Tuesday, 27 August 2024
Bills
Youth Justice Bill 2024
Bills
Youth Justice Bill 2024
Council’s amendments
Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:
1. Clause 1, page 3, line 8, omit “1977 to provide” and insert “1977, including by providing”.
2. Clause 2, after line 16 insert –
“(1AA) The following provisions come into operation on the day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent –
(a) this section; and
(b) Division 3 of Part 22.1; and
(c) section 904.”.
3. Clause 2, line 17, after “subsections” insert “(1A),”.
4. Clause 2, line 17, after “and (3),” insert “the remaining provisions of”.
5. Clause 2, line 17, omit “comes” and insert “come”.
6. Clause 2, after line 18 insert –
“(1A) If Division 2 of Part 22.1 does not come into operation before 2 December 2024, it comes into operation on that day.”.
7. Clause 2, line 19, after “If” insert “the remaining provisions of”.
8. Clause 2, line 20, after “Chapter 20,” insert “the remaining provisions of”.
9. Clause 3, page 22, line 13, after “law” insert “(other than a spit hood)”.
10. Clause 3, page 22, line 14, after “restraint” insert “(other than a spit hood)”.
11. Clause 19, after line 26 insert –
“Note
Section 92(1) establishes the hierarchy of options for alleged offending behaviour by a child. The hierarchy requires a police officer to apply the least restrictive option that is appropriate in the circumstances.”.
12. Clause 47, line 20, omit “, from time to time, may” and insert “must”.
13. Clause 48, line 2, omit “may” and insert “must”.
14. Clause 73, page 88, line 12, after “restraint” insert “(other than a spit hood)”.
15. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 128 –
“128A Reading aloud of victim statement
(1) A person who provides a written communication under section 128 may request that any part of that communication is read aloud, in the course of the early diversion group conference, by –
(a) the convenor; or
(b) a person chosen by the person making the request and who is approved by the convenor for that purpose.
(2) If a request is made under subsection (1), the convenor must determine if the reading aloud of each requested part of the communication is appropriate, having regard to –
(a) the objects of the early diversion group conference; and
(b) the circumstances of the particular case.
Example
The convenor may determine that it is not appropriate to read any part of a communication that is offensive, would breach another person’s privacy or could jeopardise the safety of any person.
(3) If the convenor determines that the reading aloud of any part of the communication is appropriate, the convenor must ensure that, in the course of the early diversion group conference, that part of the communication is read aloud by the person who was requested to do so.
(4) The convenor may direct a person who is reading aloud any part of the communication as to –
(a) which parts of the communication are determined appropriate to be read aloud; and
(b) the time available, which must be reasonable, for reading aloud those parts of the communication.”.
16. Clause 439, line 29, before “recreational” insert “exercise and other”.
17. Clause 439, after line 33 insert –
“Example
An example of meaningful exercise and recreational activities is a child or young person having the opportunity to spend a target of 2 hours exercising or playing sport.”.
18. Clause 447, after line 16 insert –
“(1A) The program must be completed and agreed to within 2 weeks of the child or young person being received into a youth justice custodial centre.”.
19. Clause 447, after line 30 insert –
“(3) If a program does not include any particular matter referred to in subsection (2), a report explaining why must be attached to the program.”.
20. Clause 477, page 410, line 4, after “restraint” insert “(other than a spit hood)”.
21. Clause 477, page 410, line 15, after “restraint” insert “(other than a spit hood)”.
22. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 504 –
“504A Publication of information – unclothed searches
The Commissioner for Youth Justice must cause to be published on the Department’s Internet site at the end of every 12 month period the number of unclothed searches carried out under this Division during that 12 month period.”.
23. Clause 524, page 447, after line 12 insert –
“(3) If –
(a) a parent or legal representative of a child or young person requests that the Commissioner for Youth Justice give a report of the information included on the Isolations Register in relation to the use of isolation in relation to that child or young person; and
(b) the child or young person consents to the Commissioner for Youth Justice giving that report –
the Commissioner for Youth Justice must give that report as soon as reasonably practicable.
(4) Despite subsection (3), the Commissioner for Youth Justice is not required to give a report to a parent if the giving of the report would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
Example
There is a history of family violence and the giving of the report jeopardises the safety of any person.”.
24. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 524 –
“524A Publication of information from Isolations Register
The Commissioner for Youth Justice must cause to be published on the Department’s Internet site the following information from the Isolations Register at the end of every 3 month period –
(a) the number of times isolation was used in the preceding 3 months; and
(b) for each use of isolation in the preceding 3 months –
(i) the reasons for the use of isolation, including the purpose for which it was authorised; and
(ii) prescribed information about the duration of the isolation.”.
25. Clause 580, page 490, line 14, after “restraint” insert “(other than a spit hood)”.
26. Clause 580, page 490, line 25, after “restraint” insert “(other than a spit hood)”.
27. Clause 622, after line 2, insert –
“(1AA) This section applies if the Youth Parole Board receives information about a child or young person from a person included on the Youth Justice Victims Register in relation to that child or young person.”.
28. Clause 622, lines 3 to 5, omit “If the Youth Parole Board receives information from a person on the Youth Justice Victims Register, the” and insert “The”.
29. Clause 622, line 5, omit “not”.
30. Clause 622, line 7, omit “whether –” and insert “any of the following –”.
31. Clause 622, line 8, omit “a child” and insert “whether the child”.
32. Clause 622, line 10, after “(b)” insert “whether”.
33. Clause 622, line 10, omit “a” and insert “the”.
34. Clause 622, line 10, omit “person.” and insert “person; or”.
35. Clause 622, after line 10 insert –
“(c) conditions of the child’s or young person’s parole under section 632, 633 or 634.”.
36. Clause 622, lines 11 to 17, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –
“(2) In having regard to the information, the Youth Parole Board may, in its absolute discretion, give the information such weight as the Board sees fit.”.
37. Clause 623, after line 18 insert –
“(1AA) This section applies if the Youth Parole Board receives a victim impact statement in relation to a particular child or young person.”.
38. Clause 623, lines 19 and 20, omit “If the Youth Parole Board receives a victim impact statement, the” and insert “The”.
39. Clause 623, line 21, omit “not”.
40. Clause 623, line 22, omit “whether –” and insert “any of the following –”.
41. Clause 623, line 23, omit “a child” and insert “whether the child”.
42. Clause 623, line 25, after “(b)” insert “whether”.
43. Clause 623, line 25, omit “a” and insert “the”.
44. Clause 623, line 25, omit “person.” and insert “person; or”.
45. Clause 623, after line 25 insert –
“(c) conditions of the child’s or young person’s parole under section 632, 633 or 634.”.
46. Clause 623, lines 26 to 31, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –
“(2) In having regard to the victim impact statement, the Youth Parole Board may, in its absolute discretion, give the statement such weight as the Board sees fit.”.
47. Clause 624, line 5, omit “not”.
48. Clause 624, line 7, omit “whether –” and insert “any of the following –”.
49. Clause 624, line 8, omit “a child” and insert “whether the child”.
50. Clause 624, line 10, after “(b)” insert “whether”.
51. Clause 624, line 10, omit “a” and insert “the”.
52. Clause 624, line 10, omit “person.” and insert “person; or”.
53. Clause 624, after line 10 insert –
“(c) conditions of the child’s or young person’s parole under section 632, 633 or 634.”.
54. Clause 624, lines 11 to 17, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –
“(3) In having regard to the parole stage group conference report, the Youth Parole Board may, in its absolute discretion, give the report such weight as the Board sees fit.”.
55. Clause 654, line 9, after “parole” insert “determinations and”.
56. Clause 659, page 554, after line 3 insert –
“(aa) details of the custodial sentence being served by the child or young person, including the period of detention under that sentence;
(aab) details of an escape of the child or young person from custody that occurs while the custodial sentence is being served;”.
57. Clause 664, line 6, omit “parole conditions under section 632, 633 or 634.” and insert –
“any of the following –
(a) whether a child or young person is eligible for release on parole;
(b) whether to grant parole to a child or young person;
(c) conditions of a child’s or young person’s parole under section 632, 633 or 634.”.
58. Clause 718, after line 21 insert –
“(5) The Secretary and the Minister must ensure that, before the first anniversary of the commencement of this section, the first approved strategic plan has been published.”.
59. Clause 746, line 11, omit “devised” and insert “derived”.
60. Clause 855, page 735, line 13, omit “devised” and insert “derived”.
61. Chapter heading before clause 899, omit “Trial of electronic monitoring of children on bail in certain circumstances” and insert “Bail amendments”.
62. Insert the following Division heading before clause 899 –
“Division 1 – Trial of electronic monitoring of children on bail in certain circumstances”.
63. Insert the following Division heading and New Clauses to follow clause 903 –
‘Division 2 – Scheduled offences, unacceptable risk and conduct conditions
903A All offences – unacceptable risk test
(1) Before section 4E(1)(a)(i) of the Bail Act 1977 insert –
“(iaa) commit a Schedule 1 offence or a Schedule 2 offence; or”.
(2) In section 4E(1)(a)(i) of the Bail Act 1977, after “(i)” insert “otherwise”.
903B Conduct conditions
(1) Before section 5AAA(1)(a) of the Bail Act 1977 insert –
“(aa) commit a Schedule 1 offence or a Schedule 2 offence; or”.
(2) In section 5AAA(1)(a) of the Bail Act 1977, after “(a)” insert “otherwise”.
903C New section 30A inserted
After section 30 of the Bail Act 1977 insert –
“30A Offence to commit Schedule 1 offence or Schedule 2 offence while on bail
An accused on bail must not commit a Schedule 1 offence or Schedule 2 offence while on bail.
Penalty: 30 penalty units or 3 months imprisonment.
Note
See sections 16 and 33 of the Sentencing Act 1991 and sections 411 and 413 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.”.
Division 3 – Examples, revocation and review
903D All offences – unacceptable risk test
For the example at the foot of section 4E(1) of the Bail Act 1977 substitute –
“Example
An unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail, would –
(a) drive dangerously; or
(b) commit a family violence offence; or
(c) commit an aggravated burglary; or
(d) commit an armed robbery; or
(e) commit a carjacking; or
(f) commit a home invasion.”.
903E All offences – unacceptable risk test
For the example at the foot of section 5AAA(1) of the Bail Act 1977 substitute –
“Example
A bail decision maker may impose a condition in order to reduce the likelihood that the accused may –
(a) drive dangerously; or
(b) commit a family violence offence; or
(c) commit an aggravated burglary; or
(d) commit an armed robbery; or
(e) commit a carjacking; or
(f) commit a home invasion.”.
903F Application for revocation of bail
After section 18AE(1) of the Bail Act 1977 insert –
“(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), an application under that subsection may be made because the applicant believes on reasonable grounds that the person –
(a) has committed an offence since bail was granted; or
(b) is likely to commit an offence whilst on bail; or
(c) has breached a condition of bail; or
(d) is likely to breach a condition of bail or the bail undertaking.”.
903G Section 32C amended
(1) In the heading to section 32C of the Bail Act 1977, for “amendments made by Bail Amendment Act 2023” substitute “certain amendments”.
(2) In section 32C(1) of the Bail Act 1977, for “by the Bail Amendment Act 2023.” substitute “by –
(a) the Bail Amendment Act 2023; and
(b) Part 22.1 of the Youth Justice Act 2024 (other than Division 1 of that Part).”.’.
64. Insert the following Division heading before clause 904 –
“Division 4 – Transitional provisions and technical amendments”.
65. Clause 904, line 10, omit ‘committed.”.’. and insert “committed.”.
66. Clause 904, after line 10 insert –
‘(24A) Section 30A applies in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed on or after the commencement of section 903C of the Youth Justice Act 2024.”.’.
67. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 913 –
‘913A Offence to commit Schedule 1 offence or Schedule 2 offence while on bail
In the Note at the foot of section 30A of the Bail Act 1977, for “sections 411 and 413 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.” substitute “section 327 of the Youth Justice Act 2024.”.’.
That the amendments be agreed to.
I rise to make a few brief comments in support of these amendments to the Youth Justice Bill 2024. The amendments were agreed to in the other place, in the early hours of the morning in the last sitting week, to put community safety at the forefront of decision-makers’ minds.
There are amendments before the house that amend the Bail Act 1977, and I would like to spend some time outlining what those changes will mean for Victorians. The amendments strengthen our bail system by making it clear that serious offences, such as aggravated burglary, carjacking and home invasion, have serious consequences. These amendments also make it clear that bail decision makers must assess the specific risk of a person committing serious offending if released on bail as well as community safety generally. Specifically they call out the serious behaviour of dangerous driving and the serious crimes of aggravated burglary, armed robbery, carjacking and home invasion as explicit examples of offences that present an unacceptable risk to community safety. They also clarify the ability of police to apply for bail revocation for breach of bail conditions and introduce a new separate offence for committing a serious crime, including aggravated burglary, carjacking, murder and rape, while on bail. These are significant schedule 1 and 2 offences that have been canvassed in the bill.
These are reforms that respond to the feedback the government received from Victoria Police and the courts and are targeted at serious alleged offending on bail, consistent with the reforms that commenced in March this year. This is to ensure that the amendments will not have an overpunitive impact on people accused of lower level offending. It is about striking the right balance. The legislation appropriately balances the need to ensure that young people who have made a mistake have the opportunity to turn their lives around with holding serious repeat offenders to account, because community safety is the government’s highest priority.
I would also like to touch on a couple of other elements and the initiatives that relate to victim support. We have seen the further affirmation in the bill with regard to electronic monitoring of offenders. This presents an opportunity for the house and the Parliament to have the nation’s first standalone Youth Justice Bill and hopefully the first Youth Justice Act in the country. I want to commend the Minister for Corrections in the other place for his leadership in not only bringing this bill to the Parliament but bringing many years of hard work and policy development in the best interests of holding serious offenders to account while also providing opportunities for young people to turn their lives around. In the end it is the Minister for Corrections, Mr Erdogan in the other place, who has been able to deliver these very significant and substantial reforms. He has also been able to see the bill copiloted through the other place by the Attorney-General. I also want to commend her work and leadership with her community, with the courts and with many of her advocates in the legal space, who have also made a significant contribution to the development of this work. The justice ministers are as one in the government in relation to this work and have supported one another and supported our community to make sure that we have appropriate reforms in youth justice and, finally, to bring to this Parliament a standalone Youth Justice Bill that has the support of the upper house and, I would hope, the support of the Assembly.
I also want to acknowledge the Premier and the work she has done and the leadership she has shown to ensure that the Youth Justice Bill passes this Parliament to provide opportunities to young people in our community to turn their lives around but also to ensure that there are serious consequences for serious offending and to give further directions, advice and understandings to the courts and to our police and bail decision makers on the capacity and the range of decisions that they are able to make. That guidance has been laid out very clearly in the examples that we have put forward in the bill for consideration to draw to the attention of all of those decision-makers what the expectations are of the people and the Parliament in relation to these matters.
Lastly, can I say that it is really a matter here for those opposite to make a determination whether they want to go down the path of continuing to affirm locking up 10- and 11-year-olds in our community. It is up to those opposite to make a determination whether they support turning the lives of young people around in our community. It is up to those opposite to make a determination whether they support the reforms that have been put forward by the government and that have been supported by the upper house. I would like to commend members of the Labor caucus in the other place for the heartfelt and comprehensive contributions they have made in relation to advocating for and supporting this bill and other members in the other place who have come to the conclusion that supporting young people to turn their lives around but also holding serious offenders accountable for the serious matters that have been committed needs to be understood and it needs to be affirmed in this legislation.
We also can point to the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, who has made it clear publicly in his statements that he expects to see more alleged offenders remanded for alleged crimes based on the reforms that have been outlined in this bill. He has made those statements publicly, even though he has had criticism from those opposite in relation to those remarks. What we do understand is the community draw their strength and confidence in our legal system also by what they hear and what they understand being affirmed and put forward by Victoria Police. It is Victoria Police that keep the community safe, it is Victoria Police who have a role along with our courts as bail decision makers and it is Victoria Police that have welcomed these changes. We have responded to our engagement with them about what they need to get the tools that they need to do the job.
I commend the reforms and the outline in this legislation that has been put forward to the Parliament. It has been passed by the other place and we would hope it would have the support of all members of this place to ensure that we can continue to hold offenders to account and find the right balance that also provides a level of support to turn young lives around when mistakes are made. It is also about supporting victims and making sure that they have the support they need to rebuild their lives. I am very confident that the changes we have made and the amendments that have come to this place from the Legislative Council deserve this Assembly’s support, and I commend the bill to the house. I thank all members for the constructive input that they have made.
There is no doubt that having what will be the first standalone Youth Justice Bill in the country that seeks not only to turn lives around but also to hold serious offenders to account is work that has taken very many years. There has been great leadership by both the Premier of Victoria, Ms Allan, and also the Labor caucus and the Labor Party to make sure that these changes are made in the best interests of all Victorians to keep them safe and to support everyone in our community by making sure that there are consequences when there is serious offending but also that there are opportunities to put an end to the repeat offending of young people who need to turn their lives around and be given the appropriate supports in our community.
Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (13:25): I rise in relation to the Council’s amendments to the Youth Justice Bill 2024. I will start off by saying what a weekend poor Michael Voss had. He had to go to the football and endure watching his team play a game that was probably at or below average for what Carlton would expect for the finals, where Jack ‘Snags’ Higgins kicked a goal with seconds to go. If you thought that was not enough pressure on Michael Voss, then today, whilst getting a coffee on his way in to work, he witnessed a car roll. He went over there and filmed it as the people got out, who ended up being offenders from an allegedly stolen vehicle. If you look at the photos, he gave them a bit of a head start. I will be honest: if Michael Voss were chasing me, I would want to be running fairly fast too. He apprehended them and did a citizen’s arrest here in Victoria.
Michael O’Brien interjected.
Brad BATTIN: He should have tackled Jack Higgins, but that is an example of where crime is in this state. We have got a huge issue with crime here in Victoria. Crime continues to increase at rates beyond recognition, rates that we have not seen at any time in our history. Aggravated burglaries are up 146 per cent in 10 years. Aggravated burglaries – people going into houses with knives – are up 146 per cent.
Members interjecting.
Brad BATTIN: I do note that. Thank you, member for Brighton. All of those Labor members who think this is funny should come out and speak to the victims who have had someone come into their house with a knife. Come and speak to those victims who have had their houses burgled while they are in bed and have woken up to find someone standing beside their bed. Come and speak to the victims who continually have to put up with this crime out in Berwick and Casey, where we are number two in the state for aggravated burglaries. That is why when we spoke about youth justice we were very, very straightforward on how we wanted this dealt with.
The key adjustments in this are the consequential changes to bail. I note the member for Malvern will be speaking on this as well, but we are very strong in our wording on this. The bail amendments that are being made by the Labor government today will leave bail laws in Victoria weaker than they were in March this year. I note that the Minister for Police just said then that the Chief Commissioner of Police came out in support of some of the changes they have made, yet in March the police commissioner was asking for those powers to be returned to what they were pre March. He knew the impact on crime in Victoria was going to happen before those changes happened, so if the government want to be true to their word and listen to the chief commissioner, they should reverse those changes and put them back to what the chief commissioner has called for in the past.
We cannot see a case here in Victoria where young people are committing serious offences, going into the system and then continuing to get bail not once or twice but eight, nine or 10 times. The member for Gippsland South highlighted one case just this week where a young person in his community had got bail on eight separate occasions and now for the first time has been remanded. These are the things we need to make sure we do clarify when we are talking about bail so that Victorians can be safe in the knowledge that young violent offenders are not released to go out and commit more serious offences on the street.
The police minister also mentioned victim support and how victims would be supported with some of the changes in the amendments. It is really important to note that the amendments that were put forward for that were those put forward by this side of the house. Amendments in relation to victim support, victims being heard, ensuring that victim impact statements are heard when offenders are going through parole hearings – all of those were put forward by this side of the house. The Labor Party wanted to silence the victims. When it came to parole hearings, they wanted to ensure that victim impact statements could not be read out in the process of someone going for parole. It is absolutely and utterly disgraceful that you would want to silence victims, who have already gone through enough, and say to them, ‘You actually can’t have a say when it comes to what is happening in parole.’ And it did not say ‘should or should not’; it said ‘must not’. It said it must not be in there, and that was something that was really important.
It also has in here one of the changes we put forward, which was to require the minister to determine the performance standards for registered Aboriginal youth justice agencies – ‘must’ not ‘may’. Why is this important? It is so important that when you are effectively using government money, taxpayers money, to go out to work on rehabilitation for young people, whether they are Indigenous or not, and that money is going out to organisations to give the best opportunities for those young people moving forward, you take into consideration the outcomes of what those programs are doing. If you do not, then on many occasions – and we have seen it in the past – we are effectively handing money out and the programs are not achieving what they need to do.
There are two ways around this. You can go back to those agencies and work with them to ensure that they can make improvements and changes and see fit to make sure they are delivering the services they promised to provide and are getting funded for, or you can stop funding them and find a new program. The reality is you cannot keep giving money out to organisations who are not achieving the goals of giving those young people a genuine opportunity to not go back into the justice system in the future, and I think that is probably one of the most important changes that came through with this bill.
We also had the expanding of the custodial right to positive development to include a requirement that an individualised program with meaningful and structured activities and support must be completed and agreed to within two weeks of the child or young person being received into the youth justice custodial centre. It is really important when young people go into the youth justice centres, when they are either going to be remanded or sentenced, that you do ensure that they have an understanding of what is expected from them and what opportunities they can have whilst they are in there.
We have the saying ‘Idle hands are the devil’s playground.’ I do not care what justice setting you go into, whether it is youth or adult systems – if you have a group of people sitting around with nothing to do, they will generally find the worst outcomes. They will get bored and they will start to do things that are not deemed in their best interests, in the best interests of the safety of the facility they are in or in the best interests of their rehabilitation, coming out of the system. So it is really important that as soon as they get in we have a requirement legislated that they get that course set out for them as soon as possible, to give those young people the best chance possible.
I note the police minister wanted to say that on our side of the house we all want to lock everyone up and throw away the key, and we know he wants to go out there. If you want to talk about Trump-style comments, they are the kinds of comments that you get from Donald Trump, where he just comes out and effectively lies and says that it is not going to come out on the outside. The reality is we have said very openly – and if anyone can find on the record where I have said I want to lock up 10- and 11-year-olds, good luck to you. I have always said if we can create a system where we give young people the best opportunities moving forward to not go back into the justice system, that is an outcome 88 people in this house want. That is one thing we would all 100 per cent agree on. We may disagree on how to get there, but that is one thing that we all agree on.
There currently is no person who is 10, 11, 12 or 13 in custody in the justice system, which says some parts of the system are working. However, there are issues when we are talking about some of the kids that are currently out. Because this system will make changes for those 11- and 12-year-olds, they will not get the support they need. They cannot be forced into the support they need. And we know that young kids, depending on their family background, unless it is forced will not actually partake in those programs to give them the best chances going forward.
So our whole philosophy on this side has been that we want to treat each person as an individual. If they want to commit crimes, violent crimes, in this state – and I do not care at what age, whatever age they are – we need to have a justice system that says, ‘We can work with you to give you the best opportunities, to get education, to go to work or to go to the services and get the support that you need.’ They are the three most important things we can have in our justice system. Every person who enters it, whether it is through a custodial sentence or not, must have opportunities for education.
We have got Parkville College, and we know now, factually, that Parkville College is having its troubles, particularly down in Cherry Creek, to keep staff and to put programs in place for the young offenders down there because of the increase in violence and the lack of control that is happening in Cherry Creek. It is a dysfunctional system when you go down to Cherry Creek. We have got it at Parkville College itself. When Parkville College was originally brought in, it was designed around giving young kids the best opportunities in education and enforcing it whilst they were in a custodial setting. Every child in a custodial setting must do a specific amount of education. That has all changed. Now that we are giving these kids a lot more chances and choices while they are in there, they are going to pick and choose the wrong directions. We need to make sure that when our youth are in custody in our youth justice system there is not just an opportunity for education but we are pushing them and forcing them into that education opportunity. It is not necessarily saying every single one of them has to do maths and English, but it means we can go in there and do vocational studies. We can give them the tools so that when they get out they can go and look for work. We can make sure they get the services and the support that they need to better themselves while they are in custody, rather than sitting around in a room creating havoc and causing issues or, as we have seen down in Cherry Creek, becoming violent. That is not the outcome that is good for us. It is not the outcome that is good for the staff. It is not the outcome that is good for anyone.
The second part of that is ensuring that when young people come out they have an opportunity to work. We all know education is obviously the ideal outcome, but there is a certain cohort who probably are not going to be going back into an education setting – generally we are getting to 14 and older here – and we should be working with them on how we can engage them so they can get meaningful employment and opportunities for themselves to grow. Not everybody is destined to stay to the end of VCE. I left school at 15 years of age. You can get places in life without going through that education system – and you may go back and educate later on – but we have got to be giving these kids the tools. If we try to force them into a position when they are outside and they do not have the support from their family or we do not have the services to back them up, we are only pushing them in a direction that they are not going to go. You cannot add that extra pressure onto the schools. We have seen the outcomes where we see a lot of these young kids ending up committing violent crimes, which causes major concerns going forward.
The third one is ensuring they have got the services they need. As I have said, I have spoken about different parts of the world where you have wraparound systems for these kids. The Youth Justice Bill failed in that. It did not come in with a plan about how we wrap services around kids who enter the justice system or exit the justice system. We want to make sure those wraparound services are full time, to give the kids the best opportunity. Is it going to cost a lot of money? Yes, of course it will. Is it an investment? One hundred per cent. If we keep one kid out of jail, that is $5900 every day that we save, each and every day for a kid we keep out of the prison system. The equivalent is we could put 40 kids through Scotch College for the amount we spend on one child in a youth detention centre. If we are to have the opportunity to put things in place to keep them out of that system, those wraparound services have to be put in a lot earlier on.
That is where this Youth Justice Bill misses out. It does not take that opportunity to look at how we could amalgamate and work across departments, with the health department, councils and youth justice programs. How can we ensure that the programs being delivered are giving the best outcomes? There was an opportunity for this bill to do that, and I think it was really important that we got that done. It expands the information available to victims on the youth register, which is the gap between the adults. It was large, so we campaigned for a wider array of information to be available. Again, it is really important that information is available to victims so they can be heard.
The other thing in here which is really, really important is scrutiny. Scrutiny is something that when it comes youth justice is very important, and the government must publish the youth justice strategic plan within one year of the commencement of the act. We cannot scrutinise the youth justice program at the moment, and we went through VCAT trying to get some of the strategic documents from the government in relation to youth justice. The only thing I have managed to find is they seem to have a lot of money to find a lot of solicitors to try to stop these reports from getting out, including one of the reports that, when we got the information back, said the report was outdated and no longer in use. We believe that should be a public document. There is a fairly simple answer to that one. The messaging then changed on three separate occasions in VCAT such that it is now the ‘current’ document, it is a ‘work in progress’ document or at the very end it is a ‘cabinet in confidence’ document. This government fails when it comes to scrutiny in the youth justice system, so much so that every FOI application that we have made in youth justice has ended up in VCAT. They do not release anything when it comes to youth justice. We are very fair. We do not want things that are going to impact on security. We do not want things that will impact on individuals or result in a name released of an individual within the system. We believe that should be protected 100 per cent.
But when it comes to the strategy of how you are going to work with these young offenders that go inside with a custodial sentence, or those prior to it, that strategy should be public so it can be assessed and scrutinised not just by us but by experts in the field, and so it can be compared so we can look at what is happening in different parts of the state and what is happening in other parts of the world, which we can all then take on board and say, ‘Okay, how can it be improved for the best outcome for those young people and in the long term for community safety?’
Scrutiny of this government is a bit of a thing which I know they do not do a lot of in the departments, but what we do see in youth justice is everything is hidden. They fundamentally do not want people to know what is going on in the youth justice system. The reason for that is – actually, I will not go through the text after text from people working inside the youth justice system who are genuinely scared working inside the system, who have seen changes inside youth justice which have effectively handed too much power to young offenders inside. In places like Cherry Creek the staff do not have the opportunities to work with them, to discipline them and to force them into places for things like education and all the services they need. These kids can get away with what they were want to, and the mentality then comes out. What we do want to see are more opportunities for cultural engagement within the justice system, but I think, as I said before, education is probably one of the key ones we need within the custodial settings that we have got here in Victoria.
As I said at the start, we know that crime is still out of control here in Victoria. A 16-year-old boy was stabbed at a bus stop near a secondary school in Fraser Rise. This was on 23 August this year. I know down in Cranbourne and Cranbourne South we have had shootings and knife attacks. We have got police investigating a violent brawl involving machetes and firearms at a Melbourne shopping centre; this was just in the last few weeks as well. We have got ‘Machete-wielding teens prompt large police operation in Brighton’ – again that was just a few days ago. We know we have still got machetes on the street, we have still got kids running around with knives and we have got kids who are without fear that they are going to get locked up or remanded, and that is because this government has sent the message that effectively, ‘It’s okay. You can go in there. You’ll get bail. You’ll be back out as soon as you can.’
One of the other changes we would have liked to have seen is in relation to machetes here in Victoria. The government brought in a bill that made no change other than they could put it in the media and say they were pretending to do something. The reality is it made no change to how a machete could be purchased here in our state. I would invite you, Deputy Speaker, if you would like, to join me. We can go to Dandenong Market, and I can guarantee I could walk out with five machetes, walking through the Dandenong Market. The changes that were made did not do anything to make them a prohibited weapon, to stop the importation of them, to increase the penalties for people who are selling those machetes, to get them off our street. At the end of the day knife crime here in Victoria is something that we need to get on top of. The way to do that is to send a very, very strong message that we do not accept it and give the police the powers they need to ensure that they can get those knives off the street, not just from the young offenders who have got them at the end but from those who have been selling them in between. I think there are a whole lot of things we can do there.
Finally, I will go back to bail. The only way you are going to fix bail here in Victoria – there is only one alternative – is to bring back the bail laws that were here in March and prior. If you want to ensure that young violent offenders committing serious crimes in our state are not released but get the services they need within that system – that they are not released continuously, like they have been now eight, nine and 10 times to rack up 300 and 400 charges; to continuously steal cars or break into people’s homes – if you want to see that change, the only way to do that is to reverse those bail laws and ensure that Victorians are kept safe. When the minister says his priority is community safety and his priority is keeping Victorians safe in their homes, on their streets or at work, if he wants to do that, he will need to support the coalition’s change to bail and ensure we reverse that change made in March this year.
Belinda WILSON (Narre Warren North) (13:44): I do not think that in this chamber we are on the same page in agreeing that we want the best for our youth justice system. That is what these amendments to the Youth Justice Bill 2024 do. Today is a very important day. The bill makes amendments to the Bail Act 1977, and we will approve them today. I would say we all agree with that. Forcing kids to do things – we all parent differently, I guess. The member for Berwick and I are of a similar vintage and probably went through school at a similar time, and our children are also of a similar vintage. I am not sure forcing all the time always works, but we can agree to disagree on that.
I would first of all like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleagues in the other place who were here till the wee hours of the morning last sitting week getting these amendments through. The member for Berwick brought up a number of different situations, and I personally believe that once we have these new laws in place we will see a dramatic decrease in a number of those things that he mentioned today. Our government is serious about youth justice. Our ministers have done an incredible amount of work on this, and I commend them for the extraordinary amount of work they have done. They have listened to the professionals. They have listened to the police and the people in the youth justice system, and I really do commend and thank them for all the incredible work they have done. I have seen firsthand three incredible ministers, including our Attorney-General, who really put their heart and soul into this, and we are a better state and a better government for that.
I think that the Attorney-General’s amendments to the Youth Justice Bill enhance the bail system – the other side may not agree with me – by making it clear that serious offences, such as aggravated burglary, home invasions, sexual offending and armed robbery, must be recognised for what they are, and that is that they are crimes that cause harm to our community. There were some comments made about whether we have met with people or seen it. I have spoken and met with people that have had home invasions. It is stressful and it is very upsetting. It is very, very distressful for many members of the community, and these laws will make some changes to that. They will ensure that our bail decision makers have more clarity around the risks of reoffending and that bail can be revoked. We are fostering a system that takes seriously the risks involved in offending and ensures that this is front and centre for all in consideration of bail. These bail laws make it clear that bail decision makers must assess the specific risk of a person committing a serious offence on release on bail as well as community safety generally, and I think that is also really, really important. The bill specifically calls out the serious behaviour of dangerous driving and the serious crimes of aggravated burglary, armed robbery, carjacking and home invasion as explicit examples of offences that present an unacceptable risk to our community and to our safety, and I think that is really important. I would like to commend this bill to the house.
Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (13:48): In rising to speak on these amendments I acknowledge the extreme bravery of the senior coach of the Carlton Football Club Michael Voss today, who managed to tackle youth offenders – one armed with a machete – who had crashed and overturned a car in Hawthorn this morning. I note that in making a citizen’s arrest and apprehending a machete-wielding youth Michael Voss has done more to tackle crime in Victoria than this entire bill, because this bill does not take us forward and these amendments do not take us forward. Bail is still weaker in Victoria than it was in March this year. That is a fact; it is an unimpeachable fact. Bail is weaker in Victoria now than it was in March this year. How on earth does weakening Victoria’s bail laws help keep anybody safe? The answer is it does not. It does not keep us safe at all.
Andrew Rule – the very respected crime reporter and author, I should say – wrote an article in the weekend in the Herald Sun. ‘Invasion of the carjackers’ is the title of this piece, and he refers to the fact that we have had this youth crime wave and we have had all these experts in the Labor government believing that it is something to be dismissed, that it is something not to be taken seriously. Andrew Rule wrote:
Police are still cagey about commenting in such a politically-charged debate, wary of criticism by crime deniers such as the state’s attorney-general Jaclyn Symes, who last year scuppered controversial changes to youth bail reforms and was openly dismissive when asked about it.
“I do not want a discussion about a youth crime crisis that doesn’t exist,” Symes said.
Andrew Rule got it right. The Attorney-General is a crime denier. Too many members of the Labor government are crime deniers. They do not believe the evidence of their own eyes. They do not believe the evidence of the Crime Statistics Authority. They do not believe the evidence of Victoria Police.
We are suffering a youth crime crisis, and this government deliberately made it worse by weakening bail laws in March this year. We warned them. We said that was absolutely the wrong thing to do. When you send a message that you do not have to keep your bail conditions anymore, because it is not an offence to breach them, that sends exactly the wrong message about accountability. We need to make sure that when people are given the privilege of bail and conditions are attached to it, it comes with those conditions being enforceable. Instead this government said, ‘No, let’s not make conditions something you have to keep. Let’s not make breaking those conditions of bail an offence. Let’s just make them a suggestion,’ as though that is going to keep Victorians safe.
What absolute nonsense. Do you know what, despite the talks about backflips in these recent amendments, that remains the case. It is still not an offence to breach your bail conditions in Victoria. That is to this government’s discredit, and it is to the risk of Victorians. The government made a big song and dance about it, saying, ‘We might’ve abolished the offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail in March. The Liberals and Nationals opposed it vigorously, and we said they were wrong because we know what’s right all the time because we’re so smart.’ Then what they have done is, ‘Well, we’re going to introduce a new offence, not an offence of committing indictable offence whilst on bail. We’re going to introduce a new offence of committing a schedule 1 or schedule 2 indictable offence whilst on bail. We’re going to kind of admit we got it wrong but not really.’
What is an indictable offence that is in schedule 1 or schedule 2 in the Bail Act? For example, it is true that if a young person or in fact any person – this does not just apply to young people – on bail goes out and robs a tobacconist, commits an armed robbery in a tobacconist, that is a schedule 2 offence. It means not only that is an additional offence but that they face a tougher test to get bail again, and that is the critical point. People would say common sense suggests that if somebody gets the privilege of bail and they breach that privilege by committing a serious offence they should face a tougher test to get bail again. Try and find anybody outside this place who would argue with that proposition. You are going to be looking for a long time. It is common sense that if somebody breaches the privilege of bail by committing a serious offence they should face a tougher test to get bail again.
That is what the law used to be. That is the law that was introduced by the Liberals and Nationals when we were last in government, and it is the law that was scrapped by the Labor government in March this year. But they cannot bring themselves to admit they got it completely wrong, so they have done a half-hearted pale imitation of the offence that used to be there. They have said it is only if you commit a schedule 1 or schedule 2 indictable offence that you will face a tougher test to get bailed again.
Get this: under Labor’s law, under these amendments that are before the house, if you go and commit an armed robbery at a tobacconist, you face a tougher test to get bail again, but if you set fire to the tobacconist, you do not. It is okay in the eyes of the Labor government for somebody to set fire to a tobacconist, because that means you do not face a tougher test to get bail, but if you rob the tobacconist then you face a tougher test. Can anybody explain the logic in that to me? Can anybody explain the Labor logic in that proposition to me that it is okay to set fire to a tobacconist but it is not okay to rob one? That is the effect of this amendment. It makes no sense. There is no logic to it. Nobody who thinks these things through could conceivably believe that this makes any sense at all, yet this is the government’s panacea to our youth crime crisis – a hodgepodge of rapidly thrown together, half-hearted measures that just will not work.
For members opposite to say, ‘Oh, this is going to be the fix, and we expect to see youth crime coming down as a result of these changes’ – they will not, because the government still refuses to give police the powers they need and the government still refuses to give courts the bail laws they need to keep Victorians safe. It is not going to change until the government changes, because this government has had plenty of opportunities over 10 years, and every time it pulls the wrong rein – every single time. Even in the face of a youth crime crisis and even in the face of the evidence, the government pulls the wrong rein every single time, and that puts Victorians at risk.
I commend the work of the member for Berwick, the Shadow Minister for Police. He and his office have done a power of work in this bill. Some of the amendments which are before the house now are opposition amendments, and I commend the Shadow Minister for Police for securing those. It makes a bad bill marginally better. That is all it does. This is still a bad bill. Raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 does not release one single 10- or 11-year-old from detention, because there are not any in there. That is why this whole thing has been a furphy. This is not about taking kids out of detention, because there are not any kids in detention. All it is doing is sending a message that 10- and 11-year-olds can do anything at all with no legal consequences. If they think that is going to get them on the right path sooner, I think the government is wrong. I think telling 10- and 11-year-olds that they can do anything they like with no legal accountability is actually guaranteed to keep them on the wrong path for longer, which is exactly the outcome we do not want to see as a community. It is exactly the wrong outcome, and now the government has walked back its promise to raise the age from 12 to 14 –
James Newbury interjected.
Michael O’BRIEN: For now. We will wait to see what happens. If we are unfortunate enough to suffer another Labor government after the next election, they may well change their mind again, because who would know. This government just blows in the wind when it comes to keeping Victorians safe. It is not their first priority at all. Their first priority is ideology, not common sense. Their first priority is what they are getting told by activist groups, not what the community or the police are telling them about what is needed to keep this state safe. That is why this bill is such a missed opportunity. This bill could have actually done more to tackle youth offending. This bill could have restored strong bail laws, which are what Victoria needs. This government has blown that chance, and in doing so this government has done nothing but put Victorians at further risk, weaken bail laws further and ensure that Victoria and Victorians will continue to be at risk.
Matt FREGON (Ashwood) (13:58): I also rise to speak on the amendments in front of us today. It occurs to me that in our debates often we argue at the extremes. That is a fairly common thing in this place, and I do not condemn the member for Malvern for doing it. But I think there is grey in a lot of this topic. It is a complicated topic, and I commend the members of the Council for bringing back to us what I think is an improved bill, one with amendments from multiple sides. I do not necessarily agree with the member for Malvern that this will not help. I think we will see that it does help, presuming it passes. We can compare notes, the member for Malvern and I, later. If any member in this house wishes to have a coffee with me in Strangers Corridor to talk about things we need to do in any aspect of this house going forward, I am always available to have a coffee, and I will shout. But I think –
Members interjecting.
Matt FREGON: Hang on – not all at once. Look, I am running out of time before question time. This is a bill that will help the state. This is a bill that will help community safety. The people that I represent and the people we all represent will be better off when we pass this bill. I have listened to the opposition, and I am not sure if they are going to support it or not. To my knowledge they have not said they will or they will not. So now is the time, with 2 seconds left, to show how you lead.
Business interrupted under sessional orders.