medical reasons, the housing situation – I think these all sound like factors that those bail decision-makers will take into consideration. But they will make the assessments on a case-by-case basis.

In the last financial year the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria’s court integrated services program, a coordinated bail support program, ran out of funding for alcohol and drugs treatment before the end of the financial year. If a person on bail was unable to access drug and alcohol treatment because of service underfunding and then breached their bail, for example, for using drugs or alcohol when it was prohibited as part of their bail conditions, would you expect Victoria Police to take this into account when deciding whether to charge a person for this offence?

I think it is speculative. I think bail decision makers take into account a lot of factors, and these would obviously be factors that they would consider. It is very speculative.

Can the minister please confirm that these coordinated bail support programs are going to have additional funding as part of the rollout of this bill.

I do not have any announcements to make today about these matters except to say that we will adequately resource the delivery of this bill.

Minister, thank you for your response. Does the government think it would be appropriate to use this offence against people unable to access support programs they need due to insufficient funding?

Again, I say that is speculative. I think bail decision makers have a number of factors to consider, and they will look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Minister, we have had a few conversations tonight around access to, say, bail support programs and integrated service programs, particularly for people who are on remand. My concern here is that we have got evidence here to say that programs currently running were underfunded. I just want clarification. Every media release that has been presented around this bill indicates that there will be an increased number of people entering the criminal justice system, there is no denying that. So can we please have that assurance that the programs that you are requiring people to attend will be funded appropriately?

I refer to my previous answer on this issue.

Minister, on this topic, are rehabilitation and diversion programs frontline services for the purposes on the Silver review?

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, I think program funding and questions about quantums of program funding are outside the scope of the purposes of the bill.

Katherine Copsey: On the point of order, Deputy President, this bill deals with attendance at support services, and it is one of the exemptions available. The bill deals with attendance at support services, so this is directly relevant to the content of the bill because we need to know that those support services are going to be available for people to attend.

Ryan Batchelor: On the point of order, Deputy President, I do not think the bill does go to those services. And more to the point, the bill does not go to the Silver review, so I think that is outside the scope of the purposes of the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am afraid I agree with Mr Batchelor that it is outside the purposes of the bill. But the minister has been very generous in his answers about these things, so if the minister would like to provide some edification to you –

Enver Erdogan: I will decline.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister does not want to answer that one.

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order, Deputy President, can I ask why the minister answered questions on the Silver review earlier in the committee stage, please?

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, I think the Silver review is outside the scope of the purposes of the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Batchelor is right. The Silver review is outside the purposes of this bill. The committee stage should be kept to the purposes of this bill. I think the minister has been generous in some of his answers around some of the funding for programs, and if you would like to continue to ask questions, the minister can choose whether he answers those or not.

No, I will sit in my confusion, then, as to the minister’s earlier answers.

Just a question on data collection. Will Victoria Police be required to collect data about the types of bail conditions that are breached for these offences?

No. It is not a requirement.

Minister, thanks for that response. I guess it leads to my next question: has the government done modelling to determine what the rise in incarceration from these amendments will cost? Considering that you are not requiring police to collect data on the types of bail conditions that are breached, that would infer that that would also then create costs. Has the government done any modelling to determine what the rise in incarceration from these amendments will cost?

I believe I have answered this. The Premier said we will be adequately funding this, and there will be an ordinary budget process to fund what is needed.

I just want to clarify that there would not be a figure that could be outlined as part of the statutory review, for example. Would that be considered as part of the review process?

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, I think it is pretty clear that the budget is outside the scope of the purposes of the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question was about the scope of the statutory review, which is actually within the scope of the bill.

Rachel PAYNE: To clarify, I am just wanting to determine as part of the statutory review whether there would be modelling done to determine the rising costs of incarceration from the amendments. Surely that would be considered part of the review process.

The costs of our custodial settings will be reported in the usual way as part of every budget, where we list the costs of the corrections system.

This follows on from some questions I asked earlier, but just some more specific ones. Corrections revealed in 2022 that 12.7 per cent of women in Victorian prisons are Aboriginal women and 53 per cent of women in prison are on remand. Will this bill lead to more Aboriginal women and non-Aboriginal women being held on remand?

I think I have already answered this. It is speculative. We do not know who is going to be entering into custody as a result of this bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions, we will move to the amendments. We have 10 different sets of amendments. Most of them test consequential amendments. I invite Ms Copsey to move her amendment 1 on grouping A, which is the one to do with remand, and it tests her amendment 6.

Thank you everyone who has been in the chamber, particularly the minister for providing those answers. This is an important piece of legislation and I appreciate the time that members of the Parliament taken to ask questions and also the minister and his dedication to providing as much information as he can. I move:

1. Clause 1, lines 8 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

The purpose of this amendment is to retain the principle of remand as a last resort for children. Making it easier for children to be put in prison does not improve community safety, as I outlined in my second-reading speech and as we have discussed during the committee debate this evening. As a country Australia has entered into international obligations that require that imprisonment be a last resort for children, so we are very concerned about the backward step that will be taken by the government’s approach in this bill. What we know is that the earlier a young person comes into contact with Victoria’s criminal justice system, the more likely they are to go on to reoffend, so we believe that the government got it right in their 2023 amendments and in their approach to the Youth Justice Bill 2024 and that imprisonment should be a last resort for children. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Just quickly, I will not be supporting this, with no surprises after my investigation. I cannot see how anyone would want to support this.

I thank everyone for their contributions during the committee stage. The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment. I think we have seen the devastating consequences of Labor’s weakening of bail laws, particularly this change under which many people were released on bail that should never have been released on bail, and we have seen people die as a result. We have seen the most horrific aggravated burglaries as a result of people that were on bail because of this specific measure, so the Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

I just want to confirm that the government does not support this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell

Noes (31): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Copsey, I invite you to move amendment 2 on your sheet B, which tests your amendments 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 23 and partially tests 5, 17, 18 and 21.

I move:

2. Clause 1, page 2, lines 5 to 9, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

The purpose of this amendment is to omit the bail offence that the government is partially reinstating, committing an indictable offence on bail. As I said earlier this evening, abolishing all three bail offences under the Bail Act was a key recommendation of the coronial inquest into the death of Veronica Nelson. It is staggering that the government, having accepted that recommendation in the past, now tosses it aside. We do not think it is appropriate to reinstate bail offences. For this one in particular we have had an exchange with the minister this evening, trying to ascertain whether the situation that Veronica faced of committing an indictable offence on bail would be repeated if she were in that same situation again. Would she be locked up in prison again and face the same terrible fate that she sadly did? I was not reassured by the minister’s answer. The minister confined his answer to saying the double uplift does not apply. The concern that we have is that someone is still going to find themselves – more than one person; we know her story is not unique – swept up in this. Many people who have committed low-level, nonviolent offences will be swept up by the government’s reinstatement of this bail offence. We do not want to see the situation that we saw with the last rushed, kneejerk policy that the government enacted on these very important laws, which led to a doubling of the number of First Nations women in custody. Sadly it seems that the government is determined to repeat its own mistakes of the past.

[Thursday’s Hansard will be published by close of business Friday 21 March.]

[The Legislative Council report is being published progressively.]