Thursday, 16 November 2023

Bills

Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (14:51): I rise along with the many, many members of this chamber from all sides of politics to speak strongly in support of the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. I acknowledge the courage and the strength and the commitment of family members and friends of victims of these abhorrent crimes, who have worked tirelessly and whose advocacy and work has led to this legislation to amend parole provisions in certain circumstances and for certain people. In particular I would like to acknowledge the hideous murders that were committed against Natalie Russell, Elizabeth Stevens and Debbie Fream by the Frankston serial killer, as well as the attempted abduction of Roszsa Toth, but this legislation also takes into account – and we are thinking of – all those other victims of awful, terrible murders that have been seen across time.

In preparing to speak on this bill and having to read of such crimes, it is quite incomprehensible that a human is capable of such cruelty and horror, and in the jailing of such offenders we have to acknowledge that the pain and suffering of families, friends and communities does not stop when they are jailed. This legislation is to ensure that we do not add to the continuing suffering that will never go away of families and friends when loved ones are murdered – that we do not add to it by allowing people who are serial murderers or murderers of children to apply for parole on many occasions. They put up arguments and provide real uncertainty to the families that are left behind wondering whether it is the case that this person will be able to go free – what if they do what they did to their daughter or son to somebody else? – and also worrying that each time they have to go through the trauma of saying why they oppose that parole or whatever.

I have to also acknowledge Mr Limbrick, a member of Parliament in the upper house, in the other chamber, and the family and friends that have really explained well how parole applications add additional trauma, which creates further uncertainty for the loved ones that are left behind, as they have to relive the case as the person makes their application, talks about why they ought to be freed, what they have done, what they have not done. It just brings up and makes people have to relive all that trauma and those terrible circumstances again.

This legislation that we are debating today, this amendment to the Corrections Act 1986, specifically denies parole to the Frankston convicted serial killer unless he is dying or so incapacitated as to be incapable of hurting others – that is what it says in the bill. It also provides similar provisions for other categories of prisoners that have been convicted of other heinous crimes by providing definitions for those that these restrictions on parole would apply to, defining those people as ‘restricted prisoners’. They would be prisoners that have been convicted of, for example, multiple murders, the murder of children or murder plus serious sexual offences.

So this legislation both is specific to an individual – I think there has been a lot of debate about that leading up to this legislation, about whether there should be particular people or individuals named or legislation drafted up and passed in relation to one specific person, but the consensus of our society, of the community, is that in the case of the Frankston serial killer that is exactly what we need to do – but also then provides the definitions and the provisions which would tighten up the ability for some prisoners to apply for parole and in what circumstances. For example, some may not be able to, and for others there will be a lengthening of the time after which they can apply for parole. Also the legislation provides for the Adult Parole Board of Victoria to have further powers in terms of making assessments about restricted prisoners, as I discussed a little bit earlier.

I would also like to acknowledge that it is not easy to draft legislation such as this, because you really have to do a lot of looking into what cases it should apply to and what cases it should not, and of course it is also very sad and awful to have to go through that. So the minister, their office and those legal officers and members drafting up the legislation are really doing an incredible job in looking at legislation such as this. Also, people tried to make an issue of the time it was taking to have this legislation brought to the Parliament, but again, it is not easy to draft legislation like this. Always we have to be mindful of making it right the first time; we do not want to have to further traumatise families by having to make amendments ongoing, so that they have to keep coming back and reliving and thinking about what is the best way to deal with these offenders. So it did take some time, the balancing and looking at things such as the rights of prisoners, the rights of families and the rights of victims, but in these cases and in the circumstances that this legislation is here to address we know that definitely the balance must be in favour of the victims of these most heinous and terrible crimes.

There has been considerable consultation with the families and friends of loved ones who have been murdered, in particular in the cases of the Frankston murders. There has also been consultation with the victims of crime commissioner and Aboriginal organisations to ensure that the legislation is as good as it possibly can be and is taking into account the views of various organisations and individuals. But of course again it is all about the consultation with the victims and their families and loved ones, who have the ultimate say as to how this legislation will affect them, and their views on how they believe that it ought to operate.

I think many people, in a much better way than I, have looked back at, for example, the 1990s when the Frankston serial killings were happening. They knew people; they were part of that community. I know the member for Frankston spoke earlier about how awful it was and his contact with individuals and a community that are still affected this many years afterwards because it has been such an awful thing. Even living on the other side of town in Preston, I clearly remember. And it did certainly make everybody feel that little bit unsafe, worried, looking over their shoulder.

My first child was born in 1995, and even then these cases and what you heard made you more protective of your children and what you did. I think we even put some wrought iron on the side windows, worrying about what was going to happen with abductions or whatever. Really heinous crimes like this have a long-lasting effect on everybody that knows of them, that hears of them and that lives through the time of them. It is hoped that this is one piece of legislation – I will not say small – and one contribution that in the scheme of things will make it just that little bit easier for victims and our community to sleep at night and feel safer than they otherwise would.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (15:01): I rise today to speak on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023, a bill that I am proud to support and we are proud to support on this side of the house. The purpose of this piece of legislation is to amend the Corrections Act 1986, the principal act, in a few ways, primarily to strengthen the decision-making capacities of parole boards and the legal system. This is one of the larger overhauls of this system that has been brought to the chamber, and I am grateful to be able to speak on the matter today. Through this bill the Adult Parole Board of Victoria will, in certain circumstances, be able to specify a period during which a prisoner is not eligible for parole.

While this bill has emerged to address the widely reported parole situations involving one currently incarcerated serial killer, a man convicted of heinous crimes, it will also be applicable for cases with similar circumstances. This man, whose name deserves no recognition in this place, killed three women in Melbourne’s south-east in 1993 and was shockingly eligible for release earlier this year after being handed a 30-year non-parole sentence on appeal. The names in this case that do matter are Natalie Russell, Elizabeth Stevens and Debbie Fream, all of whom were tragically taken from this world far too early. These young women deserved the opportunity to grow old, have families of their own and live full lives. As a 34-year-old woman myself and as a mother, I find this truly and utterly heartbreaking.

The perpetrator was initially given three life sentences without parole for these murders. Now, 30 years on from the killings, it is clear that this man is not suitable to ever be released from jail. While the parole board rejected his application, the process involved was still bringing considerable stress to those connected to and directly impacted by this case. I note that this piece of legislation is supported by the families of these victims, and I thank them all for their support, advocacy and knowledge and their resilience.

For those in attendance today in the gallery, thank you so much for being here and the inspiring work that you have done to ensure this bill becomes law. I hope that this bill can help alleviate some of the stresses and hardships that have arisen through previous discussions surrounding the prisoner’s parole. I also want to thank all of those who have spoken in the chambers today on this bill, in particular the member for Frankston and the member for Berwick, who have provided passionate words and advocacy and kindness on this matter. To Mr Limbrick in the other place, thank you for your continued advocacy on this matter. This is a bill that has involved considerable consultation with the friends and families of the victims, with the police and with our courts. Today you can feel the emotion in the chamber, and it is heartbreaking to know that these would be daily occurrences for the families here today, and for that I am so sorry. It is pleasing to see that we have been able to find legislation that we can all agree will make our society a better and more just place.

In terms of the technical provisions of this bill, there are several that make this legislation suitable and fit for the purpose it needs to serve. Many of these provisions put significant focus on the public interest when it relates to cases of these types of prisoners. This bill inserts new section 74AC into the principal act to prevent any parole applications from the prisoner unless some very certain caveats are met. These include if, in the secretary’s opinion, the prisoner 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 has demonstrated that he does not pose a risk to the community.

This bill amends section 3(1) of the Corrections Act 1986 to insert some important definitions relating to prisoners, including:

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 bill amends section 73A of the principal act to require the board to:

… give paramount consideration to the safety and protection of the community in …

making decisions around parole matters. This bill inserts new section 74AAG into the principal act to allow that:

The Board by instrument may declare that the restricted prisoner is not eligible for parole for a period –

of between five and 10 years –

if the Board is satisfied that it is in the public interest.

This legislation also inserts new section 74AAD 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 the order.

Just to close, I want to again thank you so much for your advocacy in being here today. I imagine it is incredibly hard, and we are very proud of all of your resilience and support. This is an important bill and one I am deeply proud to commend to the house.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (15:06): I too rise to speak today on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. Before I do, I want to also acknowledge the strength and resilience of the families of the victims. It is great that you are here today, but I am just so genuinely sorry that you are. What you have gone through is just not fair, and I am sorry, deeply.

What we have to say in this debate and on this subject matter concerns vital and all-important issues to do with our justice system. It is therefore only right that everyone in our community can and should be able to watch and read our contributions in this place and to take part themselves in the discussion and the debate on this legislation, no matter what point of view they may take on it. But let me say, as previous speakers have, simply as a warning to those who are watching and listening, that what we are discussing here today is very confronting subject matter involving violent crimes, crimes that should never have occurred. This bill names the prisoner Paul Denyer in the Corrections Act 1986, and doing this means 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 the community. While this bill will comprehensively address the issues associated with that one offender, it will also make changes to the broader parole process. It will make changes to the parole requirements for a targeted cohort of the most serious offenders in our prison system. A person who is serving life sentences for murdering multiple people, murdering a child or murdering along with committing a serious sexual offence against the same victim 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 of course their families.

Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream, Natalie Russell and Roszsa Toth – my heart breaks for each and every one of these victims and their families. The lives of three young women were stolen by a monster. The grief that these families have suffered is simply not okay. No family deserves to experience such horrific grief. I am sorry that you, your family and your community had to experience such heartache. I hope that this bill can provide you with some little amount of comfort.

There has been a bit of back and forth about legal advice, and I do want to make some comment about this. Firstly, per usual practice, it is not the solicitor-general’s role to provide a position of support or otherwise on the government’s policy as reflected in the bill. As a normal part of policy development, the government often gets legal advice on legislative changes. That advice is only one input into the development of a bill. In this case another fundamental input into the development of the bill was consultation with the Russell family. I acknowledge their ongoing advocacy on this issue and their contribution to these reforms.

Ultimately the bill reflects the government’s decisions and delivers on the government’s commitments to providing more certainty to victims and their families of the most serious offenders. We are confident that this bill is robust and that it will avoid a lawyer’s picnic, which obviously we all want to avoid. More importantly, we are confident that these changes will provide more certainty and comfort, not just for the Russell family but for other victims and their families.

Our focus needs to be on tackling the social causes of crime and reforming the character of people to ensure that offenders do not repeat crimes, and evidence shows that this can be done successfully if the government has will and the community is there. I do not believe calls for being tough on crime and building more prisons generally serve the community or the cause of justice well. I do not come to this debate without some conflicted feelings. Legislative changes like the one which is before us today should very much remain a narrow exception of our justice system and not the rule. However, I am satisfied that it will remain so and that this legislation is necessary and proportionate to what it addresses.

We know that Paul Denyer pleaded guilty to his crimes in the Supreme Court in 1993, for which he was sentenced to three life sentences without parole. Subsequently he chose to appeal that sentence in the Court of Appeal. In upholding his appeal, the court determined that he should be granted a non-parole period of 30 years. As has been widely reported, the independent statutory adult parole board denied his application for parole on 10 May this year. Based on what we know, it was utterly unlikely that he would have been granted parole. We have heard from victims of crime and their advocates that just the fact of an offender applying for parole can have an enormously traumatic impact on them. This is why this bill is so important. It means that in these extremely exceptional cases the victims and their families will not have to go through the pain unnecessarily.

When I think back to 1993, 30 years ago, about the unimaginable grief that each of these family members and friends of the victims went through and what the entire community went through, it breaks my heart. To think that this monster stalked women, he preyed on women, he made the entire community feel unsafe – the evil acts which this man committed are simply unacceptable. The crimes committed were horrific. The trauma which so many have subsequently suffered is disgraceful and heartbreaking.

Returning to the bill, the vast majority of people in prison will not be impacted by these changes. The changes to this bill are targeted at only the most serious offenders, people on life sentences. For this small cohort of the most serious offenders, the courts have said quite clearly that there is no assumption that they will ever be released from prison by sentencing them to a life term of imprisonment. Parole can only be granted to this group if they are no longer a risk to community safety. The parole system will continue to operate as it does now to ensure their transition out of custody is smooth and supports their reintegration back into the community.

In concluding, I want to acknowledge my colleagues in this place who have shared personal stories with us all – the member for Frankston, the member for Pakenham, the member for Berwick and other members around this place who have opened up their hearts. As the member before me said, there really is a feeling in this place today. As has been said, this bill is about the victims, the families and of course our community. The strength and resilience that has been displayed by the families is absolutely admirable. These crimes have left no greater impact than on the friends and loved ones of Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream, Natalie Russell and Roszsa Toth. I say to them: I cannot imagine what you have all been through and what you continue to go through. We can only 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 thank the chamber for listening to me today, and I commend the legislation.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (15:14): I rise to make a contribution on the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. In starting off I would like to say to those in the gallery that this has been too long coming. The system has worked and we have finally got to a conclusion, but I think we all owe the families an apology for how long it has taken to get to this particular point. I would like to do that on behalf of the Nationals and sincerely say: we have finally got here, but we are glad we have got here.

There is another part that I would like to comment on before I go to the specifics of the bill. I thank the member for Berwick and the member for Frankston for the work that they have done, from our side of politics, to keep pushing this issue along. Again, this is how democracies work. His Majesty’s loyal oppositions are there to hold the government of the day to account, and when the government of the day are not doing the job they need to do, on behalf of Victorians in this case, the opposition is there to continue to push – as in the case of introducing a private members bill – to just keep the pressure on and make sure things come to the fore. For those who say ‘You can’t do much in opposition’, I think the member for Berwick and the member for Mornington can demonstrate that if you keep pushing, keep putting the case forward and use all the parliamentary processes that are available to you, you can actually deliver an outcome on behalf of those that need justice here in Victoria. That is what this bill is about – delivering justice.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Corrections Act 1986 in relation to conditions for making a parole order for the prisoner Paul Denyer. We had the debate when the private members bill was introduced as to whether naming Paul Denyer in a bill was going to be an issue that could be challenged in a court in the future or could actually lead to other prisoners who are named in particular pieces of legislation being open to challenge in the courts. I assume the government has got this right and there is no opportunity for court challenges in the future to this bill or to the others that I will come to, Julian Knight and Craig Minogue, who are under similar pieces of legislation. The crimes that have been committed by those people are absolutely atrocious, horrendous crimes, and they do not deserve to be released from jail. It is just incomprehensible – particularly when, as I understand it, there is effectively no remorse – that these people could be released from jail at any time in the foreseeable future, if ever.

This bill requires the Adult Parole Board of Victoria in certain circumstances to specify a period during which a prisoner is not eligible for parole, it 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 it makes provisions for the sharing of certain information by the secretary and the board. This, as I understand it, gives the parole board the powers to effectively keep someone in jail forever, and that is very, very important here because people who commit these heinous crimes just do not deserve to be out in society.

The bill inserts a new section 74AC into the principal act to prevent any parole application from the prisoner Paul Denyer unless in the secretary’s opinion Mr Denyer 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 does not pose a risk to the community. This finally puts Denyer in the same category as Julian Knight and Craig Minogue, as I mentioned before, with the years he will spend in jail into the future.

Julian Knight was sentenced in the Supreme Court in November 1988 to life on seven counts of murder. We have passed special legislation in this place to make sure he is kept in jail for the rest of his natural life. The same applies to Craig Minogue, who was responsible for the Russell Street bombing – again, another horrendous crime here in Victoria. He is in jail for the rest of his natural life as well.

Paul Denyer was sentenced to three life sentences without parole in 1993 for the murders of Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell. He successfully challenged the sentence and was granted 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. As we all know, Justice Vincent was an excellent jurist here in Victoria and was head of the parole board for quite a long time. I rate him as a very, very good judge and someone who would not make statements like that lightly. I think we can take solace in the fact that Frank Vincent, as an excellent judge, made those rulings about that at that particular time. It is sad in society that we have to do these sorts of things and that we have criminals like this in the state who will deliberately go out and cause harm. For most of us it is incomprehensible that someone would do that, but also incomprehensible – unless you are family of those victims – is what you would go through when this happens.

I would hope that the work that has been done by both sides of politics to make sure we got to the point of this legislation and the fact that the families have heard the debate today and understand the sincerity of both sides of politics will ensure there is closure for you and ensure that you do not have to go through circumstances where there may be a parole hearing in the future, where you would be traumatised again by reliving the events that you suffered through so many years ago. I commend the government and commend those in the opposition who have worked with us to get to this point. I wish you well with the rest of your lives.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (15:21): I too rise to make a contribution to the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2023. I do so not only as the member for Narre Warren South but also as someone who grew up in the outer south-eastern suburbs and as someone who has practised law, but I will get to that part in a moment. I have been really fortunate to have read the book by Paul Kennedy by the name of Funkytown, and Funkytown was the name that his sister gave to the suburb of Frankston. It really is a terrific book, a story about Paul himself moving from his later teenage years of life into early adulthood and doing that in the suburb of Frankston. As someone who grew up in Springvale at around about the same period of time, I could relate to those sorts of stories that he told of having a fake ID to get into the Grand Hotel, of having that teacher at that school who was able to take him from one direction in life to another direction in life, even to referring to the suburb that you come from by doing that thing that we do in Australia where we shorten the name but then extend it, so Frankston becomes Franga – I will not dwell too long on that – and Springvale becomes Springy. But there were all these great sorts of stories within that book that I was able to relate to. The one thing in my youth growing up was that I did not have to fear being home at a certain time in the afternoon, which is something that he also goes to in that book. It really resonated with me – and the sort of fear that there would have been for parents as well as the whole community during that time. It is a really terrific book, and I recommend if you do have the opportunity to read it to do so.

As someone who has practised law and practised law for those who deserve protection and access to justice, this has been something that I have always fought very, very hard for. I have always been a very strong advocate for ensuring that the rule of law remains so strong that it really does stay strong and that there is that separation of powers that exists between our executive and our court system. I must admit that until this occasion there has not been a time when I have thought that that should ever be breached. It has been confronting because of the way that you think about these things, to get to that position. It is a journey.

To the families of victims I say thank you for challenging me and taking me to that point that I needed to get to, because I am so proud that this Parliament, this government, has identified that this particular individual has just committed the worst crimes and that the legislation that we are passing in this place has to, in this very limited circumstance, override that of the courts – it just has to – because even though they sentenced him, and they did so with all of the protections that go with the separations of power, it did not meet a Victorian community standard that must be met now in 2023. I am so proud of this government, and I welcome the support of the opposition as well as the very strong contributions from the member for Frankston, the member for Pakenham, the member for Berwick and the one I am sure we will hear from Mr Limbrick in the other place. This law is an exercise in protection for the whole Victorian community, and on that basis I commend the bill to the house.

Natalie SULEYMAN (St Albans – Minister for Veterans, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Youth) (15:26): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.