Thursday, 16 November 2023

Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Development Victoria, Minister for Precincts, Minister for Creative Industries) (10:18): Under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (10:19): I rise to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. In starting my discussion on this, it is a bittersweet day. I would like to first of all acknowledge that there are some members of the family here today and I know many watching at home and that it has been a tough, long road for many people in the community.

I am also going to also point out that I know the member for Frankston will be passionate on this. I think he is speaking after me as well in relation to this. We get stuck in politics in here sometimes, but I know in his heart of hearts the member for Frankston knows it is the right move to make sure that someone is named in this bill. I am glad that you have had some say, obviously, in your party room to get this through to where it is today.

This bill contains various parts around the parole board. First of all, I am going to say in my view at the moment probably the most important section is in relation to the conditions for making a parole order for prisoner Paul Denyer. It requires the Adult Parole Board of Victoria in certain circumstances to specify a period during which a prisoner is not eligible for parole, it will require the adult parole board in certain circumstances to consider making and empower the board to make a declaration specifying a period of time in which a prisoner is not eligible for parole and to make further provision for the sharing of certain information by the secretary of the parole board.

The first section is about a person we do not like to talk about, probably more so recently – we have heard the name too often in the media. Unfortunately, with the bill having the name, which I think is the right thing, it does mean we have to refer to that name in here today. I say to people who are watching, who are here today: we note this will trigger some memories and some stress, and we encourage you to reach out for assistance. I am sure I make the offer on behalf of every person in this place: if you are in an electorate and you need support, please go and see your local MP. It does not matter what side of politics they are on, they will be there to assist you and make sure that you get the support you need if something in this debate today does trigger anything at all.

This bill inserts new section 74AC into the principal act to prevent any parole applications from the prisoner Paul Denyer unless, in the secretary’s opinion, Mr Denyer:

(i) is in imminent danger of dying, or is seriously incapacitated, and as a result he no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person; and

(ii) has demonstrated that he does not pose a risk to the community …

This finally puts Paul Denyer in the same category as Julian Knight and Craig Minogue. This is something that should have happened four months ago. It should have gone through the Parliament four months ago and did not. At that time we made an agreement with the government that we would work with them while they were bringing new parole changes in. At the time the legal advice was we could not bring in the legislation we have because that legislation names Paul Denyer in exactly the same way that Julian Knight was named and exactly the same way that Craig Minogue was named. The then Premier Andrews went out and said that the legal advice was that they could not allow this to go through and the Attorney-General said that legal advice was they could not allow this to go through, but now this legislation has identical clauses to what was in place at that time.

I say to the Premier today and to the Attorney-General today that I think it is incumbent on them now to ensure, for my peace of mind and for the peace of mind of the families and of those in the community and of everyone in this house, that they release that information. What advice was there from a legal perspective that said it was not acceptable four months ago and is acceptable today? It had already been tried in the High Court. Minogue and Knight had both tried this in the High Court, and it was upheld. That is absolutely the highest position you can go to test legislation here in this country, yet a government decided that we could not bring in legislation that was identical to what had already been tried through the courts.

I think it is really important that we note why some of these people have been and will remain locked up for a long period of time so we can understand that aspect of how it is going to end up for this third person and why this is so important through this place. First of all, Julian Knight was sentenced by the Supreme Court in November 1988 to life imprisonment for each of seven counts of murder in an incident that will be forever known as the Hoddle Street massacre. Anyone that hears the term instantly knows what that means, and that is why Knight will never be released and should never be released. Craig Minogue was responsible for the Russell Street bombing, another term that Victorians know all too well. At approximately 1 pm on 27 March 1986, Easter Thursday, a bomb Minogue placed exploded and killed 21-year-old police constable Angela Rose Taylor, 24274, and left a further 22 people injured.

I was very specific with naming Angela Taylor with her number. Most will know – anyone who has gone through Victoria Police – that number is something that they are very, very proud of, and her registered number of 24274 is a number that should and I am sure does send so many chills through our spines of what can happen with our Victoria Police. To every one of our Victoria Police members out there, who do a wonderful job, I also want to say to them today: this is legislation around some of the things that you have fought for in our community.

Then we go on to Paul Denyer. Paul Denyer was sentenced to three life sentences without parole in 1993 for the murders of Elizabeth Stevens, 18; Debbie Fream, 22; and Natalie Russell, 17. He successfully challenged at the time his non-parole period to get a 30-year non-parole period on appeal in 1994. The sentencing judge, Frank Vincent, described Denyer’s extraordinary savagery as ‘almost beyond comprehension’. In his direct statement to Denyer at the sentencing Justice Vincent told Denyer:

For many, you are the fear that quickens their steps as they walk alone …

…

… in an important sense you are not one of us.

… I have been told that you obtain immense gratification from the humiliation, mutilation and killing of other human beings.

…

… You do constitute such a danger, and at our present state of knowledge, apart from separating you from society, there is nothing that can be done about it.

There is one difference I want to point out between Denyer, Minogue and Knight on why I was so passionate about this piece of legislation. Knight killed seven people in a one-off incident in Hoddle Street that was horrific – absolutely horrific. Minogue had an intention to kill more than one; only one died in that incident in Russell Street, a one-off incident. Denyer hunted people down. This man should never be on our streets. He did not do it once – he did not have one bad day. He intentionally hunted three people down – four, if you count one that got away. That is why this person should never be back on our streets. As I said in our original debate in here, no-one in this Parliament ever thinks he should. I never want to say any person supported the fact that he should get out. We had different views at the time. However, we are where we are today.

Too often in this place when we do these sorts of bills we focus on the crime and on the perpetrator, and for a short period in here I want to focus on the victims. I want to focus on and put into Hansard who these people were and how important they were to other members of their family – and as I said, some of them are here today – because the circumstances of how they left this world should not and will not in my mind remain the definition of who they were. Obviously I have not met any of the victims, but I have had the opportunity to speak to some of the family during this time.

Natalie Russell was a 17-year-old schoolgirl in Frankston – father Brian, mother Carmel, brothers and sisters Darren, Lisa, Jane, Janine and Damien. According to Mr Limbrick, who we all know in the other place, Natalie was bright and cheeky, with a sarcastic sense of humour, and she was in Mr Limbrick’s words ‘a young woman with everything to look forward to in life’. She was a very conscientious student at school. She was focusing on doing her work because she wanted to get good marks in the VCE. I will probably have to correct that; it was probably HSC at the time. It would be very close.

Paul Edbrooke: VCE.

Brad BATTIN: VCE. Still, Natalie loved getting together with friends when she could. Brian and Carmel, Natalie’s parents, what enormous strength they have had, to endure to where they are today, to stay so strong and to keep that memory of who Natalie was during the last 30 years whilst trying to fight to keep this man in jail. But they cannot imagine what would have likely happened today if they had had Natalie here with us, who would have been 47 years old, the same age as me today. The former John Paul College year 12 student may have been married and had children.

But we all know one thing: she hoped to be a journalist. It would have been great to have a journalist out there. Let us be honest, she would not have been our friend all of the time, but they are such an important part of our community, and it would have been fantastic to see a young girl like this achieve her dreams. Nats Track joins Skye Road in Karingal – near John Paul College – to Monterey Secondary College in Frankston North, and there is now a bronze sculpture featuring a schoolbag adorned with 17 everlasting daisies at the Skye Road end of the track. Whilst it is the site of her final moments, it is also the most beautiful memorial to Nat – a memorial that we should protect. We should make sure that we go down there and visit it to understand the impact of this but more importantly understand who Natalie Russell was.

Elizabeth Anne-Marie Stevens was born on 21 October 1974. She came to Melbourne from Tasmania to attend TAFE at Frankston in January 1993. Elizabeth lived with her uncle and aunt in Paterson Avenue in Langwarrin. According to a friend:

She was pretty quiet and shy. She sort of kept to herself, but when she got to know you and became friends with you, she opened up a bit more and was actually a happy, friendly girl – as if she didn’t have a care in the world. She seemed to have her life set out in front of her of what she wanted to do, what goals she wanted.

Again we need to remember Elizabeth for who she was, not the final outcome.

Debbie Ann Fream was 22. She had everything in life to look forward to, as did Natalie and Elizabeth. Twelve days before her life was taken, she welcomed her baby boy Jake – I will talk a bit about Jake in a second – into the world. There was so much joy in her life. I have come to know Jake a bit more over the last few months, and I have spent some time with him. I totally understand he has had a very, very tough life. We cannot even comprehend not knowing at all and having effectively to fight his whole life after losing his mother. I am not going to go through all of the other circumstances of Jake’s life, but he has had challenges outside of that. The week before last I went down and we went to the Cheeky Squire for a beer and just had a chat about Jake’s dreams. I have to say, for the first time since I have been speaking to him – whether by phone or text or catching up with him – there was almost a different Jake. A bit of pressure had been released. He understands that we in this place are going to do the right thing now and make sure the person that took his mother’s life will not get out, and he is starting to talk about his dreams. He is not starting too big. He wants to go out and get a job and make sure he can work. I want to say to Karen, because we had the conversation, that he wants to start paying his own way and making sure he can pay his rent and get out in life – things that we take for granted.

I want to wish Jake all the best. I am going to speak on behalf of the member for Frankston – and I hope I am not taking up too much of his time – I have spoken over the phone with Jake and the member for Frankston would have, and we will be here for him if he needs any support, whether that is in the political sense to try and find someone for employment or opportunities for training or as someone just to lean on if he needs it at any particular time. For more than 10 years he believed he had been abandoned, and in 2022 the Age reported:

… he developed a form of detachment to cope.

But as the years rolled on the crime, and the impact on his life, “just got bigger and bigger”.

I want to go on about one part of this, which is the actual clause now. New section 74AC of the principal act is naming Paul Denyer. As I said, it is identical. I find it difficult. The Premier at the time said at a press conference:

I think we can all have confidence in the Adult Parole Board to do their work and to do it properly …

They’ve determined he is an ongoing risk and they would not, as I understand it, entertain another application for parole unless there was a material change in circumstance.

My confidence is not so much in Liberal Party motions or Bills that are brought to the parliament. My confidence is in the Adult Parole Board and they have looked at it very, very carefully and they have made what I think is the right decision.

I do not want to go too political on this today. It is just not the right day for me on this. But it is really important to note that the legislation that was put forward then is the same legislation as the legislation now. I know we have got a new Premier in place, and I know for a fact – or rumoured fact – that the member for Frankston was pretty passionate on this and pushed forward to try and get this through. It had to go through.

Sometimes it is not just about the parole board. I trust the parole board. They still can get it wrong, but I do trust the parole board. I actually think they do overall a very, very good job, but we have had circumstances where it has not worked. This is a person who in exceptional circumstances has never done anything to improve who he is or how he would be if he came back into the community.

Now we have got this legislation out there. The government have come out with their media release saying:

Convicted murderer Paul Denyer will never be a risk to community safety again under changes that will keep Victorians safe from the most serious and violent criminals.

The Attorney-General said:

The family and friends of Natalie Russell, Debbie Fream and Elizabeth Stevens continue to suffer …

and these changes will not heal their pain. That part of the legislation I will put aside now. As I said, we on this side of the chamber 100 per cent support that, as we are supporting this bill.

There are some other sections being changed by this bill, and the Attorney-General said publicly, privately and in a letter to us that we could work with them in relation to making this legislation. There would be an overall position where we can have bipartisan support, work through the legislation, bring the family in and make sure everybody effectively has their say so we could have confidence when it came to this place.

Can I first say, from what I understand with the family, that they have been speaking to the family. There was a discussion around this. The Liberal–Nationals once were invited in for a discussion. We did not put anything out in the media; we thought it was more important the family was there. But I only want to state that one time that I was invited in, which I thought was a good start – it did not continue – was with the Minister for Corrections in the other place. One of the questions I asked during that briefing was how many people in the Victorian prison system are like Paul Denyer. How many people have done multiple murders but not within the family? There is a difference in that for danger to the whole community. How many are not in the family?’ When the minister responded with ‘Hundreds’ I nearly fell off my seat. The Minister for Corrections responded with, ‘There are hundreds of people like Paul Denyer.’ The response was so bad that his own adviser advised him not to talk again in our meeting. This is the man, the minister, who is making these decisions, and it is just not good enough. There is nothing wrong with the advisers, nothing wrong with the department – they all were very open. We had a very positive discussion about some of the things that should change. But we had a minister that just was not up for it. That is why I say the Attorney-General has been leading this, and can I say about Jaclyn Symes in the other place: I have nothing but respect for her when it comes to these bills and the way that she does generally work with us. She is approachable. We will not always agree – that is politics – but I think it is a positive that we can actually work together to have those discussions around these pieces of legislation. But you cannot have a minister in charge of corrections who does not understand our system at all. I think that is a huge problem.

The other section this bill amends is section 3(1) of the Corrections Act 1986 to insert the following definitions:

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

(a) two or more offences of murder; or

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

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

This inserts section 74AAG into the principal act to allow the board, by instrument, to declare a prisoner is restricted for eligibility for parole for a period of between five and 10 years if the board is satisfied that this is in the public interest. It is really important to note that we understand that there are 31 prisoners currently that fit this bill and who could be in that position, with a further 50 serving a life sentence with a specified non-parole period who do not fit the full definition. We support this because that is what should happen. If someone applies for parole and they are not fit for parole, they have done nothing to improve themselves, then community safety is going to be the priority, and yes, the parole board should have the ability to set a period of time – five or 10 years. We are very supportive of that.

What I will say, though, is whilst this change we agree with and we think is positive, it does not rule out in the future naming a person in legislation, in my view. There are always circumstances that may change that mean we could amend this in the future or could add amendments such as we have seen for four people in total in this state in history where you need to name a person because of certain circumstances. The reason I say that is it is not about, again, as we have had said, trust in the parole board, because most of us in this place do trust the parole board or, if they continuously get it wrong, they would be replaced; you would work your way through a process to replace the parole board. It is actually about the families every time these applications come forward.

Every time a family and every time a victim of sexual assault thinks that there is going to be an application from someone to come back out again, they are fearful. It just creates that fear that we do not necessarily need. So whilst we support the legislation – we support both sections of this legislation – what we want to make sure is on record is we are not closed off to the fact that these things may change in the future. We do not ever like doing anything retrospectively, and we all want to have caution around us interfering with the courts. I do not think anyone disagrees with that. But when you go back and look at our court system, whether they like it or not, they sometimes get it wrong. There are times that the courts get it wrong as well, and that is when we should come into play. Our role in this place is protecting our community, standing up for community safety and making sure for those that we stand up for, who are on the right side of the fence down there, that when applications come forward in positions they should not we are there to protect them and ensure that they can get on with their lives – people like Jake, who should not have to go through another 30 years of applications every five or 10 years. It is sad but true that we are going to have other people in the future like the three people that have got life sentences. I wish we could say we could rule that out forever. I wish we could, but we just know we cannot.

What this legislation does do, though, and this is why we are supporting it, is give an opportunity to the parole board. For those people who are on that borderline, where they turn around and go ‘They have made some progress, minimal progress, but even with the progress they have tried to make we still don’t believe they’re safe to go out into the community’, we are going to say that instead of them having a parole application every year, depending on the circumstances of their sentence, they are going to have to wait five years or 10 years. In many circumstances that would be a relief for a lot of families too, knowing there will be no applications for that five- or 10-year-period. It does give that authority back to the parole board to make those decisions. It gives them what they need, the legislation they need, knowing that they are going to be supported to make those changes that are in the best interests of the community. I think it is really important that we do give them that opportunity going forward.

74AAG(5)(b) deals with the factors the board must or may consider when deciding whether to make a decision against a restricted prisoner or for granting parole. The legislation has been written in such a way that the board may consider the effect of a declaration of granting parole on the victim’s family rather than must consider. This would be something that on the face of it sounds okay but may be at odds with the government’s desire to always give a level of peace to the family. We had a big discussion about this internally. Changing the word from ‘may’ to ‘must’ sounds on the outside – to be honest, politically it would be very easy to go out and say you must consider the family. But there are circumstances when you are dealing with parole boards that you cannot always do so, and that is why we actually ended up saying ‘may’ was quite appropriate and we trust the parole board to consider that. With reporting coming back from the parole board, hopefully we will be able to see what the impact of that is when they are saying ‘may’, what they are doing and who they are consulting with. Over time the legislation, the parole board and our education in this have got a lot better, so they are performing in a more constructive manner. Over a long period of time we have seen improvements from the parole board and how they operate, and one of the things we have seen change in this is specifically around the community safety aspect being really ramped up in bail and parole applications where those words are now very important – having community safety as a first point in mind.

74AAG and 74AAD will allow for prisoners subject to no-return periods for parole applications to be released if, at the discretion of the board and following a report by the secretary, the prisoner is in imminent danger of dying or is seriously incapacitated and as a result no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person and has demonstrated that he or she does not pose a risk to the community. We are concerned that this only applies to restricted prisoners. No such order can be made for a prisoner serving a life sentence that is by definition a restricted prisoner. So if someone is on a life sentence, there are no actual restrictions in there.

The other section says they are required to get a report from the secretary about a prisoner, and if a report was done in the previous 12 months then they can refer to that report. Again this is something we had a discussion around. How long does a report last for? What behaviours can change in that period of time? It is not so much for the positives – if someone has changed in a positive manner in the previous 12 months, I do not think that will have a massive impact. But I would be hoping that the secretary could seek further advice in relation to a prisoner before a report is done, or if a person’s behaviour has turned negative after a positive report that that could actually be updated in that period. The bill says the period does last 12 months. With it being silent on this, I would like to hope that they can go back or other reports can come in within that 12-month period of a negative behaviour pattern change that would need to be considered by anyone making a decision around that person getting parole.

In closing on this bill I want to say it is, as I said before, a bittersweet day because of the circumstances of how we have ended up here, dating back 30 years obviously from what happened with those families. I want to finish off on the note that whilst we have got this legislation through, we know how important it is, and I hope everyone has it, effectively, on their conscience. It is a big decision to make sure someone stays away forever, but today we are making the right decision in this Parliament. We are putting our right foot forward, and we are standing up for those that need it the most. And while some are in here today and, as I said, some are watching and I have met some of the families and spoken to others, I want to send out to all the family members who hear this that we are all as one standing with you as you go through this again. I want to remind you all that if at any stage during any part of this debate something triggers, please seek assistance and seek help.

I want to send a special message out just to Jake because I have got to know him a couple of times. I just think he is such a – I hate saying the word ‘kid’ because he is 30, but we went out and had a drink the other day, and he has got the dreams and wishes and now he has got the opportunity for a future that will be growing, learning and developing for himself. He will still need help along the way, but I reckon he has got an absolutely amazing future going forward, and I know he will do his mum proud. This legislation means that he can also be at peace with what is going on and move forward. If he needs anything, he has got a magnificent support network around him, and I think that they will all be there to support him as well.

So in that, the Liberal and National parties support this bill. We would have liked to have seen it go through sooner, but we are now at a stage that we want to make sure that it gets through as fast as possible and that the person I mentioned before never gets an opportunity to come back out into our community and put fear into any person in Victoria again.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (10:48):I rise in support of the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023, or as I like to call it, Nat’s law after Natalie Russell, whose family are here in the gallery with us today. I acknowledge the amazing friends and family in the gallery or watching today – Carmel, Brian, Lisa, Janine, Karen, Jake, David, Gail and Vikki. Thank you to the Attorney-General Minister Symes in the other place, and I want to thank the shadow minister and the opposition for their support.

Bills that contain this level of complexity or risk unintended repercussions for families in the future cannot be rushed. I believe that bills that involve naming individuals need solicitor-general advice giving confidence that the drafted bill would survive a challenge, which we now have. I believe bills as serious as this need extended consultation with families, and I believe bills like this require community consultation, which in this case involves a very painful past and many people who have been deeply traumatised. This bill thoroughly satisfies those beliefs.

Under this bill people serving a life sentence for multiple murder, murdering a child or committing a sexual offence as well as a murder will become restricted prisoners. The Adult Parole Board of Victoria will be given the power to prevent restricted prisoners from applying for parole for between five and 10 years. In addition, if a person serving a life sentence is refused parole, the adult parole board will be required to set a no-return period for up to five years. This bill will also enable better information sharing about the decisions, which the families, as I have heard, said was sorely needed. Finally clause 7 of the bill will name Paul Charles Denyer in the Corrections Act 1986.

Let me be clear: that was the last time you will ever hear me utter his name in public, because he is not a celebrity, he is the criminal who took innocent lives in our community – people whose names we actually should always cherish and remember. This means he will never, ever be able to apply for parole, unless he is either dying or incapacitated to the extent that he cannot pose a risk to anyone in our community. Unlike previous attempts, this unique bill now has the confidence of the solicitor-general and the added assurance that on the small chance that the offender did successfully appeal to the High Court, the adult parole board would still have the power to prevent him, a restricted prisoner, from applying for parole for up to 10 years. As the Shadow Minister for Corrections said, this is something that is not done lightly. This type of restriction is only used for the absolutely most dangerous offenders in our state. He meets that description.

Now, as written by Nat’s best friend Karen Noone on behalf of the victims’ families and friends, it is a privilege to read her words to the house:

There is no atonement for Nat’s death. It’s a weight we are destined to carry for the rest of our lives.

The day we found out Nat was murdered, and every day thereafter has been coloured by the loss of her. And of a sudden – the future was gone. No more excitement at the beautiful burgeoning discovery of self, No more travel plans, no more birthday parties, no more driving lessons, no more university thoughts – career directions, no more favourite clothes in Ramshakle, a new Mascara, no more Nag Champa incense and silver rings. Her one precious life was snatched from us and the lives of everyone who loved her were then irrevocably changed in that moment.

That day – his act – took away her choice to be a mother or a wife, the chance to be an aunty, to continue being a big and little sister – her opportunity to live the life she was born to live. So many ‘what if’s’.

I remember the next day, when they arrested the person responsible for her death and that of Debbie and Elizabeth. I remember thinking that he was just some stupid lump that had taken her away in an instant for no apparent reason other than he ‘just wanted to kill’ Just snatched her as she walked home from school. Here and then gone. Alive and then not alive. No opportunity left to nurse her back to health, make her better – help her get on with her precious life.

The grief is astounding and still strong enough to take our breath away. It is a lifelong disbelief that this has happened, and she is gone. I speak for myself, but also for Nat’s Family.

Big parts of each of us were lost that day. The generations that have followed have been touched by this loss. Each relationship has had to be crafted around it, some with successes – but many have not been able to survive it.

Some don’t understand why we still grieve so hard – and to this I say, consider yourself fortunate that you don’t understand, and hope you never will.

Our aim has never changed. We had hoped to effect peaceful, collaborative statutory change. This is what is happening today. For us, to never have to imagine that he will walk the streets again – to never harm another woman or girl and for Justice to be served as intended is a gift.

We won’t have to see his face on the TV or in the Paper, we won’t need to think of him at all. Instead, we’ll remember the beautiful girls for themselves, and not their murders. It will be a significant salve to some of the grief, to know this.

I thank the family for providing me with those words.

Part of the Nat’s law legacy is that future families do not have to be retraumatised by repeat parole applications, and I know the Russell family want to ensure that others never have to endure what they have. When Nat’s law receives royal assent, I say to all journalists, authors and podcasters: this is your opportunity to ensure that we never forget the crime or the names of the victims. Never stop educating the community about that, but immediately stop promoting and repeating this offender’s name. You have all played a really important role, but do not increase his notoriety. Do not promote him. Do not martyr him. Do not let him feel like he needs to publish a bloody book. Give him what he deserves: absolutely nothing. Because what he fears the most is what is now out of his control and totally within our power, and that is to make sure he fades into obscurity.

To the families, I was never going to give up until this was done. As complex as this area has been to navigate, as hard as some of the justice and legal system is to learn and explain, regardless of politics, regardless of the mountains we needed to move, this was going to get done. I gave you my word. Thank you for putting your trust in me, sharing time with me and educating me.

Finally, Nat’s law is about victims and their families, and history shows us that true justice is when victims’ names are remembered and the offenders’ are not. So let us remember and celebrate the lives of Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell. Nat’s law means that for the first time since the Frankston serial killer won an appeal to apply for parole, he is never, ever going to walk our streets again, as per the original sentence. Karen, while I know the grief is still strong enough to take your breath away, finally here is justice served as intended. Our community can finally stop holding its breath. The women and children of Frankston can feel a little safer walking the streets, and in some small way our community can heal. I commend this bill to the house.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (10:57): I rise to make a contribution on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. I wish to begin by acknowledging and commemorating the lives of three young Victorian women: Elizabeth Stevens, aged 18, a VCE student studying at Frankston TAFE; Deborah Fream, aged 22, who had recently given birth to a child; and Natalie Russell, aged 17, a student at John Paul College in Frankston. These three women became the tragic victims of Paul Charles Denyer, the person that this legislation will finally ensure is never allowed to roam our streets or harm or murder anyone else – any other woman – ever again. These three young women were brutally murdered by him in 1993, and I wish to pay tribute to these young women who had their whole lives ahead of them. These women were denied their future. They were denied their right to fulfil their hopes and dreams and reach their potential. A baby was denied his right to know and be nurtured and loved by his mum.

I also want to acknowledge Roszsa Toth. On the same night that Denyer murdered Deborah Fream, Roszsa Toth, then aged 41, was abducted by Denyer. And after being dragged to a local reserve, Roszsa bravely fought for her life, managed to escape and found refuge in a passing motorist. Roszsa would have almost certainly lost her life too if it had not been for her escape.

I also wish to acknowledge the families and friends of these four women. I can only imagine the loss, the pain and the suffering that they have had to endure for the last 30 years since these tragic events took place. The bravery and the courage of the families in championing these reforms we are discussing today and these proposed new laws are testament to the deep love and affection they have for these women. The passage of this legislation will forever honour the memories of these brave young women and will dramatically improve how serious violent offenders are dealt with in the future.

As a young teenager when these tragic events took place, I recall the shocking news reports — the devastation that was taking place on the streets of Frankston where two of my aunties, two of my uncles and my cousins lived. My cousins went to school there. While my four female cousins were a little younger, I was scared for them. As young females they were at risk just because they lived in Frankston. Knowing that someone out there was attacking innocent young women was terrifying for all young women at the time.

There was a tremendous sense of relief when Denyer was finally apprehended. The sentencing decision of Justice Frank Vincent bears witness to Denyer’s horrific crimes: three murders and one kidnapping of four women were committed in just a six-week period. The murderous attacks were committed with almost unbelievable savagery. There were elements of preparation, planning and subsequent concealment. In Justice Vincent’s words, the way in which Denyer hunted down his victims was ‘almost beyond comprehension’. In summing up the fear and devastation Denyer had caused, not just to the families of the victims but to the community as a whole, Justice Vincent said:

The apprehension that you have occasioned to many thousands of women in our community will be felt for a very long time. For many, you are the fear that quickens their steps as they walk alone or that causes a parent to look anxiously at a clock when a child is late.

Justice Vincent sentenced Denyer to three separate sentences of life imprisonment and eight years of imprisonment for the kidnapping of Ms Toth without a period of parole. This meant at that time that Denyer would remain in prison for life. In perhaps considerable foresight of what was to come, Justice Vincent said, in refusing to impose a non-parole period:

… I cannot abrogate my responsibility to some distant Parole Board … Perhaps there will come a day when you will be able to walk among the ordinary people of our community. Whether you will ever do so must await the passage of years and the decision of the Executive Government of the time.

Justice Vincent’s sentence was later overturned by a majority 2–1 decision of the Court of Appeal, which found it was an error not to provide a non-parole period. The Court of Appeal made orders that allowed Denyer to become eligible for parole after serving 30 years in prison. But as Justice Vincent foreshadowed some 30 years ago, it now falls upon us, the government, this Parliament to determine if he should never be allowed to be set free.

In response to the pleas made by the families of the victims and the general public following Denyer becoming eligible to apply for parole earlier this year, we in the Victorian Liberals and Nationals introduced a private members bill to prevent the parole board ever making a parole order in relation to Denyer back on 17 May 2023, this year. Our private members bill was in exactly the same terms as the ones introduced previously with respect to Julian Knight by the Napthine government and Craig Minogue by the Andrews government. Yet this Labor government voted against this bill. In my opinion, it was shameful.

In response to repeated questions in this place as to why the government refused to support a bill to keep Denyer in jail, the then Premier said our private members bill was likely to result in High Court challenges and adverse judgements declaring the proposed legislation invalid. The then Premier also said it was the government’s intention to develop changes, but stated categorically:

They will not relate to any one person …

Now, six months later, we have a bill by the government that does the very thing it said it would not do. The part of the bill that relates specifically to Denyer being prevented from accessing parole is word for word identical to the very private members bill that the Liberals and Nationals and my friend the member for Berwick introduced just six months ago.

When the Labor government was asked to explain its backflip, various answers were given, and the first was that the solicitor-general had provided new advice that the provisions would be valid. Yet if you read the notes on clause 7 in the explanatory memorandum to the bill they state that new section 74AC is modelled around sections 74AA and 74AB of the current Corrections Act 1986 relating to Knight and Minogue. It then states that section 74AA was upheld by the High Court as constitutionally valid in Knight v. Victoria in 2017. In fact the Knight bill, introduced by the Napthine government, was upheld unanimously by all seven High Court justices. That was six years ago. Nothing has changed. In fact a similar provision was also unanimously upheld by the High Court again in the Minogue decision in 2019.

How could the solicitor-general’s advice have changed on this issue when these provisions had been upheld by the High Court since 2017? Disappointingly, the government has refused to release the solicitor-general’s advice despite significant public interest in doing so, preventing us from properly understanding the government’s change in its position from six months ago – and I seriously question if it exists.

When we asked the government in the bill briefing about this very issue we were told it was because the victims’ families wanted Denyer to be specifically named in the bill, and this should not have been any surprise for the government. That is precisely why the Liberals and Nationals introduced a private members bill earlier this year, because it is what the families had advocated for and what Mr Limbrick in the other place, who lost a loved one at the hands of Denyer, supported. The members for Berwick and Mornington have met with the families, and we know this. Contrary to the government’s assertion, there was no reason to delay. The government’s delay has caused a further six months of pain and anguish. The government could have supported our bill six months ago and introduced further parole reforms at a later time. The further reforms have nothing to do with Denyer. However, I am relieved the government has finally reversed its misguided position.

As Justice Vincent said 30 years ago, Denyer is not one of us. This law will ensure he is never allowed to terrorise or harm any young woman ever again. It will ensure the families of Elizabeth, Deborah and Natalie and the Frankston community can rest assured Denyer has been locked up for good, as he should be, and can never get out and commit such heinous crimes again. He does not deserve the freedom and privileges that our state and our country provide. This too in my view is a significant measure for women and women’s safety. By passing this bill we ensure the lives and legacies of Natalie Russell, Elizabeth Stevens and Deborah Fream are never forgotten, and I commend the bill to the Parliament.

Emma VULIN (Pakenham) (11:07): I rise today to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. This particular bill is one that is very close to my heart. I grew up in Frankston, and in fact I grew up during the 1980s and 90s on Skye Road, a place which is of significance as I speak today. This is also the most significant and emotional bill I have spoken on thus far in this house. Firstly, I want to thank the Attorney-General and her team, Mr Limbrick from the other place and the member for Frankston for all the heart and soul they have put into this legislation, but more importantly I want to acknowledge the courage and strength shown by the families and friends of the victims. Some of them are with us here today. But this bill is not just for them. It is for many who felt the pain and who still feel the pain from that time from the actions of a man that I do not often like to name but for the purpose of this bill today I will, but just once – Paul Charles Denyer. This was a man who caused so much hurt, a man who is the lowest form of human being, a man who got satisfaction from such violent acts and inhumane actions that he inflicted on others.

This is a bill that I hope has unanimous support from every member in this Parliament, because that is when we see this place at its best. It is not political – input from families and communities through consultation has made this a very special bill. It was not a bill that could be rushed. It is imperative that it would stand up if appealed in the High Court. It was important to make sure we had the advice from the solicitor-general on this matter.

When I think of that time in 1993, it is hard to forget; in fact it is a time that I will never forget, and I believe that this is the case for so many. At the age of 13 I was in year 8. I had an older sister who was in year 11 at the time, and we went to the local state high school, Karingal High. Each night my parents would watch the news and listen to the radio in the hope that they would be able to confirm they had caught the person who had broken into someone’s home and killed a cat and two innocent kittens in the most sick and grotesque way. That was the home of Donna Vanes.

In June there were reports of the murder of an 18-year-old girl in Langwarrin, and the details were brutal. She had caught a bus home after being at TAFE and never made it back. Elizabeth Stevens was found dead only 250 metres from her home. Journalist and author Paul Kennedy wrote in his memoir Funkytown about living in Seaford and Frankston in 1993. He noted that Elizabeth had only moved from Tasmania six months prior to her death. Kennedy quoted a newspaper report on what the celebrant said about Elizabeth at her funeral:

She loved children, she was young at heart, she had a wonderful sense of humour, often dry witted. No one can harm her now. She is safe and in peace.

My parents were frantic. They moved my sister and me into the same room, and from that night we shared a bed. Mum and Dad then bought my sister and me a new dog, and we named him Oscar. Our blue heeler was the first animal ever allowed to sleep in our bedrooms, and Oscar slept on the end of our beds as our guard dog. I was forced to understand violent crime at age 13, well before I should have. The fear would continue into my childhood and in my childhood community for many, many years. This experience altered my life perspective forever. It was a loss of innocence.

In July 1993 there was another report – that a 41-year-old, Roszsa Toth, had been attacked near the toilet block at Seaford as she walked home from Seaford train station to her home. Roszsa was one of the lucky ones who broke free. On the same night Deborah Fream was not lucky. She was living at nearby Kananook and was abducted from her car in the early evening. She was a new, loving mum. She had a 12-day-old baby boy, Jake, at home. Deborah had popped out quickly to get milk and eggs. She was just 22 years of age. Devastatingly, four days later her body was found in Carrum Downs. Again, she had been through the most unimaginable struggle in a brutal attack. As you can imagine, the local community was living in terror. We lived in fear each and every day.

Later that month we learned that 17-year-old Natalie Russell had been murdered on her way home from school on the track from Skye Road, the very same road that I lived on. Nat put up a fight, and her courage led to DNA being left behind from her killer. This resulted in the ability to arrest that man for his horrific crimes. In her darkest hour she changed the world. She protected others from a similar fate – what an incredible young lady. I have some comfort that the track was renamed Nat’s Track in her memory. Natalie played netball. She had hoped to become a journalist one day, and she liked the Cure. Her family must always think about what life would have been like for her, for their daughter, who would only be three years older than me. Would she have children or a family of her own? That is something the family will never get to know. My heart breaks for them and the families of the other women that I have spoken about. These women were taken too soon in the most God-awful way.

I have not spoken much about what this bill is about, but before I do I also want to thank the police and emergency services workers that worked on this case both during that time in 1993 and for the years thereafter. Their hard and difficult work must have taken a personal toll on them and their families. The crimes committed were unthinkable, and we thank you.

This bill is about making amendments to the Corrections Act 1986, ensuring that that man will see the rest of his life behind bars. The only way for him to seek parole is to be terminally ill or incapacitated, like the two other worst offending criminals named in our legislation. Alongside that part of the bill, the Adult Parole Board of Victoria will be given the power to declare a no-return period for people given life sentences, preventing them from making another application for up to five years. The parole board will also be given the power to declare some offenders restricted prisoners under a new restricted prisoner declaration scheme, meaning they cannot seek release for between five and 10 years after their non-parole period has ended unless they become terminally ill or incapacitated and no longer pose a risk to the community. Prisoners falling under the scheme will have committed offences such as committing multiple murders, murdering children or committing a sexual offence during a murder, changes that I am glad to see.

These amendments will also allow the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to share information about a no-return period and restricted prisoner declaration with registered victims and, if it is in the public interest, the adult parole board to share this information with other members of the public. What this means for registered victims is that they will be informed if a prisoner is denied parole and have a level of certainty on when they will next be reconsidered for parole. This will reduce the lingering distress for victims, the constant wondering if and when a person who has hurt them or their family might be returning to the community.

The bill also empowers the board to consider the impact on victims if the prisoner were released on parole. Parole is a privilege that must be earned; it is not a right. Parole is intended to promote community safety by providing people in prison with structured support and supervised transition back into the community. The safety and protection of the community will always be the most important fact for the adult parole board to consider.

I received emails from people living in my electorate of Pakenham earlier this year when the Frankston serial killer was due to apply for parole. The anxiety and fear felt by members even in my community, 50 kilometres away, was real. I can only imagine what it felt like for the families affected by these terrible crimes. The thought that this man might potentially be let out of prison – we all sighed a sigh of relief when the application for parole was denied.

This bill will give some comfort to the Russell, Fream and Stevens families. It will ensure that they do not need to publicly relive that time over and over again and have the fear that this man will one day be freed. I know not a day goes by that these families are not suffering. We cannot take that away, but we can ease the tiniest bit of pain with the knowledge that this man will never, ever be released while he is able to reoffend, ever. I commend this bill to the house.

Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (11:16): I rise to speak today on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 before us. To know that unremorseful serial killer Paul Denyer will never be released to be a danger again to anyone in society is relieving news, particularly for many of the victims’ families and friends. Many victims’ families are with us here in the chamber and in Parliament today, many whom I have met and liaised with since the time I became the then federal MP covering Frankston in 2016. In particular I clearly remember joining with victims’ families and so many community members at Nat’s Track in Frankston for the 25th anniversary commemoration for the victims of his crimes five years ago in mid-2018, speaking at the event and walking along that track with them, remembering victims Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell and acknowledging also Roszsa Toth, who was abducted, and what she went through. I cannot imagine being in their shoes, particularly in having an eight-year-old daughter myself. To lose someone or people that you love; to have their futures taken away from them, the chance for life, a future career, to be married, to have kids, to have grandkids; for a kid to no longer have their mother and to grow up with them, to not see them again or spend time with them – it is unimaginable.

In the middle of this year, I attended the 30th anniversary at Nat’s Track, joining with victims’ families, advocates and so many community members. It was touching to see the Frankston and wider community gather together in solidarity. What the community went through as well was terrible. One of my team members has shared with me her stories about living locally at the time, growing up as a teenager in Frankston. I quote:

The Frankston and surrounding communities were on high alert. Young women had lost their confidence to go out. Each time it rained and there was a storm they lived in fear, as this is when Denyer preyed on his victims, hoping the rain would wash away any evidence. For a long seven weeks there was a sense of dread every morning turning on the news or the radio to hear if there had been any more victims or if the murderer had been caught. With each murder the community was in shock, stunned.

My staff member’s friends, young mums at the time, when going for a walk with their baby in a pram would keep a hammer or a spanner to use for self-defence, as they were horrified that young women and a young mother with a newborn baby at home had been slaughtered. Doors, windows and locks were triple-checked. Getting back into cars at the shopping centre, back doors were opened and checked before driving home in case the murderer was hiding in the back seat. To this day it is a habit for this staff member and many of her friends and family to lean back and check the back of their cars before driving off.

On 20 December 1993 Denyer was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment plus eight years with no fixed parole period. However, after lodging an appeal Denyer was granted a non-parole period of 30 years. Denyer became eligible for parole after three decades and made a bid for freedom, dragging again his victims’ families and friends through a harrowing period of uncertainty and fear at the prospect of his release.

On 10 May 2023 Denyer’s relatives were fortunately informed that the Adult Parole Board of Victoria had rejected Denyer’s application, a relief for everyone, particularly victims’ families. I join with the families and friends of victims and the wider community in expressing my relief at this decision to keep Denyer behind bars. Psychologists who examined Denyer diagnosed him as a sadistic narcissist who was unlikely to change, noting Denyer’s intense gratification at the torment, distress and suffering of his victims. Denyer has never expressed any remorse or sorrow for his reign of terror in Frankston, citing his uncontrollable urge to kill and deep hatred of girls and women as his prime motive. While undoubtedly the decision provided temporary relief to Denyer’s victims’ friends and family, as well as the Victorian community, Denyer could still apply for parole in the future, subjecting all those affected by his evil to further trauma. As reported on the ABC News on 10 May 2023, Brian Russell and his wife Carmel, the parents of Denyer’s final victim, 17-year-old Natalie Russell, expressed relief at Denyer’s parole rejection but called for changes to parole laws specific to Denyer, expressing their desire for a situation where:

The key would just be thrown away and no more applications for parole …

Similarly, David Limbrick, who is here today in the chamber with us and who is the former boyfriend of Natalie Russell, also called for legislative change which would ensure that Denyer remains behind bars, noting on 10 April 2023 that:

The very idea the Paul Denyer should be eligible for parole is an insult to every woman in Victoria.

It is crucial that Denyer is never released, so in Parliament I too have called numerous times for the government to ensure this occurred. While I am relieved for the victims with the bill today, in my view, knowing the 30th anniversary was coming, when Denyer was eligible to apply for parole, the convicted serial and unremorseful killer Denyer should never have been afforded the possibility of parole in the first place, which has further traumatised victims’ families and friends and the community. When there was an opportunity the bill the coalition put forward almost six months ago today should have been supported.

In April this year I put forward a policy proposal as the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Corrections, having been the Frankston and surrounding areas’ MP, within the coalition supporting that that legislation be put through Parliament to guarantee that Frankston serial killer Paul Denyer could no longer apply for parole and to keep him behind bars for life, similar to previous legislation passed for murderers Craig Minogue and Julian Knight. After shadow ministerial and shadow cabinet approval by the member for Berwick and the member for Malvern – and I acknowledge the efforts by the member for Berwick here today, which have been significant over the last few months on this issue – this resulted in the Victorian Liberals and Nationals then putting forward the private members bill on 17 May, nearly six months ago, strongly supported by Nat’s former boyfriend David Limbrick, again, who I mentioned is here today, and victims’ family and friends to ensure that Paul Denyer could not make any further applications for release. This bill was to insert provisions in the Corrections Act 1986 mirroring the current provisions that exist for Craig Minogue and Julian Knight preventing them from ever making further applications for release. This bill, though, was sadly opposed by the Victorian Labor government, the Greens and others at the time and so did not get through the Legislative Council.

However, this bill, combined with strong advocacy from families of the victims and others, put significant pressure on the government to act, and finally the government have belatedly introduced the legislation we are debating today, which will result in keeping Frankton serial killer Paul Denyer in prison for life. But instead of putting the victims’ families through many more months of stress and heartbreak, the Labor government should have supported our private members bill at the time. Yet I am still proud to work together, in particular with the member for Frankston – and I note his words before, which I 100 per cent agree with – to keep Denyer behind bars to guarantee that he cannot traumatise victims’ friends or family anymore and cannot terrorise our community ever again.

My deepest sympathies go out to all the family members of the victims who are here with us today. I note that this bill will insert a new section in the principal act to prevent any parole applications from Paul Denyer unless he is in imminent danger of dying or is seriously incapacitated and has demonstrated that he does not pose a risk to the community. It also adds some further things, though, that go beyond Denyer to allow that the board may declare that a restricted prisoner is not eligible for parole for between five and 10 years. It also inserts a new section into the principal act to require the board by instrument to order that, following an application where parole is denied, a prisoner serving a life sentence with a non-parole duration is not eligible for parole for the period specified in that order.

I and my colleagues support this bill for the sake of the protection of the public and the wellbeing of the families, friends and all those in the wider community affected by Paul Denyer. We must always protect the safety of our community and respect victims’ loved ones. I would also like to finally comment on the jailhouse letter that Paul Denyer sent to David Limbrick as a friend of Natalie, who was tragically murdered. I would hope that further action can be taken in this place such that any of the victims’ family members, including members of Parliament, should not be able to be contacted by murderers in the future. I hope that we can take further action on that as well. I once again acknowledge all of the victims’ families and friends who are here with us in the chamber today.

Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Development Victoria, Minister for Precincts, Minister for Creative Industries) (11:26): Before I start my substantive contribution I just want to very briefly mention the house amendment that I moved earlier in this debate, just for the clarity of the members participating in this debate. It is a minor amendment to rectify a drafting error in the bill. Clause 7 of the bill provides details of Paul Denyer and a description of the sentence he received. This clause is intended to make clear that the provision applies only to the prisoner Paul Denyer. A drafting error in the bill describes Denyer as the prisoner sentenced to three consecutive life sentences in the Victorian Supreme Court on 20 December 1993. The three life sentences were in fact imposed to be served concurrently, and the house amendment rectifies that drafting error. It reinforces the intended operation of the bill.

In approaching deliberations on this bill over the last couple of weeks I must admit to wanting to approach this with a sense of anger and still a sense of shock at the events of some 30 years ago, as I think many people in Melbourne or Victoria still feel so angry and so shocked by the egregious evil that was perpetrated. But as I have reflected on the bill and the deliberations that we are making and the strength of the families in particular, I have realised that today this bill is all about the three victims – the fourth if you include Roszsa Toth – and their families and the strength that they have shown. It is about the families of Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell and the importance of us carefully stepping through the best way to make sure that the prisoner that is named in this bill sees the rest of his time behind bars and also the provisions in the bill that go further than that one named individual.

This bill also establishes the restricted prisoner declaration scheme, which empowers the Adult Parole Board of Victoria to declare that a person serving a life sentence for, I suppose, the worst of the worst crimes is not eligible for parole for a period of five to 10 years if it is in the public interest to do so. That section of the bill sets out the classification of those sorts of crimes that would apply to. It formalises the parole board’s ability to prevent people serving a life sentence from receiving parole for a period of up to five years, a no-return requirement, and it also ensures that registered victims and other parties – as appropriate, families – can receive information about no-return declaration periods that are set by the parole board.

I will come to the specific prisoner mentioned in a moment, but I think the house needs to acknowledge that the strength of the families and friends of these victims has led to a vast improvement in the operation of the system for other victims in the future. So I acknowledge that their strength has contributed to that improvement, and the house should acknowledge gratefully the pain that they obviously suffer but that they have been able to, through that, improve the system overall for other people that come forward in the future.

This is very serious bill, as the lead speaker from the opposition and the government benches have made clear. It is not lightly that we consider naming someone in the Corrections Act 1986 and effectively throwing away the key. As I have said before, my instinctive reaction here was that we should do exactly that, but we do need to consider carefully the legal ramifications of these things. I think it is important for this house to put the arguments against some of the arguments that have been put against this legislation in the public domain and make it very clear to people why we see this legislation as being important, right and just.

I want to thank Greg Barns, who wrote a very informed article in the Age on 2 November. Despite the fact that I disagree with his proposition, I think it is useful for people of Mr Barns’s considerable knowledge to put forward the arguments that they do, so that we are able to consider these things in a careful way. His article very neatly encapsulated a series of arguments about the separation of powers and the reason that we do not often tread into the territory of interfering with the work of the courts. I quote selectively from that article by Mr Barns. He said:

But for an executive government to identify particular individuals as having committed such heinous crimes that legislation must be passed so that they may override the courts that sentenced them is an exercise in dangerous overreach.

The English former judge Tom Bingham, who wrote extensively on the rule of law, argued that for the rule of law to truly work, and for the public to have complete faith and trust in the system, a complete functional separation of the judiciary from the executive is required.

At the end of his article he wrote:

… the rule of law should be sacrosanct in a democracy. Courts should not have their discretion to accord justice undermined, irrespective of the crimes committed or the criminal responsible for them.

As I said, I respect Mr Barns and appreciate the very strong arguments he has put forward, but he is right in the sense – or the English former judge Tom Bingham is right in effect – that for the system to work, the public have to have complete faith and trust in the system. I think the public overwhelmingly would see the prisoner named in this bill potentially being released as undermining their faith and trust in the system, and in fact this Parliament has come to that position with this bill, a position that restores a level of faith and trust in the system overall. I think it is an important mechanism that the Parliament has where the most evil, most egregious examples of criminal behaviour can be dealt with by the Parliament at this stage.

I found it useful to go back and read the sentencing of the named prisoner by the Honourable Justice Frank Vincent. I acknowledge that that original sentencing decision was altered by the Court of Appeal further on, but I do think it is important to reflect on the views of the sentencing judge, if you like, who initially sat through that trial. In doing so I note that Justice Vincent did not set a non-parole period, effectively meaning no parole, for the named prisoner. He said at the end of his sentencing:

The only question which remains for consideration is whether a period of imprisonment should be fixed after which you would become eligible for parole. Your counsel when presenting submissions on this aspect emphasized your youth and a dreadful prospect which you would face if this were not done. He pointed to the views expressed by the High court in R. v. Bugmy (1990) –

references –

… as to the care which a sentencing judge must take in predicting an offender’s prospects for rehabilitation. He submitted, quite correctly, that we cannot know whether in 25, 30, or at some time beyond 30 years, the fires of your aberrant desires may have been long quenched or whether our understanding of such matters may have progressed to the extent that some solution to the problem which you pose may have been found.

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

The passage of years has now occurred. The executive government – this Parliament – is making that decision that needs to be made, and I commend this bill to the house.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (11:35): I rise today to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. I would like to commend at the outset the member for Berwick on his hard work towards ensuring that Paul Denyer will be named and ensuring that he never, ever leaves prison. I would also like to commend the member for Frankston for his work and his advocacy within caucus and within his community in standing up for the families of the victims, who have suffered terrible, terrible tragedies as a result of Paul Denyer’s heinous actions.

In listening to the contributions today I think that it is one of those moments where we have an amazing opportunity in this Parliament to stand for what is right. It is sometimes a very difficult discussion, but it is important that we do things like this and enshrine in legislation things that will make an enormous difference to the safety of Victorians going forward but most importantly will take an enormous amount of pressure off and be an enormous relief to the families of the loved ones who were murdered by Paul Denyer. I do note their presence in the chamber today. I commend them for their advocacy. I commend them for being a strong voice for their friends and their family members who have no longer got that voice and for being so tenacious over so many years. It really is a credit to each and every one of you. I would also like to reference Mr Limbrick from the other place, who is also in the chamber. You have been an amazing advocate in this space. We can do great things when we are parliamentarians, and I really do commend the work of those individuals, who have done an enormous amount of work.

I am very humbled that I have met some of the family members of Debbie Fream who live in my electorate of Lowan. I have not met all of them, but I also know a lot of people in the community who have been following this very, very closely and are deeply embedded in ensuring that there is a fairness in the process going forward for Denyer and to protect the family members from further harm going forward. Early this year I met with a family member, and it just struck me how the impacts of this level of crime can last not just for a moment in time and how the trauma is not just for the individuals who suffered at the hands of Denyer himself but how they can have an enormously traumatic impact on how others in the community live their lives and how they can be so heavily impacted by the actions of one. I have heard that people were often told to make sure you check the back seat of your car when you go in, and there are still people in the community now who, before they get into a vehicle, if they are getting into a vehicle at night-time, will shine their torch from their phone in the back seat of the car to make sure nobody is hiding in there. For people to be terrorised to get in their car at the footy or any time after hours and for that still to be lingering on and to have that scar on their lives for such a long period of time and between generations just shows the terrible impact that it can have on the community when there is someone who goes to such horrific lengths to get their own satisfaction with no care at all or no regard for what that might mean for others.

We know that Denyer was, thankfully, one of the rare humans on this earth who would go to the lengths of actually hunting down women for his own sexual gratification, for his own gratification of humiliating women, of murdering women, and do it time and time and time again. I think we can take a lot of solace that today’s legislation is a step closer to putting Denyer behind bars for the remainder of his years, to ensuring that no longer do we have to worry about parole when it comes up. No longer do the families have to tell their stories again, and perhaps there is that sense of freedom mentally for the families of the victims.

I note the member for Berwick’s comments about his generous support of and friendship that has developed with Jake, or ‘baby Jake’, as he is still referred to in the Casterton community. He had perhaps the most difficult start to life. We all like to think as parents that we do our very, very best to raise a child safely in the world in order that they know that they are cared for and that they are loved, and Paul Denyer stole that from Jake. I really do hope that for Jake this provides some closure, that he knows that his mother’s murderer will never, ever see the light of day again. I hope that it helps to give him confidence that his life can be a success. I hope that it gives him hope in his own life that he should every day be working to make his mum proud, make his family proud and make his community proud, because he has so much support in the Casterton community. It is amazing to hear people speak about baby Jake – and Jake, if you are watching on, I know that you have got a lot of supporters out there. We all believe in you. Work really hard in your life. You are a great young man and you will do good things, and you do not have to worry about that bloke ever again. You will never have to worry about that bloke ever again.

It is somewhat difficult today, I think, for some of us in that this has been a traumatic process to go through. Not only have the family had to speak during the parole process and give their evidence and experiences and express their trauma yet again and open up old wounds, but we also have had that to go through trying to get legislation passed that will actually name Paul Denyer in the way that other criminals have been named in legislation in the past to ensure that they are ineligible for parole and they never get out of jail and that the community is safe. I wish that this exact same legislation had been supported four months ago. I am pleased that it has been at least taken through today. It is the last time that we have to have this discussion and debate. It is the last time we have to open up these old wounds for family, for friends, for all of the loved ones, for other people in the community who have been impacted by this.

This is it. In two weeks this will have passage through the upper house – I am quite certain of that. We can close the door on this, and no longer will we have to make the focus talking about Paul Denyer. We can get back to talking about what wonderful women Natalie Russell, Debbie Fream and Elizabeth Stevens were and the other victims of Denyer. It should always be about celebrating the victims’ lives. They never, ever did anything to deserve what happened to them. They did not do anything wrong. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In Victoria we need to ensure that any person is safe but particularly when it comes to young women, and in these circumstances very young women who had their entire lives ahead of them – you know, Debbie with a 12-week-old baby and all of what lies ahead of that. She should have been focusing on whether Jake was going to start sleeping through the night soon. She should have been able to focus on all those positive, joyous things that being a new mother is. That was stolen from her and stolen from Jake and stolen from her family. I am sure, though, that that time for Debbie – her pregnancy and sharing every kick of Jake in her stomach through that period, bringing little Jake into the world, the first cuddles, those newborn baby smells, those first 12 weeks of working out how you feed your baby, whether they are burping right, whether they are sleeping, ‘What am I doing right, what am I doing wrong,’ the cuddles – was 12 weeks of amazingness that she got to share with baby Jake, and nobody, not even Paul Denyer, can take that away from that family. I commend the bill to the house.

Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (11:45): I too rise to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. I think the member for Pakenham said it exactly right: there is not a day without suffering for the victims and families. The purpose of this bill is to give the Adult Parole Board of Victoria the tools to provide greater certainty to the victims of serious crimes. The bill will also prevent a serial killer from Frankston from being released from prison. There will be extremely limited circumstances where he may be: where he is terminally ill, incapacitated and the adult parole board is satisfied that he is no longer able to cause harm to any person. The purpose of this bill is important. It places a stronger emphasis within the justice system on the victims of crime and the families of the victims of crime. It moves the dial to prioritise those persons – victims and their families – and away from those who are convicted of those crimes.

I want to start by acknowledging the work of the Attorney-General in the other place, her staff and the department, who have been instrumental in drafting this bill and bringing it to this Parliament. I want to pay tribute of course to the member for Frankston for his representations and his efforts, because the member for Frankston has worked over many years to support his community and see a bill like this before this Parliament. He is a local member who has continued to reach out to his constituents – to engage them, to understand, to learn – to make changes to the laws of this state to support them. I also want to acknowledge Mr Limbrick from the other place for his efforts in this regard and his hurt and his suffering as well.

The member for Frankston in his speech acknowledged the terrible crimes that have led to the development of this bill and the importance of taking the time to get this bill right, the importance of taking the time to consult with the families who will be affected by this bill and the importance of taking the time to consult with the community, because justice bills can have a lasting beneficial consequence and sometimes, when rushed, long tails of devastating consequences – unintended consequences, but devastating nonetheless. That requires new pieces of legislation to amend and fix those consequences, which are more likely to be challenged in courts, which prolong suffering when they are rushed or poorly considered. So in taking the time to get this right I commend the Attorney-General in the other place.

The member for Frankston articulated the effect on the families of those murdered in the Frankston area – Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell – and the abduction of Roszsa Toth, and I thank the member for Frankston for reading into Hansard the families’ words. I thank him for that. I cannot in any way understand the grief suffered by the families and friends of each of these victims, but I hope that this bill provides them with some comfort that there are many people who care and want to do better and there are many people of goodwill who agree that their suffering prompted by parole attempts should not be the suffering that others have to go through, grieving the loss again in another way.

As the member for Frankston has articulated, the bill will amend the Corrections Act 1986 to prevent a serial killer from Frankston from being released on parole unless he is in imminent danger of death or seriously incapacitated and as a result lacks the capacity to harm anyone. For some, sadly, reform is simply not possible. This bill introduces a restricted prisoner declaration scheme which gives the adult parole board a new power to declare that certain serious offenders are unable to receive parole for up to 10 years if it is in the public interest to do so.

Clause 9 of the bill would introduce a new category of restricted prisoners. These are people who have been sentenced for life for multiple offences of murder, murder of a child or murder along with serious sexual offences to the same victim. It is important to give the parole board increased powers to consider parole ineligibility and the public interest – a key component of the adult parole board’s role. Restricted prisoners are those people who have been convicted of the most serious of all crimes. The adult parole board will be required to consider at least 12 months before a restricted prisoner is eligible for parole whether they should be prevented from applying for parole. Because parole is a function of seeing a person serve the remainder of their imprisonment term in the community, often subject to conditions, parole is a privilege – it is not a right. It is a reflection that there is some hope to see a person who has been prosecuted for a crime be able to return to the community to create a new life, a life that contributes to the fabric of our state. So many people who come out of imprisonment can and have made that change. They make that contribution, and the state has a strong role to play in this process.

As a state we also have more to do in this space. Parole is at the discretion of the parole board, who are charged by the community to provide parole. Our existing legislation means all offenders, but particularly serious offenders, must show the adult parole board that they are no longer a risk to the community and that the safety of the community is prioritised and not put at risk should they be released. These new powers allow the adult parole board discretion and the power to declare that a serious offender of certain offences will be unable to receive parole if it is in the public interest. That is right: the adult parole board is receiving these powers to protect those members of our community who have been victims of crime or are the family of victims of crime, to put a greater emphasis on them rather than the offender and to have a greater emphasis on their rights to justice.

Further, the bill implements a no-return requirement which will require the adult parole board to set a no-return period of up to five years after refusing parole to a person serving a life sentence. This puts the emphasis on a person serving a life sentence to consider the likelihood that they have undertaken the work to receive parole – to receive that privilege – and that they have put in the time and the effort to reform themselves to be able to demonstrate their change, demonstrate that they are committed to being a person who will make positive change for our community and demonstrate that they are committed to being a person who will make a positive change in the life of our state.

Additionally, this bill allows information about a no-return period or a restricted prisoner declaration to be shared with victims and other parties. Of course this is appropriate. It is appropriate to put people’s minds at ease and to put community minds at rest. It again emphasises their welfare. It puts a greater priority on them in our processes of justice, and this is part of a greater movement in the justice system to see victims put closer to the centre of the system and to see their families put at the centre of the system. It has not always been the case. The system has not always given a voice to families, a voice to victims, so I am glad that this bill reflects this in a greater way. It moves the system just that little bit across; it shifts that dial.

I will just reflect for a few moments on the area itself. I called Seaford home for a long time. Kananook was the station that I used every day. It is a wonderful community; it is a terrific place. We see the members who represent that area, the member for Frankston and the member for Carrum, here today. I reflected often, walking home from Kananook station, on the events that occurred, and I am deeply sorry for your loss. I commend this bill to the house.

Sam HIBBINS (Prahran) (11:55): I rise to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023, and in doing so can I just start off by recognising the victims and their families, some of whom are in the gallery today – Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell. I also acknowledge the strength that the families have shown for many years.

I speak on behalf of the Greens but also as someone who grew up on the Mornington Peninsula and in Frankston as well – I spent over half my life there. I still remember the day Denyer was arrested. I must have been in grade 5 or 6 at the time, but I still remember seeing it on the news with crystal clarity. He terrorised our community. He took the lives of young women. In addition to that, he admitted to stalking women for years prior. Of course he abducted Roszsa Toth as well. He would cruise the streets, looking for women to kill. At the time, my mum was a teacher at a local high school. On one rainy day, with another teacher, they took some students out for a run, a group of girls, down at Langwarrin Flora and Fauna Reserve. One of the teachers saw a car in the car park with someone in it, alerted police and they later contacted him and confirmed that yes, it was his car. On that rainy day he later killed Nat Russell, who was walking home from school. It is chilling, awful, awful stuff. He preyed on women. Women no longer felt safe and were afraid to go out alone. The crimes he committed left deep wounds – deep wounds in our community and our collective psyche.

The families of his victims have been through unimaginable grief, unimaginable pain and suffering, and the original sentence of course handed down was a life sentence without parole, but that was overturned on appeal to a 30-year non-parole period. Whilst it can be said with a fair degree of confidence that even without this bill the likelihood of parole being granted was extremely low or next to zero – quite appropriate given the nature of these crimes – it is totally understandable just how difficult the experiences of the families were through the parole process, and the uncertainty and the retraumatisation that comes not just in the lead-up to the initial decision but also around subsequent decisions. This bill is more comprehensive than what was previously brought before Parliament. There is updated legal advice from the solicitor-general that suggests it would hold up if tested in court. In addition to changes specifically for Denyer, it also gives the Adult Parole Board of Victoria powers over a person who is deemed a restricted prisoner, resulting in far less ability for them to apply for parole.

There are also changes to transparency. As my colleague Kat Copsey in the other place has raised, there is certainly merit to arguments that the parole board has acted as a bit of a black box in the past, with little information available and with the release of information – what it can and cannot release – being covered by very strict legislation. There was certainly scope to see how changes in the public interest could be made so more information could be provided to people on the victims register. This bill does include some changes in terms of information and transparency. It will empower the adult parole board to disclose details of a no-return period or a restricted declaration to the public, including the media, if it is in the public interest to do so to keep the public informed and to dispel any misinformation that might arise. Previously the Greens have allowed to pass, with reservations, similar legislation for Julian Knight and Craig Minogue, and we do feel that it is important that when Parliament passes legislation like this, we do flag concerns, and that importantly Parliament does respect the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary. That is a core tenet of the rule of law – that decisions on parole should be made by bodies independent of Parliament and should remain in the hands of impartial independent bodies. While this bill obviously deals with a very small cohort of prisoners, we do hope and we do warn against further wholesale changes to parole.

Again I just make the point, and not in relation to Denyer, who we all agree is a risk to the community and a risk to women, that it can be in the interests of community safety that a prisoner serves parole with all the conditions and controls that come with that before their sentence is up, following which there is no control and no oversight, so we should be very hesitant before restricting parole on a broader scheme. But ultimately this bill is very much about the victims and their families, and I understand that it has been designed in consultation with victims’ families. I acknowledge all the MPs who were involved in that process. It will relieve the families of the burden of having to make further submissions to parole hearings and further uncertainty. Our thoughts are with you, and we really hope that this can give you, can give women and can give the community a measure of comfort.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (12:01): I am pleased to rise to contribute on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023, and can I start by acknowledging the contributions we have heard in this place today, and particularly from the member for Frankston, the member for Pakenham and the member for Berwick, who gave very passionate speeches on this bill. I do want to acknowledge and thank the Attorney-General and the member for Frankston for their tireless work on this bill and for their passionate support to the families that have been impacted. I want to also acknowledge and thank the police for their work dealing with shocking crimes and acknowledge of course Mr Limbrick from the other place, who I note is in the gallery at the moment. I cannot imagine the trauma these families have experienced. As members of Parliament in our communities, our community puts trust in us to make laws to protect and keep all Victorians safe, and that is exactly what we are doing here right now. But we have to take the time to do that, and we have to do it right to ensure that those protections remain in place.

This bill is really important to many people. Constituents in my electorate have contacted me over the last week or so offering their support and telling me the stories of their experiences, which has been really interesting, and I do appreciate the fact that they have reached out to me. They have talked of their experiences of family members and friends, but there were also many that talked about the fact that they wanted to, I suppose, register their support for the bill. Even though they had not had that lived experience, they wanted me to know that they supported this bill, so I do appreciate the fact that they took the effort to do that.

Of course we have also heard that what is contained within this bill has not been done lightly. A lot of work has gone into this, again thanks to the Attorney-General and the member for Frankston and the families who have been impacted. I do want to acknowledge the victims and people impacted by the shocking, heinous crimes that have led to the development of this bill. We understand the emotional toll and the trauma that these discussions have. My thoughts are with all of them today, and I acknowledge that many are in the gallery today.

This bill proposes to name the prisoner Paul Denyer in the Corrections Act 1986. Doing this will mean that he cannot be released from prison on parole unless he is dying or incapacitated to the point that he cannot pose a risk to anyone in our community. While this bill will comprehensively address the issues associated with that one offender, it will also make changes to the broader parole process. These changes will mean that other victims and families do not have to experience the uncertainty and trauma that is caused by unnecessary parole applications in the future. This was a key point that some of my constituents were raising – that they really support and appreciate the fact that it is contained within this bill.

The bill makes changes to the parole requirements for a targeted cohort of the most serious offenders in our prison system. People serving a life sentence for murdering multiple people, murdering a child or committing a sexual offence as well as murder will become a restricted prisoner. The Adult Parole Board of Victoria will be given the power to prevent restricted prisoners from applying for parole for between five and 10 years. In addition, if a person serving a life sentence is refused parole, the adult parole board will be required to set a no-return period for up to five years, preventing them from applying for parole again until they are no longer a risk to community safety. Finally, the bill will enable better information sharing about those decisions with victims of crime and their families. This will make the process easier for victims and their families and directly address concerns that have been raised by victims of crime and their advocates. Taken together, this package of changes will provide more certainty to the victims of serious crime and save them from the trauma and anxiety that can occur when an offender submits an application for parole, especially when the prospects of success are next to nothing.

It is no secret that the impetus of this bill was the prisoner Paul Denyer reaching his parole eligibility period. As this bill in part specifically addresses him, it is necessary to some extent to discuss this awful man and the evil acts he committed. I am conscious that there may be people either in the gallery or watching online that have direct experience of this man’s crimes. Please take care as you listen to the debate. We are all standing with you, and we make our contributions as sensitively and respectfully as we can. In 1993 this man’s brutal, cold-blooded murder of three innocent women and the savage abduction of a fourth struck fear into the hearts of people right across this state but particularly in the Frankston community. His crimes have left no greater impact than on the friends and loved ones of Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream, Natalie Russell and Roszsa Toth. I am sure that I speak on behalf of everyone in this place when I say that our hearts go out to you. We can only imagine the trauma and pain that this man has brought to your lives. We thank you for your continued advocacy over all these years to make sure that no other family has to experience the horror that you have. I particularly thank the family and loved ones of Natalie Russell for working with us on getting this bill right. Their input and views have shaped this bill for the better and will mean other families will not have to experience the pain and trauma that they have experienced.

We have heard from victims of crime and their advocates that just the fact that an offender applies for parole can have an enormously traumatic impact on them. That is why this bill is so important. It means that those victims and their families will not have to go through that pain unnecessarily. In the meantime I also want to encourage everyone affected to reach out to the Victims of Crime Helpline for any support they need. The victims register provides support to victims throughout the parole process and registered victims can be informed about parole outcomes if they wish, including where parole is denied.

In winding this up now, I think the bill has been developed to address the needs of victims and their families; it is at the absolute forefront of what we are discussing today. As I said, I cannot imagine how traumatic this has been for those families, their friends and their loved ones – the experience that they have had to endure. Putting this bill forward is very important to our community. It is important to my community, and as I said, my community has reached out in relation to this bill, so I commend the bill to the house.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (12:09): I rise also to make a contribution on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. I just want to make a few short comments. I note that there are a lot on our side, and I assume on the other side of the chamber, who wish to speak on this bill, so I will keep my comments relatively short, but there are certainly a couple of things that I would like to put on the record.

First of all I am very pleased that this bill appears to have the support of everybody in this chamber, and I certainly note the very strong and personal contributions that have been made by speakers on both sides on this bill. They have very, very appropriately outlined the trauma that this whole situation has caused to a number of individuals and communities and indeed the state of Victoria. I will not go over all that but just acknowledge that that has already been very clearly articulated into Hansard. I must say, to pick up on some of the commentary from our lead speaker the member for Berwick, there is a sense of deja vu, or groundhog day, with this, as the bill does seem to be almost absolutely identical to the one that we tried to introduce in June, which I know the member for Berwick put a lot of time and effort into, so this could have been well and truly done and dusted by now. Putting that aside, as I said, it is very pleasing that we do have unanimous support for this bill, and I could not imagine on what grounds anybody – without pre-empting what is going to happen in the other place – could in any way, shape or form have an issue with it.

There are a couple of points that I just want to make. Apart from having the obvious outcome that it will have in relation to Denyer himself, this bill also requires the Adult Parole Board of Victoria in particular circumstances to specify a period during which a prisoner is not eligible for parole and it requires the adult parole board in certain circumstances to consider making a declaration specifying a period during which a prisoner is not eligible for parole. I would hope that in the future these changes prevent us from having to arrive at this situation of having to bring in legislation that is largely aimed at an individual situation. Denyer should never be released, and as has been pointed out by those before me, there are currently 31 prisoners that fit the proposed definition of a restricted prisoner. Obviously that is the definition that Denyer carries. The board will be required to consider the status of a restricted prisoner one year before the end of their non-parole period so that we are not having to push through this sort of legislation and to be able to give families who have been impacted and communities that have been impacted a little bit more peace of mind rather than seeing parole dates coming forward and having that unknown as to what is going to occur. The board may then make a declaration that the prisoner cannot apply for parole for between five and 10 years after the end of their non-parole period.

By his own admission, probably best described as macabre, this person harboured a desire to kill from the age of 14 and, in his own words, harboured a general hatred of females, girls and women. Psychologists and experts who examined this fellow noted a lack of emotion regarding the crimes, a single-minded desire to kill and the unusual randomness, which we have all read about, by which victims were chosen. This apparently led to a diagnosis of sadistic personality disorder – I have a few other terms for it – but not legal insanity. Denyer also found the intentional maltreatment of victims – these horrific acts that he took part in – to be gratifying, by his own admission, taking pleasure from what can only be described as the torment, anguish and distress of those who he impacted. He had no recognition or understanding of the hopelessness and suffering of those victims. His horrific actions did cause considerable pain and suffering, and I only pray that this bill sails through this chamber, which I am sure it will, sails through the upper house and gets put in place. Denyer should never be released. That is why we wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (12:15): I of course rise to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. It is a really difficult bill to contribute to because, as previous speakers have well traversed, it deals with some of the most sickening and heinous crimes that have been committed in this state and the lasting legacy of those crimes. I am conscious that there are many people who have been affected by these crimes and by this prisoner who will be watching this debate. I am particularly conscious of the families of Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream, Natalie Russell and Roszsa Toth, who are in the gallery today, and I acknowledge previous speakers who have contributed so powerfully and meaningfully to this debate, to this consideration of the bill. The fact that so many people even in this chamber have had a personal experience of, as I say, the heinous and shocking crimes that were perpetrated over 30 years ago speaks to the rippling effect of this kind of crime through the community and the impact of violent crime and evil.

I thank members from all sides of the house who have contributed. I particularly thank my colleague the member for Pakenham for her contribution and of course the member for Frankston, who has worked so closely with families of victims over many years to ensure that their voices are heard, that their stories are told and that their perspectives inform this legislation. I think it is so rare to hear directly the voices of people who are impacted by crime and by the legislation that is seeking to address and redress the impact of crime, so I thank the member for Frankston for sharing the words of families in his contribution. It is one thing for us to represent our communities and to share our words on their behalf, but inevitably that involves the mediation of those opinions, those experiences. To hear so powerfully that direct contribution was something quite profound and very important for this debate, so I thank the member for Frankston and I thank the families who shared those words with him.

I want to acknowledge as well our parliamentary colleague in the other place Mr Limbrick. I have an immense amount of respect for the way in which Mr Limbrick has engaged through the SARC process, and I was also involved with him earlier in the year, where previous, similar pieces of legislation – similar, but not the same, as has been asserted, and I will touch on that later – have been considered by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and where the rights of the prisoner have been at the forefront in the consideration of that legislation. I cannot imagine how difficult that process would be, to be considering the rights of a prisoner without the commensurate focus on the rights of the community, on the rights of families and on the rights of victims, so I acknowledge Mr Limbrick and all the families and victims of this appalling criminality and conduct.

I do want to just, in commencing my contribution substantively, reflect on what the bill actually does, and it of course explicitly prevents the prisoner from receiving parole unless he is dying or incapacitated and so incapable of causing harm to anybody – more harm than he has already caused. But it also I think really importantly goes beyond that to reform the parole process to provide greater certainty for other victims of particularly grievous, heinous crimes by empowering the Adult Parole Board of Victoria to declare that a person serving a life sentence for those particularly serious offences is not eligible for parole for a period of five to 10 years if it is in the public interest to do so. I think very importantly it involves families and victims of crime much more in that process to ensure that the trauma that has been revisited upon the families by this prisoner as a consequence of his appeal 30 years ago and the parole process as it currently stands is not again visited upon other families.

In reflecting on that, I want to thank the Attorney-General, the Minister for Corrections and the Minister for Crime Prevention as well for their deep consultation with families and with victims but also with the legal profession, with the solicitor-general and with others to ensure that this legislation accomplishes the aims that I think as a house and a community we expect that it will. These are very difficult areas of legislation, and so it is really important to get it right. I will touch upon why this kind of ad hominem legislation that specifically names individuals is an important area to be cognisant of and an important area to get right, but I also thank particularly the Minister for Police for his provision of the override statement earlier this morning and the reasons why it is appropriate that this bill overrides some of the provisions in the charter of human rights that we have a state. The minister has previously provided an exhaustive statement of compatibility, which emphasises how much care has been taken with the drafting of the bill. But, as I say, it did also emphasise that part of the bill is incompatible with the human rights charter, but I do emphasise that this incompatibility is entirely warranted and reasonable. It is proportionate and it is reasonable.

The rights of prisoners must be balanced with the broader rights of the community – the rights of victims, the rights of people in each one of our constituencies to be free from the kind of fear that was brought to bear in Frankston 30 years ago, the kind of trauma that is revisited in the context of vexatious or inappropriate or otherwise applications for parole which are not reasonable. There are exceptional circumstances which warrant the override of the human rights charter in this instance, and I thank the Minister for Police and the Minister for Crime Prevention for bringing that to the house this morning.

I think there are very important community expectations of sentencing in the justice system that need to be reflected in this debate and have been really well by many speakers before me. I reflect on Justice Frank Vincent’s sentencing remarks from 30 years ago. The minister at the table previously, the Minister for Development Victoria, mentioned these, but I do want to record them in Hansard as well:

The apprehension that you have occasioned –

speaking to the prisoner –

to many thousands of women in our community will be felt for a very long time …

That is clearly emphasised by the fact that we are debating this legislation today.

For many, you are the fear that quickens their steps as they walk along or that causes parents to look anxiously at a clock when a child is late.

The Supreme Court did what it thought was right at the time. I believe it was entirely right and Justice Vincent sentenced that prisoner to three life sentences without parole. I am conscious as well of what would have happened 30 years before had similar crimes been committed and of course capital punishment was still in place. My personal view on these matters is that the taking of a life by the state is not an ethical response, but I think it is absolutely imperative that the community has confidence in the justice system so that when life sentences are imposed for crimes of this particular depravity and evil that it does mean just that – it means life.

To re-emphasise the words of the member for Pakenham, who mentioned that parole is a privilege and not a right, this bill seeks to strike that balance between the human rights of prisoners but also the rights of community and the rights of victims to have confidence in the justice system to ensure that when a learned judge such as Justice Vincent imposes a sentence, as he did, the effect of that sentence endures beyond the sentence as it was intended to take effect.

Returning briefly to that question of ad hominem legislation, I note that SARC has previously extensively considered similar ad hominem pieces of legislation which have named other prisoners in our jail system – I am not going to name them – but also that the High Court has unanimously held in previous judgements that a law targeted solely and directly at an individual is constitutionally valid. So I think there is confidence that the provisions of this bill coupled with the broader focus on ensuring the parole system for other prisoners – other Victorians who have committed comparably heinous crimes – are also captured, that it is not solely a piece of ad hominem legislation. I note that of course it is in part but that the other schedule expands and reforms the parole process. I commend it to the house. I hope it has a speedy passage here and in the other place.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (12:25): I rise today to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. This bill before the house is in order to ensure that Paul Denyer is never released from prison. As we know, Paul Denyer was convicted of the brutal and horrific murders of Natalie Russell, Elizabeth Stevens and Debbie Fream in 1993, 30 years ago. Today we have members of their families in the gallery, and I acknowledge them and my thoughts and prayers are with them all. I also acknowledge Mr Limbrick. I really feel the pressure of the gallery today, and I thank everyone that has made a contribution. As a mother of two daughters and a young mother back then I can only imagine the horrific circumstances that you have had to endure, and 30 years later with two adult daughters I cannot imagine my life without one of them.

I acknowledge the member for Frankston and the Frankston community. The member for Frankston shared some words from Natalie’s family and friends on the pain, trauma and life sentence that they have endured. Thank you for sharing that. I also wish to acknowledge the member for Berwick, the member for Lowan and the member for Mornington, who have also been in contact with the victims’ families over a substantial period of time and have advocated strongly on their behalf. Member for Berwick, I thank you for sharing your relationship with Jake and the support that I am sure he will continue to need, not only from this place but from afar. I remember this case very well and the fear it instilled in many. We know the families of victims have been waiting for this legislation, and it is, as I have said, such a difficult time. Paul Denyer will be in this legislation in order to ensure that the victims’ families and the wider community know, as we said, that he can never be released from prison unless he is terminally ill or incapacitated.

The Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 is a bill that provides greater certainty for victims of serious crimes. To minimise trauma associated with the parole process and to protect the community from the risk posed by someone like Paul Denyer is something we are achieving today. Specifically, the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 will limit the circumstances in which the Adult Parole Board of Victoria may order the release of Paul Denyer on parole; require the adult parole board to impose a no-return period after refusing parole to a person serving a life sentence – and the person cannot receive parole within that period except if they are dying, as we said, or incapacitated; and empower the adult parole board to make a restricted prisoner declaration, preventing a person serving a life sentence for a particularly serious crime from receiving parole whilst the declaration is in force, except if they are dying or incapacitated. In addition, the bill will allow the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to share information about a non-return period and a restricted prisoner declaration with registered victims and, if it is in the public interest, the adult parole board to share this information with other members of the public.

The Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 will be worded in the same terms used to keep Hoddle Street killer Julian Knight and Russell Street bomber Craig Minogue in jail. Furthermore, the bill will further protect families of other victims of serious and violent crimes by giving the adult parole board the power to declare restricted prisoners, meaning that prisoners will be unable to be released within five and 10 years after serving the non-parole period for their sentence. On the other hand, prisoners who are serving a life sentence will also be restricted from reapplying for their parole after their application has been rejected.

In June this year we as an opposition, the Victorian Liberals and Nationals, worked alongside the families of the victims and a member for South-Eastern Metropolitan Region in the other place to introduce a bill into Parliament to ensure Paul Denyer would be ineligible for parole and remain in prison for the remainder of his life. In addition, the bill at the time would have also prevented Paul Denyer from making further applications for release, sparing the families of his victims the uncertainty and trauma of periodic parole hearings. This bill is the same that was presented back then, and I am pleased that finally this bill is before the house.

The Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 will further restrict parole for prisoners convicted of murder, killing children and serious sexual offences. The bill before the house makes amendments to the Corrections Act 1986 in relation to conditions for making a parole order for the prisoner Paul Denyer, requires the adult parole board in certain circumstances to specify a period during which a prisoner is not eligible for parole, further requires the adult parole board in certain circumstances to consider making and empowers the board to make a declaration specifying a period during which a prisoner is not eligible for parole and makes further provision for the sharing of certain information by the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the adult parole board.

One of the main provisions in the bill is preventing Mr Denyer from receiving parole. In doing so the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 introduces a new section, section 74AC, into the Corrections Act 1986, which will prevent Mr Denyer from being released on parole unless he is in imminent danger of death or seriously incapacitated and as a result has a reduced capacity to harm anyone. This amendment to the Corrections Act mirrors the same restrictions on parole for Julian Knight, as we have said, and Craig Minogue in sections 74AA and 74AB.

Mr Denyer’s crimes were horrific, evil and vile. The Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 will ensure that the wider Victorian community is protected and both the community and the families of Mr Denyer’s victims can have faith and confidence in the state’s justice system that he will never be released from prison until he can do no harm. The new section, section 74AC, includes subsections providing that the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 does not apply to this provision and that those override declarations do not need to be re-enacted every five years as is required ordinarily under section 31(7) of the charter. Consequently the charter will have no application to this provision. In this exceptional case the charter is being overridden to ensure that the community is protected from Mr Denyer and the significant risk he poses to community safety. This is concurrent with the existing provisions that apply to Mr Knight and Mr Minogue, which include a charter overriding.

Further, the bill will see the introduction of other reforms to minimise the unnecessary trauma that is experienced by other victims of serious crimes during the parole process. Another important provision in the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 is the no-return period. Currently if the adult parole board refuses to grant a person parole, there is no legislation restriction on when a person can apply for parole again. Whilst the board will often direct people in prison not to apply for parole again for a specific time frame, this is not currently a requirement and the time frame is not communicated to victims. As a result of this it can be extremely distressing and difficult for victims and their families, as we have seen, who hold the uncertainty of not knowing when the person could apply for parole again and be released into the community.

The Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023 will introduce a further addition, new section 74AAD, that will require the adult parole board to impose a no-return period of up to five years if it refuses to grant parole to a person serving a life sentence. During the no-return period the person would be unable to receive parole unless they are dying or incapacitated and lack the capacity to harm another person. Their no-return period will instead be used as a guiding tool for the board to select an appropriate time frame within which it does not consider a prisoner should be able to reapply for parole. This will be informed by the evidence that the board considers as part of a parole hearing. In addition, the no-return period will see a maximum period of five years, and this period can be tailored according to a person’s rehabilitation prospects and other factors. But most importantly, community safety will continue to be the major consideration in making parole decisions and when setting a no-return period.

Lastly I just again want to acknowledge the family in the gallery and Mr Limbrick. On both sides of the house this is a very important bill, and I am so pleased to see that it has finally come to the house. As I said, my thoughts and prayers are with the families and Mr Limbrick today.

Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (12:33): I too rise to contribute on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023, a bill that has been carefully considered and with issues that have been worked through to make our justice system better for the families and friends of victims of the most serious crimes. Today we remember Natalie Russell, Elizabeth Stevens and Debbie Fream, and we keep them at the front of our minds. They were young women whose lives were taken by an evil and violent killer in June and July 1993. It is the advocacy of the families that have shaped this bill that will prevent Paul Charles Denyer from being released from prison on parole until he is incapable of posing a threat to anyone and also provide more certainty to other victims of serious crimes. Like other members, I will not speak his name again.

I want to thank the Attorney-General and the Minister for Corrections for their leadership and stewardship of this bill. I would also like to recognise Mr Limbrick for his advocacy and his pain. I want to acknowledge the work of the ministerial office and the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS), particularly because the subject matter of this bill is so confronting. The acts that were committed monstrous and the details are sickening. This is challenging work, and the reforms being introduced are important, so I thank you. I found reading about these extreme acts of violence against women very difficult and upsetting, as I am sure everyone else who has been involved in this legislation and this debate has.

I want to acknowledge the member for Frankston and thank him for his contribution and his efforts to bring this bill to the Parliament, as well as the member for Carrum, who have met with family members impacted by these abominable crimes. As representatives of the local communities impacted by these abhorrent crimes, the members for Frankston and Carrum have been determined and compassionate advocates for the legislative reforms we are debating today. I thank them for their tireless work and powerful advocacy. They are exemplary local members. I would also like to thank the member for Pakenham for her powerful contribution reflecting on what it was like to grow up in Frankston at the time and the impact it had on the community.

In preparing for my contribution I have reflected a lot on what I was doing 30 years ago, in 1993. In 1993 I was 18 years old, and I had commenced first-year uni at Monash. I was the same age as Elizabeth Stevens, who had left Tasmania to study at Frankston TAFE. I was only four years younger than Debbie Fream, who had just had a baby, and a year older than Natalie Russell, who was still at school. I did not own a car, and I relied on public transport to get me to Monash from Ballarat and to get around Melbourne to go out and enjoy all the city had to offer. Like so many at that age, I was carefree and enjoying the freedoms of being a young adult. I remember spending time around the peninsula that summer, catching the train to Frankston station and catching the bus to go to the beach with my friends – the same area in which these brutal murders occurred six months later. I had my life ahead of me, and so should have Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell. However, his horrific acts took their lives and took their future.

Thirty years on it is still difficult to comprehend the heinous nature of the attack on Elizabeth Stevens on Friday 11 June 1993 in Langwarrin. After getting off a bus after being at TAFE, only 250 metres from home, she was murdered at the age of 18. Less than a month later, on Thursday 8 July in Seaford, 22-year-old Debbie Fream, who had left her 12-day-old son Jake at home with a friend to buy some milk, was violently and savagely murdered. On 30 July 1993, 17-year-old schoolgirl Natalie Russell was murdered after being attacked in Frankston North while walking home from John Paul College.

I was moved by Natalie’s best friend Karen’s words that were read by the member for Frankston and thank her for sharing them with us. I wish to express the deep sadness I feel for the families and friends of Natalie, Elizabeth and Debbie, who continue to grieve for them and miss them dearly, and I recognise that their lives have been devastated by what happened at this time and ever since. The deep and long-lasting impact of these egregious attacks is immeasurable on those who knew and loved these women. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the families, who have shared their lived experience so that others can benefit from these important reforms.

The changes being introduced in this bill will ensure that he who was sentenced by the Supreme Court of Victoria on 20 December 1993 to three sentences of life imprisonment for three counts of murder is ineligible for parole until he is either close to death or permanently incapacitated. Making this law will prevent the risk posed to the community by his release and also ensure that the families of his victims do not have to go through the re-traumatising and stressful experience of the parole process. Furthermore, it will keep our community safe, as he is a continued and persistent risk of harm to our community.

The bill will create new section 74AC in the Corrections Act 1986. The section mirrors section 74AA and 74AB, which restrict parole for the person who was responsible for murdering seven people during the Hoddle Street massacre and for the Russell Street bomber. The High Court has previously upheld such legislative provisions as constitutionally valid. Section 74AC will prevent his release unless he is in imminent danger of death or seriously incapacitated and as a result lacks the capacity to harm anyone. Importantly, the amendments proposed by this bill do not interfere with the sentence imposed by the judge. The High Court of Australia has repeatedly confirmed that setting a non-parole period exhausts the judicial function of sentencing. Therefore it becomes a matter for the executive whether the remainder of a sentence is custodial and/or an order of parole in the community.

The bill also introduces a new section that establishes a no-return period, which will minimise the unnecessary distress experienced by victims and their loved ones and provide them with a level of peace and certainty for a specific time if it is in the public interest. Under current legislation there is no restriction in place. When someone has been refused bail, they can apply again. By introducing the no-return period, the Adult Parole Board of Victoria has the power to select an appropriate time frame in which it does not consider a prisoner should be able to apply for bail. The maximum time for the no-return period is five years but can be shorter if an individual demonstrates more positive rehabilitation prospects. The bill also proposes allowing the victims register in the DJCS to inform registered victims about a decision of no return set by the adult parole board.

The bill includes a restricted prisoner declaration scheme that gives the adult parole board the power to make a restricted prisoner declaration for certain serious offenders, which will prevent them from being able to receive parole for a specific period if it is in the public interest. I note that a similar reform was introduced in Queensland in 2021. Restricted prisoners will include prisoners serving a life sentence for multiple murders, the murder of a child or a single murder where a serious sexual offence was committed against the same victim. The Minister for Corrections has identified about 31 individuals in prison currently who have committed offences serious enough to be considered for the category of ‘restricted prisoner’, citing examples of Jill Meagher’s killer and the Bourke Street killer. In closing I want to say that I strongly support the amendments proposed with the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill, which will strictly limit the circumstances in which he will be able to receive parole. I hope this provides comfort to the Russell, Stevens and Fream families and their friends. I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:42): I rise today to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. Before I start I would like to, firstly, thank the member for Berwick for his lead today – his explanation to us of exactly what was going on was greatly appreciated – and the member for Frankston for his time and the care that he took in standing up and talking in the chamber about the family and reading something out on behalf of the family. I dip my hat to you for getting up there and doing that, member for Frankston. In saying that, I would also like to thank the family members that are here today in the chamber – and you too, Mr Limbrick – for being here to listen. Once again, as we get to stand in the chamber and talk about this today, it must dredge up thoughts that you have carried for the last 30 years, since those terrible days transpired. I would also like to mention, obviously, the victims: Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell. As the member for Frankston said, going forward this is to be known as Nat’s law. Here in the chamber I know sometimes it gets a little bit heated on either side when we are trying to pass bills through the house, but to have the opportunity to stand here today and talk on this and be part of this bill passing through this house and through the other house to make this law is a great honour.

I think back 30 years ago – as the member for Wendouree was just saying before – when I was a young fellow in country Victoria. The things that transpired in Frankston not only were focused on by the people of Melbourne but also reached into country Victoria and right around Australia. I remember my parents sitting down talking about the hideous crimes that were committed. As the arrests were made and more came out in the public and via media, it was very hard to comprehend how some people are like this and want to commit these crimes. On the flip side, for our police and the people that did all the work to actually arrest this particular person and thoroughly make sure that he went to jail, and the judge and the courts making sure that he was put away for a very long time, it is a great credit to them, and I do thank them. But for that particular person to be able to cause grief by trying to get parole and the ongoing anguish that it must put on your lives daily, constantly, even when you are not thinking about it – and I am sure you do think about it every single day in every single waking minute. I hope that this bill passes through both houses, and quickly. I think you can see that we are all genuine in this chamber, and I hope in the other place also when it passes through.

We want to do the right thing by our community. With your help, your advocacy and being a part of this bill, you are not only hopefully giving yourselves some closure, but you are also protecting the people of Victoria. It is something that as a politician, and I am only new at the game, you can be proud to stand up in the chamber and make sure that this does pass unanimously and that we are doing something good for the whole of Victoria and hopefully we are doing something good for the family members that are here today. You can see that we all want to work together to make sure this passes.

I know there are other members who want to stand up and talk about this. I am a father, and my kids now are older than the three young girls that were tragically taken those 30 years ago – two boys and a daughter. To just comprehend what everyone must have gone through, and you can see the emotion of members that have had a little bit to do with the family – how emotional they are – but also other members that are in here today and how greatly it affects us. You talk about things from 30 years ago that happened and it can just dredge up the feelings. You know where you were and what you were doing. So with the greatest respect to the family, thank you for being here. To all the members in the house, thank you, everyone, for getting up and talking about this. We are here to make sure that we make the right and correct decisions for the people of Victoria. This is one that has been a long time in the making, but it is the right decision for people like the fellow that we are talking about today, and I do not really want to give him the dignity of mentioning his name, to make sure that he stays away and he cannot come out. He has committed some hideous crimes, and he has to pay the price for them, but it should not impact on the family and the rest of us.

Thank you so much for my time here today. Thank you to the family, and I thank all the other members that are going to stand up and talk about this in the chamber. We are doing the right thing today. We are doing the right thing. It is going to travel through the house, and it is going to pass into law. As the member for Frankston said, it is going to be Nat’s law. I commend the bill to the house.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:49): I rise to debate – or to discuss, I should say; I do not think there is any debate insofar as there is a sense of unity across the chamber with regard to the necessity to be able to pass these reforms for the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. It is extremely disturbing, I think, the matters that have arisen and that have led to the legislation that we are passing – we are quite rightly passing. I am talking about the absolute trauma of such depravity, such depraved behaviour that no-one can reason through it. We are not built to be able to reason through this kind of extraordinarily shocking and disturbing behaviour.

First and foremost, I do want to acknowledge the victims and the people that have been directly impacted by these heinous crimes. My heart goes out to all those directly impacted, because I know how emotional it makes me feel, and we can see from others in the chamber just talking about it here, let alone those who have had to live with it for so many years. I will acknowledge Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream, Natalie Russell and Roszsa Toth, none of whom did anything wrong. They did not deserve it. I am sorry to be crying – you do not realise how much these things impact you, but anyway, I will breathe.

I should also acknowledge the hard work of the Minister for Corrections and his office. It is obviously also very traumatic. It is hard to have to deal with these matters per se, but it is also an honour to be able to deliver the right outcome. I would also like to thank the member for Frankston, the member for Pakenham and the member for Carrum as well, and all of those who have worked so hard, not least the families of those precious souls who have passed, to drive forward some really, really important changes.

The bill – and I will just say this from a factual point of view, and not in any way to give any further exposure to the perpetrator – proposes to name the prisoner Paul Denyer in the Corrections Act 1986. Doing this will mean he cannot be released from prison on parole unless he is dying or incapacitated to the point that he cannot pose a risk to anyone in the community. While this bill will comprehensively address the issues associated with that one offender, I think it is also really important to acknowledge it will also make changes to the broader parole process. In that way it is going to serve the community on a number of fronts, and that is something to be commended as well. These changes, and I think this is probably really the crux in terms of what will be some of the most significant benefits, and ‘benefits’ is probably not the best word to use in these circumstances, but an important outcome, will mean that other victims and their families – gosh, I did not mean to be so emotional; I apologise – do not have to experience the uncertainty and trauma that is caused by unnecessary parole applications in the future.

The bill makes changes to the parole requirements for a targeted cohort of the most serious offenders in our prison system, and that means people serving a life sentence for murdering multiple people, murdering a child or committing a sexual offence as well as murder will become a restricted prisoner. The Adult Parole Board of Victoria will be given the power to prevent restricted prisoners from applying for parole for between five and 10 years. When we are talking about the broader positive ramifications from the bill, this is certainly an important element. In addition, if a person serving a life sentence is refused parole, the adult parole board will be required to set a no-return period for up to five years, preventing them from applying for parole again until they are no longer a risk to community safety.

Finally, the bill will enable better information sharing about those decisions with victims of crime and their families. I think this is a really, really significant element of the bill – a really, really important element of the bill. That information is just so vital. Taken together, this package of changes will provide more certainty to the victims of serious crime and save them from the trauma and anxiety that can occur when an offender submits an application for parole, especially when the prospects of success are next to nothing. That is a really fundamental element of the bill over and above the other core elements which are delivering greater certainty for community, which at the end of the day is what we are all looking for.

I think what is really important, because we are making some significant changes when we look at the law and we are looking at liberty and the preservation of liberty or otherwise, is obviously that we cannot in any way understate the significance of these reforms. I am not saying anyone is, but there are really sound and rational reasons for reform. What has already been spoken to in the chamber is that it is a very delicate balancing act, but it is one that we just absolutely have to carry through. We have to carry this through. There are just some times in life, particularly when we are thinking about the particular behaviour that leads to heinous crimes that, as I say, are impossible to rationalise – no reasonable human being can be expected in their lifetime to be able to rationalise that kind of behaviour and neither should they have to, because no-one should ever behave that way, and no-one deserves to be treated in that way.

I know that it will not have been easy on anyone bringing about these reforms, whether it is the respective family and the loved ones impacted, the ministers responsible, in particular the Minister for Corrections, or the broader community, but ultimately we do not get into the job of being MPs because life is simple. Life is complicated. Human beings do a great many things, some of them wonderful and other times so horrific that we do not even want to have to face that that is the behaviour of a fellow human being, and hence sometimes we just have to take the difficult decisions but ultimately for the benefit of the greater good. That is what these reforms are all about.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (12:58): I think it is fair to say none of us are pleased to be able to rise on this bill today, but we do stand here as the coalition in support of this bill. Can I acknowledge the families here today of Natalie Russell and of course Mr Limbrick from the other place. This is a very overdue bill in some cases, but we are very proud to stand here today to see it go through the Parliament and to provide some relief for the families of Paul Denyer’s victims. It has been an overdue bill, and can I pay credit to the member for Berwick for his work on this and for working with the families to make sure that this has come before the Parliament and to ensure that Paul Denyer will not be released from prison unless under some very specific circumstances. That in some ways brings hope to the families that this will end some of the pain that they have had to experience over many, many years. It provides broader provisions to ensure that those who are defined as restricted prisoners do not have the ability to be given opportunities for parole as well to ensure that those who have committed the most heinous of crimes in Victoria are not able to access parole. As the coalition, we commend the bill to the house, and it is a pleasure to be able to support it here today.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank all members for the candour of debate. I think now is an appropriate time to call lunch.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:01 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.