Tuesday, 27 August 2024

Bills

Youth Justice Bill 2024

Council’s amendments

Debate resumed.

Matt FREGON (Ashwood) (14:47): I will make a slightly small contribution because I think there are many speakers who want to get up on these amendments as they are important, and I hope we all want to see them passed. The member for Morwell did say earlier that he hoped to see them pass, so I hope that was a flag that both sides are going to see this through. The bail amendments here acknowledge, regardless of rhetoric that has sometimes come from the other side, that there is an issue in our community with youth offenders who are over 14, as I think the member for Berwick was saying earlier, who are offending and then offending again. I think we have got to remember that if you are up for bail – if you do not get it or you do get it – you have not been found guilty of an offence. You do not get bail in sentencing; you get bail before you are found guilty or not guilty. Surely we in this house all think that the presumption of innocence is a foundation that we want to keep in our justice system. I would be very surprised if any of us think that that is something that should change.

With that said, there is also an equally important aspect of community safety that, as the Minister for Police said before, we need to identify, and when we have a very small number of young offenders who are basically off the rails and not paying attention to anything, forcing or not forcing, we have to do something about it. These amendments ensure that our bail decision makers, who are not those of us in this room – we have separate pillars for a reason – have more clarity around what we expect and what the community expects us to tell them to expect when bail can be revoked, and we are fostering a system that takes this very seriously. We are making it clear to these decision-makers that they must assess the risks of repeat offending when deciding if bail should be granted, and I think that is what we would all expect.

It may be quite evident to all that there are expectations from the opposition here to do things differently – to go further, however you want to put it – but these changes I believe will have an effect for the good of our community, and I encourage the house to pass these, to allow them to be enacted for the benefit of our communities that we all represent. Let us do both sides of the equation. As the member for Berwick said, none of us want to see an 11-year-old in prison. They are primary school kids. That is the line we are drawing here – pretty well primary school, secondary school. Nobody wants to see what happened in Hawthorn this morning and what happened in my district a month or two ago and what happened in Doncaster. This is complicated, and these youths are very complicated, the ones who are doing this. We must acknowledge that for community safety in these cases these kids need to be in remand, because by the third, fourth, fifth – I do not know how many times – even second, 12th, 13th; I do not know. The point is our decision-makers are being sent a message today that the community expects the risk to that community to be taken into consideration when bail is considered. That is what this bill does, and I encourage all members to vote for its speedy passage.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (14:51): What we are considering today are amendments to law which will go only half of the way or part of the way to trying to fix the mistakes that this current government made. This government watered down the law – that is what this current government did ‍– and it was the current Premier that did it. At the time the coalition strongly spoke out about what was being proposed. The coalition knew the effect and impact of those changes, and the government did not listen. The government said, ‘We know better. We’re deaf to these concerns and there will be no impact.’ What we know is that there have been hundreds of people who have been affected by crime who would not have been had these changes not occurred earlier in the year. That is a fact. We also know that three people have died.

Earlier this year the coalition called out what the government was proposing to do and the government ignored it. I would say to them again today that what the government is proposing to do today will not fix the problem. The government will not fix the problem with the amendments they are passing, and the community knows it. The only difference now is the community knows it and the government has been politically pushed by the right – who are briefing – to amend the law. That is what has happened. This is an attempted political fix by part of Labor’s party room in response to what the community knows is a youth crime crisis.

In my particular community we are very aggrieved because over two years ago the former Premier told us as a community that we did not understand what we were talking about when we said there was a crisis starting to occur in our community. The former Premier victim-blamed anybody who stood up, and he said that we did not understand. Victoria Police have since confirmed that the youth crime crisis in Victoria started in my electorate. Victoria Police have confirmed that. So the former Premier, who knew better than everybody else, who said that we did not understand what we were talking about – shame on him – got it wrong, and hundreds of people have been victims as a result.

Danny Pearson interjected.

James NEWBURY: I tell you what, if the former Premier is anything like Elvis, he is a pig of a man.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Brighton, that is unparliamentary language.

James NEWBURY: Thank you, Speaker, whether or not it is true. The amendments we are dealing with today will not fix the problems in the youth crime crisis that is occurring in our community, and the community knows it. This half-baked political fix, which is all it is, being pushed by the right, who are briefing out from cabinet on their little wins –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: We know that these amendments will not fix what has been a 146 per cent increase in aggravated burglaries in homes in the time of this government – a 146 per cent increase in aggravated burglaries, an almost 20 per cent increase over the last year. It is massively more in my community, but the average across this state is almost 20 per cent. We are talking about the most serious of crimes, where you wake up – oftentimes in my community people are sleeping, their families are sleeping, their little kids are sleeping – and find a gang in your home with very big weapons. It must be one of the worst possible crimes a parent can face. Having spoken to more victims than I could possibly go through, I know it is a deeply scarring event, not just for the short term but a crime that stays with victims for a very long time. I regularly talk to victims after the event and they talk to me about the long-term impact they bear, the way they cannot sleep and the types of mental health anguish they go through purely because the government watered down the law and as a result repeat offenders have been let out again and again and again and again and again and again – more than 10 times is not uncommon.

The changes before us today still do not make breaching bail an offence. The reason why I can say with great sadness that these amendments will not fix the problem is because the offenders who are committing the worst offences know that if they breach bail, it does not matter. There is literally no punishment. It does not matter. Shame on the government. This crime crisis will get worse and it will continue because the fix will not solve the problem. This is a political fix; that is what it is. It is nothing more than a political fix. It is the only type of fix that could get through their party room. That is what this fix is. You could see a massive difference between the Minister for Police and the Attorney-General – a clear difference in views of what they wanted to see in terms of changes or not at all, but the community had spoken. Only on Friday, at a quarter to 4 in the afternoon, there was a knife fight in the main street in my community. Chairs were being thrown and bottles were being thrown. Only minutes later I talked to people who were there when it happened, and there were mums with little kids walking along the street who were dodging a knife fight in the middle of the street. These types of crimes are not uncommon.

People have often heard me talk in this place about the crimes that have been happening in my community – crimes that are now occurring in other parts of the community. These crimes are real, and for too long this government has denied these crimes, watered down the laws and not fixed the problem. Though we see an attempted political fix now, which will not solve the problem, what we know is the community has worked it out, because they are seeing the crimes. Only today you saw in Hawthorn that example raised by a number of members – a car flipped and someone being forced to make a citizen’s arrest on their morning coffee run. How can this occur and the government not want to fix it? That is what I would ask. How can these crimes continue to occur and the government not want to solve it and fix it properly? We will see these crimes continue, terribly and sadly, and we will see a continuing repeat of offences, because the laws do not put in place a proper series of protections for the community or disincentives for repeat behaviour. This political fix, which has only just been an agreement that the left in the government’s party room would agree to, we know will not solve the problem. Shame on the government for their behaviour over the last two years, for denying these crimes, for watering down these laws and for seeing Victorian victims continue to be hurt by this crime crisis.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:02): I will keep my comments quite brief, because I know there are quite a few people that would like to speak on this. It has been quite an inconsistent conversation, I think, this morning in this house. We have heard from the member for Berwick, who had quite a few good points, talking about forcing kids to learn and forcing kids to do things. Look, being a former teacher and a parent, I am not sure that I really condone that. I do not think it works. I am sure that actually engaging youth on another level is probably the process and policy that most of the people that work with our youth work with. They do not want to handcuff them to a chair and make them learn. It just does not work that way. We have had the Shadow Attorney-General wanting to introduce offences that do not even apply to youth, and we are here talking about our Youth Justice Bill 2024 and the amendments.

The real inconsistency for me, though – or maybe it is just being unlucky – was the Shadow Attorney-General turning to Michael Voss and him tackling some offenders today. I like Vossy. He has coached a lot of good football players, he has been a premiership-winning coach and hopefully he gets lauded as a hero. It is just a pity that he was not on Denham Street, Hawthorn, where the incident happened this morning, on a night in October 2021, when a certain young man crashed his Jaguar into a fence at double the legal BAC. I am sure that Vossy could have got the former member for Kew before he got into his car and maybe said, ‘Listen, mate, it’s not a good idea. You’ve had a skinful. You’ve had a couple of sherberts, a couple of frothies. It’s not a good time to get in your Jaguar.’

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, I am struggling to see how the member’s contribution relates to the amendments.

The SPEAKER: Member for Frankston, I am not sure either, so perhaps you could come back to the amendments. I am sure you were leading to them.

Paul EDBROOKE: Why don’t you like Michael Voss? Everyone likes Michael Voss. I think that would have been a good thing, some coaching.

The SPEAKER: Order! I think a reference was made by a previous speaker to that same event, so the member for Frankston to continue.

Paul EDBROOKE: I will get back to the amendments. It is very clear to me that the member for Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General, is politicising things a bit or just does not understand the difference between the offence the government’s amendments introduce and the one he has continuously sought to bring back – that is, the offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail. Our focus here on this side of the chamber is ensuring that there are serious consequences for serious offending – high-harm, high-impact offending. This is why under our amendments those who commit a serious offence, as outlined in schedules 1 and 2 of the Bail Act 1977, will be able to be charged with a standalone offence.

You would think from what we have heard this afternoon that those on the other side of the chamber disagree with these amendments. In light of the fact that the upper house, or the other place, has actually agreed to these, we expect that those on the other side of the chamber will later this day as well. The offence we are talking about – the offence we are introducing, the standalone offence – does not capture the low-level, nonviolent offences that the proposed offence from those opposite would. We know that the proposed offence from those opposite would significantly contribute to over-representation of nonviolent and vulnerable offenders in our judicial system.

The Shadow Attorney-General’s proposal also sought to reintroduce the offence of contravening a conduct condition while on bail. I am sure all members of this place are aware that the bill we are discussing is a Youth Justice Bill, which is why it is very curious that the Shadow Attorney-General is proposing to reintroduce an offence that does not apply to children in a Youth Justice Bill. I would remind those opposite that they actually supported this offence being removed in the previous bail reforms this year; they never moved an amendment to keep it. It is one thing to be in here with faux outrage today, but another thing we know is that you are going to actually vote for this bill. I would say to those opposite, who seem today to be putting themselves in a bit of a box – ‘We’re the victims. We haven’t said this. You’ve told us and made us out to be something we’re not’ – that no-one has done that. You have done that yourselves. You have done that with your decisions. You have done that with what you have said in the past in regard to this bill. These amendments have been passed by the upper house. They will be agreed to, I think, in this chamber, and I commend them to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (15:07): I too rise to make a contribution to the Youth Justice Bill 2024. I note that we have some 67 amendments – which is quite a lot of amendments, actually – that got dealt with in the other place, which took a very long time. I commend those in the other place who worked through those, because it is a very difficult process. In those amendments there are some that the opposition put forward, which is most pleasing, and some the government owned that the opposition started off initially. There are some house ones, and there are some that the Greens put forward. But I think the most important thing to remember here is that bail in Victoria is easier to get now than it was in March this year, and the community is not safer. There are no incentives for community safety. There are certainly no disincentives for those doing the offending.

I have listened to the speakers on the government side and watched as some of them have read through their prepared notes, and clearly they have drunk the Kool Aid. They have those prepared notes, and they need to have something to say about the issue of youth justice, because we know the issue of youth crime is something that so many of us as members of Parliament hear about time and time again. Not only do we see it in the media, but we have people who talk to us to say how worried they are and how scared they are to be in some places on the streets and how you can easily be an innocent victim of crime being in your house at night when your house is broken into or when your car is stolen and it is used when they are racing through the streets and posing dangers as they go through red lights and speed excessively, putting their own lives and anyone else who is near them in danger as well.

I have heard the government say the government is serious about youth justice, and I am really not sure that that is the case, because the bill before us and the amendments before us do not address the youth crime crisis. If we have a look at those, we do have some positives around impact statements, which I will talk about a little later, but we still have the issue of the victims of crime – those who have been offended against – and how stressful that is and how that can have long-term psychological impacts for people. People may not leave their house and not go about their normal day-to-day duties because they are so worried about what might happen because it has happened already. Sometimes people experience these more than once.

On the disincentives for the offenders, are they going to stop doing what they are doing because of these amendments and because of the bill before the house? They know they can breach bail. They know that they can get away with it, so I am really not sure that this is going to make much difference there. I think we have all said here that we agree that for those on this path it is a pretty tragic and very destructive path, for so many young people particularly. The programs to help those young people – to move them, to change their behaviours, to change the people that they hang out with – need quite a lot of work, and I am not sure that this bill here really does look at the core issues there.

The government really cannot claim here to have tightened the bail laws when they have actually weakened them, and as I said at the start, it is easier to get bail now in Victoria than it was in March of this year. It might be not okay to rob somebody, but it is okay perhaps to burn down tobacco shops in this context. We have heard this time and time again. Every day there is a new tobacco shop that has been burnt down because of the offences that are happening.

When you look at what has been put forward here, it is not the sort of thing that is going to stop one type of offence. Here these amendments propose that every person under 18 have unlimited options for cautions and diversions. Unlimited options – that is not a good thing. And as I have said, for repeat offenders the message is simple: under Labor in Victoria you can continue to commit a crime and get away with it. We have heard of those who get bail on eight, nine, 10 occasions, and we heard the example from Gippsland earlier of it now being somebody’s first time being remanded. Perhaps listening to some of this might make some dent, but we have got aggravated burglaries in Victoria increasing by 146 per cent. That is pretty scary stuff: 146 per cent. The car thefts and the stabbings that are happening again and again – it scares me so much to hear how many people have knives and box cutters, with knife attacks and stabbings of so many innocent people. At the same time we are seeing people released so many – eight, nine, 10 – times and racking up charge after charge.

One of the other parts of these amendments means anyone aged 10 or 11 cannot be charged with a criminal offence – including aggravated burglary, stealing cars and murder – or be required to participate in programs aimed at addressing offending behaviours. Whilst there is no kid in custody under the age of 13, I have seen kids go through out-of-home care and end up in some really tragic situations, and I have had their parents talk to me about it. I know how disturbing and distressing it is, and if there were some mechanism where they could participate in programs to address their behaviour, I think that would be particularly good.

The opposition put forward a number of amendments, some of which did not pass. One of them was to reverse Labor’s weakening of the bail laws, which has seen violent offenders walk free, and in the most tragic of those circumstances innocent Victorians have lost their lives. This was blocked by Labor, and it worries me greatly that this can happen again and again.

One of the amendments that passed was about having the voices of victims heard by confirming that victim impact statements can be read in proceedings, and this is an important process for any victim of crime. The government had attempted to silence victims and not allow their impact statements to be read by someone if they did not want to attend a group conference themselves. We said this was not good enough, and the government did finally agree to an amendment to give victims this right. When you have a look at the number of clauses that are associated with that reading aloud of victim statements, there are quite a substantial number of significant changes that have been made, so I am pleased that the Shadow Minister for Youth Justice and Shadow Minister for Police, along with the Attorney-General, was able to work through quite a number of these. You can imagine that if you are a victim of crime you do want your voice to be heard. You want people to know what has happened to you, and that is part of the healing process. You have suffered some psychological trauma through this. Talking about it, knowing it has been read out and knowing it has been heard helps you on that journey to restoring your life. I think that the government had not really thought at all about victims, and I am glad that this was something that was able to be adopted.

One of the other points that I want to mention too that has been adopted is the expansion of the custodial right to positive development to include a requirement that an individualised program of meaningful and structured activities and support must be completed and agreed to within two weeks of the child or young person being received into a youth justice custodial sentence. I think that is also really important because, as I have mentioned, we have talked about the victims, but we have got to also offer these young offenders some hope and start to work with them if we want to move towards behavioural changes.

The government, again, has not been thinking about the impact on those who have been offended against and also those who are doing it, because sometimes these kids, particularly the younger people, have been hauled in and sucked in by some of the older people saying, ‘Join in with us. We’ll show you how it’s done.’ They may also feel quite threatened that if they do not join in, something might happen to them, and they might have the hard word put on them, ‘Hey, it’s your turn now. We’ve done this; we’ve broken in and knocked off that car. Now it’s your turn. You go to this house. We know where it is. We want you to go, and we want you drive that car and to show us what you’re made of.’ This can be very scary and daunting for kids, but when they are feeling threatened themselves, they will go along and do it. Offenders will be at different stages of offending. When you have got the recidivist who has been released eight times compared to the person doing it for the first time, there is hope for that child, that young offender, the first time, much more so than down the track. I think we do need to offer these kids something to try and start in those early days to get them to rethink their behaviour and to do something that is more constructive.

I am pleased that the government has adopted some of the amendments that the opposition put forward. It is a long way short of what really needed to be done, and the community is less safe than it was in March.

Jackson TAYLOR (Bayswater) (15:17): It is great to rise and talk in support of this bill and the amendments in this place. From the very outset can I just place on record my thanks to the men and women in Victoria Police for their hard work each and every single day. Whilst important debate goes on in this chamber about important legislation which will strengthen the laws to keep our community safe, our frontline police officers are out there keeping Victorians safe. I am very proud that this government, the Allan Labor government, will always support police officers and will always provide them with the tools and resources they need to get on with their job, to keep people safe and to go home safe at the end of every single shift.

I want to say as well that I commend in particular the member for Ashwood for his very controlled and sensible speech, going through the issues line by line, around the importance of taking this debate seriously, tackling it in a calm and measured manner and understanding the complexities of the issues which are being discussed and debated here. As we know, this bill makes sensible changes and amendments to the Bail Act 1977. Speaking about debate, it is my great belief that debate should reflect the issues, and it should not be an opportunity for political posturing, particularly when it comes to issues around community safety and these types of sensitive matters that are not just political opportunities; there are real people who are involved in these matters. So I want to ask members to keep that in mind in their contributions when it comes to this legislation and the amendments.

I will say as well that bail of course is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege. Members opposite have been saying there is no consequence for breach of bail. That is simply not correct. The schedule 1 and schedule 2 offences are still in place; those have not changed. If you breach your bail, the police can revoke that bail. That has not changed. In fact that has been strengthened in this legislation. What has also been further strengthened in this legislation is the unacceptable risk test. The opposition talk about and go through the serious offending, which is of great concern to anybody in our community and to anybody in this place.

Those offences, which are detailed, predominantly when mentioned in this place are schedule 1 and schedule 2 offences. The bail tests around exceptional circumstances and compelling circumstances are the same. What will hopefully change is the next test. If you overcome those high bars of exceptional, compelling reasons, you then go on to the unacceptable risk test. I am very pleased that this government is taking decisive action that makes it very clear for bail decision-makers that they must assess the specific risk of a person committing serious offending if released on bail as well as community safety generally. That is a very, very sensible measure and one that I hope all members in this place can support.

It is a very sensible measure that will absolutely make a difference. I speak from experience, as a police prosecutor, of being in the Bail and Remand Court – in the BARC – at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court as a frontline police officer and dealing with these issues. Also, dealing with these issues is again taking it back to being considerate, careful and measured in this debate and considering seriously the amendments before this house and the legislation that has been carefully worked through with Victoria Police, with the courts and with stakeholders to ensure that as a government and as a Parliament we can continue to strengthen community safety measures wherever possible. That is absolutely this government’s commitment. That is what we have always done and what we will continue to do.

We also specifically 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 as an unacceptable risk to community safety. That is very important because these are the offences which are of great concern to community. And yes, there are more offences in those schedules, but it is these offences we have seen in volume, and this is what needs to absolutely be dealt with. That is what this Parliament is doing, and that is what our government is doing. There will be prosecutors and magistrates who will look to this – if I were a betting person – and who will talk about Parliament’s intention when it comes to these laws, and they will point to that.

The legislation will also clarify the ability of police to apply for bail revocation for breach of bail conditions. There are absolutely consequences. It will also introduce, appropriately, a new, separate offence for committing a serious crime, including aggravated burglary, carjacking, murder and rape, while on bail. We will also deliver an additional magistrate, which will be fast-tracked and in place this year, supporting the Children’s Court’s capacity to hear these cases quickly. We will match the efforts in the Children’s Court by expanding Victoria Police’s dedicated team of prosecutors, boosting the capability to respond to and prosecute this cohort of offenders.

I will not speak for much longer, but I will say again that these are reforms which are a direct result of serious, lengthy discussions with stakeholders like Victoria Police, like our courts, and of listening to community. I also want to take this opportunity to thank those in the other place for their work on this legislation and its passage long into the evening and this house for dealing with the amendments here in front of us today. This is very, very important legislation. It is important that this Parliament passes this legislation so we can continue to strengthen safety outcomes for our community.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (15:24): I too rise to speak on the Legislative Council’s amendments to the Youth Justice Bill 2024. From the outset can I commend the great amount of work that the member for Berwick, the Shadow Minister for Police, did on behalf of the opposition, together with the Shadow Attorney-General the member for Malvern, in putting together the opposition’s near I think 300 ‍amendments that we took to the upper house a couple of weeks ago. We know the other place sat very late into the night and early into the next morning to pass a number of the amendments that the opposition put up. Unfortunately the bill that comes back before us today with the amendments that the government passed does nothing really to address the youth crime crisis in Victoria.

It does nothing to reverse the position that the Allan Labor government took earlier this year to weaken Victoria’s bail laws. At a time when we have seen youth crime spike by 20 per cent – we have seen criminal incidents in Victoria increase by more than 10 per cent, but that youth crime figure is 20 per cent – we have seen this government decide to weaken Victoria’s bail laws. We have heard from the government over the past week. We saw in the upper house, to the government’s own bill, which has been in the making for many years, at the last moment a raft of amendments from the government because of the pressure from the Victorian community that the rise in youth crime is simply unacceptable. Victorians are afraid to be in their homes. Shop owners are concerned about the level of retail theft and retail theft that is violent. In my own electorate of Kew, and I have spoken about this previously, just in the last week of Parliament we asked the Premier directly about the impact on shop owners and shop attendants when they are in their stores and young offenders come in with machetes or with axes and threaten them and hold them at knifepoint. We know that these offenders have been out on bail, and they repeat-offend and repeat-offend. It is very, very clear that the system is simply not working for Victorians and not working to keep Victorians safe.

I think everyone in this house would agree that one of the most important roles of responsible government is to keep its citizens safe. That is one of the most important priorities that a government can have. Unfortunately we are seeing a bill come back before us today that does not improve safety or help reduce the youth crime rate in Victoria. Despite the amendments that go to bail in particular, the changes to bail that the government has brought forward only go to schedule 1 and schedule 2 offences while on bail. Previously it applied to all indictable offences. The member for Malvern this morning gave a very simple example: if a service station is the victim of an armed robbery, these changes will apply, but should an arson attack happen at that service station, these changes will not apply. The opposition have been very, very clear from the outset, from the moment these changes came before the Parliament, that we did not support them. We moved amendments to make sure that committing an indictable offence whilst on bail remained an offence in this state, yet we saw the government weaken those bail laws, and it is Victorians that continue to pay the price.

In my own electorate of Kew we have seen an increase in crime of around 6.9 per cent year on year, with a 17 per cent increase in aggravated residential burglary. I have constituents reach out to me regularly to express their concerns and their fears when it comes to the crime crisis in this state. Let me just refer to a number of these. I received an email from a local constituent who said:

… another attempted aggravated burglary at 4.29 am this morning – our 3rd attempt in 12 months. The police were amazing through 000 however it was another extremely scary expo again hearing someone try and open your doors (front and back) in the middle of the night. I know we weren’t the only home that was attempted on the street at this time.

Another constituent reached out to share their own horrifying story:

Last Saturday morning (3:50 am), two people attempted to beak into our house at … Balwyn North and whilst the police caught one of them the other got away. This incident has really shaken us up (particularly given the one that got caught was armed). In fact my wife refuses to stay home alone! I’ve since found out this incident isn’t a once off but a nightly occurrence right across Boroondara!!!

These are just two examples of many, many emails and the many people I speak to across the electorate who come and raise their concerns, particularly about the rise in aggravated burglary and not feeling safe in their homes.

I have a number of local constituents who come and raise the fact that their children simply are not prepared – teenage children and children entering their 20s – to be home alone anymore because of the fear of someone coming and trying to break into their home overnight. Unfortunately, what we see from these young offenders is repeat offenders. Time and time again they are out on bail, night on night. We hear it from the police. And we must give credit to the police, who are doing everything they can with the limited resources that they do have. We have 1000 vacancies when it comes to police on the beat in Victoria. We have had 43 police stations having to reduce their hours and not be open overnight because this government has failed to properly resource our police force here in Victoria. So we are looking at an issue where our local police are doing everything that they can do but they have got their hands tied behind their backs. They catch these offenders, they turn up at these incidents and they come in as quickly as they can to support these families, yet by the next morning these youth offenders are most likely back out on bail.

I pay credit to our own local Boroondara police station and the inspector there, Sandy McIver. We actually had a community forum last week led by Boroondara police about many of these issues, and it was very, very clear in that room that people have simply had enough, that they feel like this government is letting them down time and time again when it comes to the youth crime crisis in this state.

Just recently – over a month or so ago – we had an armed attack at one of the Shell service stations in the electorate, where youth offenders came in wielding machetes and held at knifepoint the young attendant who was on duty at the time. This was in the early hours of the morning on a busy road, and these young offenders came in with machetes and held him at knifepoint. I turn to an operations manager for a group of IGAs and FoodWorks, who said:

Our bail laws and courts are weak … The assailants are getting younger, all while the government is trying to raise the age for charging people.

The government and courts have little care for the victims.

What is very clear and what is clear throughout the process of the Youth Justice Bill coming before the Parliament is that the pendulum has swung too far towards supporting the perpetrator rather than supporting the victims. We certainly saw that in the Youth Justice Bill, which actually looked to take away the voice of victims of youth crime when it comes to having a say on parole matters. Luckily the member for Berwick and the Shadow Attorney-General, the member for Malvern, put forward an opposition amendment to address this issue and the government eventually was dragged to the table and supported it. But this was taking away the voice of victims when it comes to the impact of youth crime on them and their families.

Youth crime is of incredible concern in this state. We hear day in, day out about the incidents right across Victoria. Just this morning we heard about the car accident by youth offenders in Hawthorn. My own godchildren were on their way to school and walking past at the time. It is a very busy intersection. We are just so lucky that no-one was hurt. But this is the consequence of mismanaging our youth justice system and not putting in place appropriate bail laws in this state to prevent it from continuing.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (15:34): I am pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity to contribute to debate on the amendments that have been returned to this house from the Legislative Council. I do from the outset want to acknowledge the work that has been done by the LC, specifically the Attorney-General and of course others – a significant body of work, a very late night of sitting and a position that I believe has seen this bill land in a practical place, a place that this government always aims to arrive at, through strong, sound and sustained consultation with a whole range of those who have had frontline experiences with these matters.

I listened to the member for Bayswater and his fine contribution. I know that he spoke quite at length about the member for Ashwood’s contribution, but to hear the member for Bayswater speak of many of the practical experiences that he had in his work before coming to this place I think is something that was of benefit to all members. Ensuring that we listen to those with frontline experience – those who each and every day serve our state and the people in it – I think is something that should always be at the forefront of what we do in the business of government and indeed of the house.

My contribution will be only very short. However, we do see, sadly – and we are not quite sure where they are going to land – those opposite on these and many matters unfortunately driven by ideology and driven by fear. It is a reflection, in many instances, of perhaps what is going on more in their own show than what is before us, in a practical, reasonable sense, to be able to deal with these matters in an appropriate way. This team is focused on making sure that we are supporting all Victorians. We are supporting young people right across our state, and I can see a number of young people in the gallery. Making sure that we are providing opportunities to support and making sure that we are investing in all of those services to enable young people to be their best and to have those opportunities before them is something that this government is indeed focused on.

In saying that, the amendments before us I believe and other members of the government believe strike that important balance in making sure that we are, as I said earlier, listening to the experts and listening to Victoria Police. Often I think that sometimes those opposite may just listen to themselves a little too much and not move about the community to understand the practical, balanced and reasonable nature of the amendments that have come before us. I think that is an important matter. I also want to acknowledge the work that has been done in the other place, as I mentioned earlier, the work of the Attorney-General, the work of the Minister for Police and the work of Mr Erdogan in the other place. I commend the amendments to the house.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:37): I also rise to address the Legislative Council’s amendments to the Youth Justice Bill 2024. I was listening to the member for Sunbury and the unfair accusation he was directing towards me and my colleagues that we are not listening to the community when it comes to Victoria’s youth crime crisis. Can I assure the member for Sunbury, can I assure every member of this house and can I assure those students gathered in the gallery that indeed the opposition is doing its job. We are listening to Victorians when it comes to the youth crime crisis. We are hearing from our local residents about the impact that Labor’s weakening of the bail laws is having on our communities. That is our job, we are doing our job, and we contend – Acting Speaker, through you, respectfully, to those members on the government side – that they are not doing theirs. If members of the government were listening to the community, then they would be doing a hell of a lot more than they are currently doing to try and keep people in our community safe.

What could be more important than keeping our community safe? What could be more important than someone leaving their home and feeling safe within their community, feeling safe in their home and feeling safe in their workplace? This is an absolute fundamental of what it is to live in Victoria. Yet, under this government, over the last 10 years the aggravated burglary rate itself has increased by 146 ‍per cent. Since 2014 – after 10 years of Labor, after 10 Labor budgets, where we have got economic madness all over the place – frankly, the focus on keeping our community safe has been absolutely and utterly lacking, and now Victorians are paying the price.

We are here discussing the Council amendments, and here they are. I am flicking through them. I am thumbing through pages 1, 2, 3, 4 – there are 10 pages of Council amendments. Not one of these amendments actually reverses the bail laws that were weakened on 25 March by this government in this place. Not one of those amendments strengthens the bail laws to a point where they could be effective again. This is a point that we on this side of the house have made time and time again, and we will continue to do so.

Victorians are feeling unsafe at the minute. It is not fair on them, especially those vulnerable members of our community. Speaking of community members that are vulnerable, like the member for Kew, I also draw upon some examples within my own community. There was a gentleman, Spiros Filidis, who was brutally murdered in my electorate earlier this year, and our community was, frankly, rocked and shocked by this incident. I received a distressing letter from a constituent, Louise Khanbashi, who wrote to me earlier in the year:

The accused murderer of Spiros Filidis has a criminal history dating back 14 yrs with periods of incarceration and sentencing comments from 2020 stating that the community needs to be protected from his violent and antisocial behaviour … Our justice system must do better when it is known that someone is a violent threat ‍…

We cannot keep enabling dangerous people to commit crimes:

… on our streets, unprovoked in broad daylight. Please help us make the streets safer. Please help fix this broken system. I don’t even know where to go, but as a mother of 5, I am terrified for myself and my kids.

The member for Sunbury has asserted that we on this side of the house are not listening to our community. I again assure the member for Sunbury and assure members of the government that we indeed are listening to members of our community, and that is why we will not step back when it comes to this. We are determined to keep our communities safe. By their actions over the last 10 years it is quite clear that the Andrews, now Allan, Labor government is determined not to do this.

I also received correspondence from Graham Hill, who said to me:

Everyone in Bayside has either experienced invasion/theft or knows someone who has been affected.

In his letter, Graham referred to Victoria’s weak bail laws as the root cause of the rise of violent crime across our state:

… re-offending whilst on bail is simply not good enough.

They are not my words but a local resident’s words. He continued, saying that the people of his community and Victorian residents right around this state have a right to feel safe in their home, in their community and, most certainly, in their workplace. No matter what this Labor government does, no matter what amendments they bring back into the Assembly today to their own bill, the bail laws that they weakened on 25 March this year remain weak.

Of course in times like this, what do people who do not want to accept that a circumstance is a fact – as shocking as it is – do? They seek to blame others. The Minister for Police has said:

It is incumbent on the courts to make sure that repeat serious offenders who are on bail have that bail revoked. That is the expectation of the government, the parliament and the people of Victoria.

But here is the deal: as members of this place, as lawmakers in this state, we as members of Parliament should recognise that members of the judiciary can only actually enact laws that we create. They cannot delve into a magic hat of mystical rabbits and unicorns and create laws – no, no, no. They do not have that available to them. That is not the way the system works. The way the system works is we, representing the people of Victoria as the Parliament of Victoria, create laws, and it is judges that use those laws and are guided by those laws to cast judgement upon those who have done wrong within our community. Quite frankly, if government members cannot figure that out, well, fair dinkum, get another job.

I am deeply concerned and remain deeply concerned by this government’s lack of interest in this particular matter. They say they are keeping our communities safe, and they are not. Member after member after member of this government will say they are keeping our community safe, but all the evidence is clear that they are not. Victoria Police do a sensational job; they really, really do. In a circumstance when Victoria Police numbers are down, when the officers – the men and women of the force – are doing everything they can to uphold the right and to keep our community safe, they are doing a darn good job. We thank them, and I hope that that would be a sentiment agreed to not just on this side of the chamber but also on the government side. We thank them for their service. We thank them for putting themselves on the line, for sacrificing themselves and for doing everything they can to keep our community safe. What they do desperately need is a government that backs them in, a government that helps them keep our community safe, and quite frankly the Allan Labor government, and the Andrews Labor government before them, have gone wanting when it comes to that.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:45): I am pleased to speak to the amendments specifically, and I should say the bill makes amendments to the Bail Act 1977 which are further to those reforms passed in the Parliament last year. I will needle through some of those elements – the thread to the amendments and the purpose behind them. But fundamentally, what is the purpose for the changes? The Attorney-General’s amendments to the Youth Justice Bill 2024 enhance our bail system by making clear that serious offences such as aggravated burglary, home invasion, sexual offending and armed robbery must be recognised for what they are: crimes that cause harm to community. I am not sure where those opposite’s deliberate obscuration is on these very serious offences, because we are certainly extremely committed on this side. I commend my colleagues who were up until the late hours doing the hard yards to get this very important community safety legislation through.

What I would like to do is go through what the amendments are in terms of providing perhaps some more clarity, because it does seem that there has been a bit of smearing and blurring of the line, which I do not think is actually helpful to the broader community, particularly when we think of our police officers who day in, day out keep us safe and do the hard yards. I do not know how they do that job, to be frank. I think it takes a particular disposition to handle the very confronting sorts of behaviours et cetera that they deal with, and I will express my gratitude for the hard work that they do.

These amendments 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 call out the serious behaviours 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; and clarify the ability of police to apply for bail revocation for breach of bail conditions.

I found it galling earlier when there was a suggestion that nothing here will do anything. I was thinking, ‘What? Have you actually read the amendments?’ Because, as I have just said, they clarify the ability of police to apply for bail revocation. Revocation means that you take away that right to bail. It is gone. If you cannot see the difference that would make, then I am a little bit confused, to be honest, because I think that is pretty clear. We are also making sure it is clear for the decision-makers who bear the burden of what would be difficult decisions. The amendments also introduce a new separate offence for committing a serious crime, including aggravated burglary, carjacking, murder and rape, while on bail. These changes are targeted at serious alleged offending on bail, consistent with the reforms that commenced in March this year.

I would like to point out, because again the line has been blurred here, the engagement of our government with the police, those on the front line. I just want to make it absolutely clear these are reforms that came directly from the government’s conversations with Victoria Police and the courts, who are at the forefront of bail decision-making and who we need to support to have absolute clarity when making their decisions. I hope that that is apparent and evident for the benefit of the chamber and for anyone who happens to be watching this debate here today. Make no mistake, of course we are engaging with those who are on the front line, for very good reason – because we want to make sure that the reforms will have the effect that we are seeking to deliver for community when it comes to supporting community safety. These amendments are about clarifying the tests that currently exist and the standards that should currently be applied. Our focus is on ensuring that there are serious consequences for serious offending – high-harm, high-impact offending. In this way, the amendments also ensure the changes do not have an overpunitive impact on people accused of lower level offending.

On that point, I do just want to go to a further issue. There has been a continuous sort of narrative and theme here, which I believe is missing the mark on that very important nuance and underpinning rationale of these very important reforms. The bail reforms that were passed last year had nothing to do with weakening bail or making it easier for serious offenders to get bail. What the reforms did was ensure our bail system could distinguish between low-level, nonviolent offending and serious high-harm, high-impact offending that posed a risk to community safety. We know the difference. It is certainly a very important one, because fundamentally what we are driving here with these reforms is of course supporting community safety but not creating perverse outcomes that deliver even greater injustices than what we started with in the first place. I think it is very important that that nuance of the high-harm, high-level offending versus low-level, nonviolent offending is well understood and not blurred or obscured simply to make political points or to frighten the community in a way that does not actually enhance community safety.

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (15:52): It is my pleasure to get to speak about the amendments to the Youth Justice Bill 2024 today and speak specifically to the amendments that I am about to pick apart – amendments 61 to 67 – and clause 913. Let us have a look at the cold, hard facts. What is the result of the Allan Labor government being so soft on crime and weakening the bail laws for criminals in this state? In the past year in homes there has been an 18.4 per cent increase in residential aggravated burglaries, which is now up to a 146 per cent increase since the Labor government came to power in 2014. Across the past 10 years there has been a 146 per cent increase in residential aggravated burglaries – let that one sink in. That is absolutely unacceptable. We ought to lock away our cars, because in the past year there has been a 22.7 per cent increase in motor vehicle theft. If you are a retailer, there has been a 34.5 per cent increase in theft from retail stores in the past year. What about youth crime, as we speak to the Youth Justice Bill amendments today? There has been a more than 20 ‍per cent increase in criminal incidents committed by youth offenders aged 10 to 17.

In my electorate of Warrandyte there has been a 49 per cent increase in breaking and entering compared to last year. In real terms for our community, when we look at that from suburb to suburb, in Doncaster East alone that has gone up by 73 per cent in the last year – this is aggravated burglaries. Crimes in the suburbs of Warrandyte and Park Orchards are up 71 per cent and 57 per cent respectively. These are not just numbers, these are real people being impacted, being victims of crime because of this government being weak on bail.

Just recently I held a crime prevention and community safety forum in my electorate specifically for the suburbs of Doncaster East and Donvale, who have suffered as a consequence of a 73 per cent increase in aggravated burglaries. We heard from community member after community member. We had a packed-out forum, where we got to hear from so many locals who were impacted adversely by crime. We heard really chilling stories of a local mum whose 14-year-old was home alone when a group of armed invaders broke into their home. Can you imagine that? Your 14-year-old daughter is home alone when armed invaders break into the home, and not only that, when she goes upstairs to barricade herself in her bedroom to keep herself safe they try to break into that door. Thankfully she is safe, but they were made to feel no safer by the fact that they were broken into again within that very same month. That is how bad crime is in my electorate.

The amendments that we proposed are in response to the fact that there is a crime crisis across our state and the government bill fails to address it. They failed when they made bail laws weaker earlier this year in March. They failed when they cut funding for crime prevention programs in the budget this year in May. They failed when they proposed this weak bill a few weeks ago, and they are failing and continuing to fail the Victorian people here today.

In fact Victorian criminals would be forgiven for thinking that they are in a groundhog day. Why? Because under this government when they commit a crime they get to be let out to do it again. They wake up the next day, they commit a crime and get bailed. They get out the next day, commit another crime and get bailed. Eight to nine times over, as we have heard from other members on this side of the house, they get bailed again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Eight to nine times over violent criminal offenders in our community rinse and repeat. That is how weak our bail laws are here in Victoria. Friends of mine that work in the youth justice space tell me that young offenders boast about the fact that they will just keep reoffending, they will just keep getting out and they do not care because they will never get into trouble anyway. There are kids that are committing these crimes that are boasting about the fact that they commit them and they get away with it. For the criminals, it is the same cycle over and again because the Allan Labor government weakened bail laws in March this year and they remain weaker today under this new bill.

Youth offenders in Victoria are more likely to get bail than in any other state in Australia. But who is it not the same for? It is the victims – the victims of car theft, the victims of aggravated burglaries, the victims of machete attacks, the victims of violent offences that have been shared all through this side of the house as we have contributed to this debate. People like Dr Ash Gordon in Doncaster and his family, as the member for Morwell has spoken about so many times in this place, who will never be the same again after their son, their brother and their friend was murdered by an alleged offender, 16 ‍years of age, who was arrested and bailed only weeks before for a machete attack. For these victims, their days are not the same. It is groundhog day for criminals, who keep getting bail. It is groundhog day for Victorians, who feel unsafe in their own homes and who live in fear because of this crime crisis we face in our state.

The soft-on-crime and quick-to-bail approach of the Allan Labor government has made criminals more brazen than ever. What used to be done in the dead of night or in the darkness of the evening or in back alleyways now happens openly in the middle of the day. The Herald Sun reported last week that students at Victoria University are wearing personal alarms around their neck when walking around during the middle of the day for fear of being attacked. Last month, just next door to my electorate, there were three boys at Eastland shopping centre in Ringwood after school who were attacked by a group of nearly 15 teens demanding that they hand over vapes, money and even the clothes on their back in the middle of a store in the busy shopping centre at 4 pm in the afternoon. Seeing the attackers coming, they thought they would be safe inside the store, where security cameras and staff were present. Under previous laws maybe that would have been true, but it is no longer the case. One of the boys was savagely grabbed and punched by the gang before breaking away. Why is it that criminals have become so bold? It is because they know that this government is soft on crime, quick to bail and that even if they do get caught they will get bailed and get right back to it the very next day.

The truth is the Victorian government has failed to provide community police officers with the funding and the resources that they need to tackle crime. In the most recent state budget almost $20 million was cut from crime prevention, community-based offender supervision and youth diversion programs, as Labor’s net debt is set to reach $187.8 billion by 2027–28. This is a cut at a time when the funding is needed the most. We are talking about a budget where we are cutting funding to crime prevention, as I say, community-based offender supervision and youth diversion programs in the middle of a youth crime crisis, all while there are 800 Victoria Police vacancies and while police stations have been closed. At the end of last year 43 police stations across our state had their opening hours slashed and were forced to close at night because of staffing struggles. Our police are underfunded, they are understaffed, and we have vacancies through the roof. People usually join the police because they want to help put criminals behind bars, to get offenders off the street. Maybe it is that people do not want to join the police force because they know that in this state the criminals they catch will probably just be let out the very next day because of the weakened bail laws. How disheartening, how disappointing and how very unfair for our courageous and commendable policemen and policewomen who give up so much to serve our community.

In the minute I have left can I just make this point: there was an opportunity for the government to work with the coalition when we introduced at the end of last year a private members bill – the member for Berwick brought it to this place – to prohibit the use of machetes. Machetes are an antiquated weapon. No-one uses them anymore except for violent criminals. You do not use them in farming, you do not use them as a tool and you do not use them in agriculture. It is an antiquated weapon, and in order to protect our community and keep them safe we tried to pass a bill to make sure that our community felt safe, but unfortunately –

Daniela De Martino: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, there is no mention of machetes in this bill. It is irrelevant to this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It has been a wideranging debate on the amendments.

Nicole WERNER: I will just close by saying that this is simply not good enough. Victorians deserve better than this.

Steve DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh – Minister for Environment, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (16:02): I move:

That the question be now put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under standing order 155(2)(b), the Chair must put the question immediately without amendment or debate unless he or she believes that it is a denial of the rights of the minority. As I look through the speaking list, I notice there are members from the Nationals and the Greens in the house who have not spoken, so I will not put the question, but I would encourage those members from the minority to take their chance.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (16:03): I rise to speak on the Youth Justice Bill 2024 and the amendments that have come down from the Legislative Council for us to debate. There are 10 ‍pages of amendments here. These are the government’s own amendments because they recognised, after the hard work of my colleagues, that the 300 amendments that we put to the house when this bill was introduced needed to be considered. We still believe – it is not a belief, it is a fact – that this bill is not going to address the youth crime issue that we are seeing in Victoria because even with the passing of these amendments we will still have weaker bail laws than we had in this state in March of this year.

It is disappointing to stand to speak on this Youth Justice Bill, with my colleagues having put so much work into this, and still find ourselves, as the state of Victoria, with weakened laws that allow crime rates to continue to escalate. The message we are sending to criminals in this state – particularly youth, to whom I believe we have a very strong responsibility to guide on a pathway of improvement, not recidivism – is we are absolutely failing them. By weakening the bail laws and making it possible for people under 18 years of age to be given bail on any number of occasions, despite having committed crimes while they are on bail, is sending a message that no matter what you do you will just get off every single time.

I do not understand how anyone could think – unless you put boundaries and consequences in place for a young person, and I think most parents find this, they will not learn responsibility and how to work and be in a family and be in a society in a cohesive manner. That is what you try to instil in a child from the time they learn how to communicate and share as a two-year-old. Then we get to youth crime and we say, ‘It doesn’t matter what you do. You can hurt someone, you can steal from someone, you can carjack, you can take a car and drive it irresponsibly without a licence at high speed and put people at risk, and you will get off.’ This is why we are seeing Victoria go backwards. This is why we are seeing our crime rates escalate. It is evidenced by our crime rates. If you look at the aggravated burglary statistics over the last 10 years, since the Allan Labor government have been in power, you will see a 146 per cent increase in those figures since 2014. We are seeing car theft up by 22 per cent. We have a crime crisis in Victoria, and these very weak laws that the Allan Labor government are putting through are enabling the crime rates. They are enabling people instead of sending the right message.

It has been happening for centuries, that people get punished for doing something wrong. We do not have to actually imprison people. We understand that it is important to have youth diversion programs and reform, and that is where the government’s energy should have been placed. But instead of placing it in those areas, guiding someone who has done something wrong through a reform program and making it mandatory for them to attend so they actually understand the consequences of their actions, this government in the last budget cut $20 million from youth diversion programs. That is the message Victorians are seeing from the Allan Labor government, that it is absolutely okay to engage in crime. That is why we are seeing youth gangs who are growing in number and more and more out of control. It is because they are allowed to get away with it. You would have to be blind Freddy not to hear what is going on in Victoria, because every day you turn on the radio and there is more crime being reported, from shops being burnt to burglaries, carjackings and knife crime – it is actually very frightening. Even in South-West Coast, where we have had a long history of fairly low crime rates, the changes that I am seeing in the towns of Warrnambool and Portland are quite frightening.

Last week I met with the police, and can I remind the community what a great job police do. My brother has been a policeman since he was about 21, so I have a close affinity with family members who are actually in the police force. I have always admired the commitment, the bravery and the courage that they exhibit and their commitment, as I said, to Victoria and keeping the people safe. But they do not feel backed in now. They do not feel that they are getting the support from the government, and when you see legislation like this you can understand why. I met with the police in Warrnambool last week and I was really impressed with their level of commitment and what they are doing to ensure that people in the Warrnambool community are feeling safe. They are making sure they are meeting with the people. There was a forum held recently which was very, very well attended because people are getting very nervous. They are seeing the change in their own community. I am hearing from shop owners in the main streets of the larger towns that they are feeling unsafe and they are seeing much more abusive behaviour from people in the street. I am hearing from young people. One girl said to me, ‘I’ve travelled the world on my own, but the people that are gathering outside a particular venue where alcohol is sold are frightening me and I’ve never felt so confronted.’ These are stories that we do not want to be hearing. We want to be giving the police the tools so they actually can manage community safety in the way that they have done for a very long time.

But something has drastically changed in the last 10 years, and here is the evidence of what that change is: we have got laws that are being weakened, and that is why we are seeing quotes from people like the manager of an IGA, Lincoln Wymer, who said:

Our bail laws and courts are weak … the government is trying to raise the age for charging people.

The government and courts have little care for the victims.

We saw that in the bill with an amendment that we proposed initially. The government was actually trying to silence victims. They do not want the victims to be taken into consideration. We opposed that, and now they have actually improved the situation for victims somewhat. But you see the culture of this government trying to silence victims, decreasing bail laws and making them weaker, not putting boundaries in place and not having consequences for young people. They do not have a mandatory diversion program available so that they can take a different path that will not send them down a life of crime and more than likely a negative lifestyle into the future and one which will probably end up having prison as a part of it, which no-one wants to see for young people. With crime rates escalating, what we have is a crime crisis in Victoria and a government too weak and too inadequate to help back our police in.

I will finish here by saying the community are desperate for change. They want to see the police having the rules and the resources they need and the laws they need to keep their community safe. Living in fear is not how Victoria should be, but that is how many Victorians are feeling. When we are seeing, up in the country even more, the fear of a community without the resources required to keep them safe, I think the government has failed Victoria and needs to think about how it can strengthen police resources to keep Victorians safe.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (16:12): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on this bill, which has been returned from the Legislative Council with amendments. I would like to clarify something. I have heard now several – in fact all – members of the opposition speak about this bill silencing the voices of victims. I would like to introduce some facts into the chamber when it comes to this. It is important to note that this bill establishes for the first time ever a youth justice victims register, which is akin to the one that exists in the adult system. Once this bill is passed, it will be the first time that this has applied in the youth justice system. That is incredibly important. The claim of silencing victims is false – categorically false. No government – and I actually speak from personal experience, having gone through the court system – has done more for victims than this government, and I know that because I have had personal experience through the criminal justice system as a witness myself and as someone very close to a child witness, who was given so much support through initiatives introduced by this government which are beyond commendable. They made all the difference. There is a lot that has been said in here, but once again I would like to introduce some facts to the matter. I will keep my contribution incredibly short, but I felt compelled to stand in this place and speak about this. I commend the bill to the house.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (16:14): In speaking to these amendments to the Youth Justice Bill 2024 I would like to start by saying that the Greens have long argued for a better approach to youth justice, and the bill that has come back today and is before us goes a long way to achieving that. It has been some years in development, and the positive measures in this bill are the result of powerful and committed advocacy by First Nations, legal and human rights groups. The Greens acknowledge the years of work by those stakeholder groups, and in supporting the bill we are proud to back their efforts. We know children do not belong in prison, and a fair society would do everything it could to keep our children safe in school, in the community and away from the harm of prison and the wider criminal justice system.

One of several positive measures in this bill is that it raises the age of criminal responsibility to 12 without exception, but before I talk about the rest of the bill, I want to address the Premier’s announcement made a fortnight ago reneging on raising the age to 14. We know that dragging children through our penal system traumatises them and puts them on a path that makes them more likely to reoffend, and we know that First Nations children and children of colour will be disproportionately impacted due to factors like systemic racism in our criminal justice system. Aboriginal children are more than 10 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous children. Aboriginal communities and medical, legal and human rights experts have been calling for all states in Australia to raise the minimum age so that children do not go to prison unless they are at least 14 years old, in line with international human rights standards.

Promises were made to the Aboriginal community, to stakeholders and to the Yoorrook Justice Commission that the age of criminal responsibility would be raised to 14 by 2027, which would have made Victoria one of the first states to legislate this change. But then Labor shamefully abandoned this promise. The argument that because there are none in jail today in that age group is as relevant as it was when we abolished capital punishment and people argued that was not necessary, because we had not hung anyone for about seven years. This goes against all the evidence, reneging on this promise. One of the amendments that the Greens moved in the other place was to increase the age to 14 without exception. Unfortunately Labor and the Liberals teamed up to vote this down. But they are on the wrong side of history, and the Greens will continue to stand with First Nations communities and the experts and will keep pushing for this reform.

I will return now to some of the other many positive elements of the bill. Among others there is now a presumption that 12- to 13-year-olds do not have the capacity to differentiate between right and wrong. Known as doli incapax, it is now enshrined in legislation. Solitary confinement in youth detention is banned, and that is something that the Greens have campaigned for repeatedly. There are improved provisions around sentencing, diversions and improved definitions of the ‘use of force’ and the ‘use of search powers’. Importantly there are guiding youth justice principles which set the tone for all who work with children and young people. This includes a section which is specific to Aboriginal children and young people.

The Greens felt that the bill could be improved, so we negotiated a number of successful amendments in the bill. They include, one, a specific ban on spit hoods in legislation. We do not believe that regulations were enough for this issue, and it needed to be elevated to legislation. Two, in the principal section of the bill the hierarchy of ‘least restrictive’ police intervention is noted, raising its prominence. Three, there is an exercise recreation target of 2 hours. At the moment there is a mandatory minimum of 1 hour of exercise for young people in detention. Following expert health guidelines, we argued that this should be a minimum of 3 hours but have negotiated a compromise with the government that there is a legislated target of 2 hours. Four, public reporting on numbers of strip searches in youth justice centres – currently there is no reporting on strip searches on children and young people, and there will now be annual reporting on how many of these searches occur. The department has advised that as they bring in scanning equipment to all youth justice facilities the need for manual strip searches will decline, so we hope to see that represented in the public reporting. And, five, there will be public reporting of isolation incidents, and that will now be broken down by time periods. Currently the only public reporting is how many isolation episodes there are per quarter and for what reason. This Greens amendment will mean that we can see how long a child or young person is in isolation for. The use of isolation on young people is very contentious. One of the unsuccessful amendments the Greens moved was to ban the use of isolation for reasons unrelated to the behaviour of the child or young person.

We have heard from too many stakeholders and stories from young people themselves that concern us, and there were a number of items in this bill which we voted against. We voted against the clauses that allow a trial of electronic monitoring. The government argument is that electronic monitoring will ensure bail conditions are being met, and that claim certainly appeases certain community concerns. But ankle monitors do not prevent people from breaching bail; they simply track them if they do so. Electronic monitoring in the youth justice context has been tried a number of times across jurisdictions, and there is limited evidence that it works and good evidence to show that it does not work. An independent report of the 2021 Queensland trial found electronic ankle bracelets did not prevent young people from reoffending. In fact the evidence suggested that strict monitoring could actually make recidivism worse, with the lead report author saying that:

Increasing the level of monitoring and surveillance over these children might actually entrap them within the system we are wanting them to exit.

In the US electronic monitoring has become a huge private industry and profit-making venture, so the Greens will be seeking assurances from the government that this trial will not be outsourced.

We voted against powers allowing the transfer of 16- and 17-year-olds to adult prisons. Young people do not belong in prison. They certainly do not belong in adult prisons, and we believe it is unconscionable to do that. Again we make the point that if the state wants to imprison children and young people, it needs to invest in the system to make it safe for them to be there.

We did not support the government amendment to reintroduce bail offences. The government moved a house amendment to its own bill to reintroduce a bail offence. The Greens did not support this. It is timely that we remind ourselves of the tragic death of Veronica Nelson and the strong advocacy by her family and community to develop Poccum’s law’ – a blueprint to keep vulnerable people out of prison. Removing bail offences was a key element in Poccum’s law. To Veronica’s family, friends and the community, please know that Veronica is never far from our thoughts.

Lastly, with a number of new powers granted to police, it is time to speak, yet again, about the urgent need for an independent police ombudsman in Victoria. Stakeholders have been very clear that the fingerprints of Victoria Police can be seen throughout this Youth Justice Bill, including new powers that will allow for children aged 10 and 11 to be transported in a police vehicle and locked up in a police station when the age is raised to just 12. We agree with a recent opinion piece that we see:

… the Allan government presenting its political priorities to us in no uncertain terms – it is more interested in protecting police and their interests than protecting children.

Premier, it is time for an independent police ombudsman.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (16:22): I am pleased to rise to join this side of the house to speak on these Youth Justice Bill 2024 amendments. Our focus on this is to ensure there are serious consequences for serious offending – high-harm, high-impact offending. This is why under our amendments those who commit a serious offence as outlined in schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the Bail Act 1977 will be able to be charged with a standalone offence. This does not capture the low-level, nonviolent offences proposed by those opposite to be included, which we know significantly contribute to the over-representation of nonviolent, vulnerable offenders in our judicial system. This is a very important amendment that is brought here today, and I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (16:23): I rise to speak on the amendments to the Youth Justice Bill 2024. It is unfortunate, but young people are committing serious crimes without consequence in our state. That is a fact. I know in my community of the Latrobe Valley there are a lot of aggravated burglaries, car thefts, fights on the street and concealed weapons – as in machetes – being carried by our youth. It is just a fact of life at the moment that these crimes do go on. The Latrobe Valley community has a worrying continuing spike not only in crime but youth crime, in particular violent crime. As I said, you think if you are in your own house, with your car keys on your kitchen table or the bench in the hallway, that you are safe, that no-one would be brazen enough. Sometimes it is without the owners even knowing that people have walked in and grabbed the keys and moved out. But sometimes if you are standing in that hallway, an altercation can occur with people of all ages. I am not just throwing the youth into this, but we are talking about the Youth Justice Bill amendments. The youth grab the keys, jump in the car and take off. As I said, they are breaking into houses. They are running through our shopping centres. I know it was only in the middle of the year that in broad daylight in Traralgon, in one of our main shopping centres, police apprehended young people wielding a machete as mothers and children looked on in horror. So it does go on. I know it is not just in my town of Traralgon, it is right through my community of the Latrobe Valley. And I am sure that members in this chamber have these particular incidents go on, as has been highlighted by many members that stand up here and run through a list of what has gone on.

Unfortunately, we do not hear the voices of the people who are the victims of crime. I have stood in this chamber many a time and spoken about Dr Ashley Gordon, whose life was tragically taken by an offender who was out on bail. He was out on bail a few times. Then unfortunately Dr Ash decided to set chase after these people that had broken into his house, which ended with Ash being killed on the street, which was a shocking thing to happen. I cannot comprehend how as a family you would get over that. In saying that, Ash was stabbed by some 16-year-olds, so they are a little bit older. Dr Gordon’s sister Natalie, who is a great advocate for changes to the bail laws and the youth justice system, decided to come and see me. The family wanted to start up a petition, which we are running at the moment, and the family, as Nat always says, are still struggling to this day with what happened back at the start of the year. It has affected her family. Her mother Catherine, who I stand with on street corners signing this petition, will not let this go. I will stand by them until we get the required changes that we do need to protect the families, to stop perpetrators being able to commit a crime and get bail and be back out on the street and unfortunately in the end commit a crime where it does take someone’s life or causes an injury that will incapacitate them for the rest of their life. But for the family to have to go through birthdays and Christmases without their brother, a medical practitioner who started his own clinic and was helping out the community down here in Melbourne – for him to now not be in their life is just a tragedy. The family and friends of Dr Ash – both down in the Latrobe Valley, where the family is, and down here in Melbourne – will carry this for the rest of their lives.

We as a Parliament must be supporting the voices of these families. We need to make sure that we also support these younger children that are on a pathway. We need to have these diversionary programs that we can put them in so they have choices. They can choose if they do not want to live a life of crime. We need to have these diversionary programs in place. There was one program, Morwell youth space, which luckily now, after many, many times I have stood in the chamber here, finally has some funding. They have got some surety from the government that they have three years of continued work. This is one of these diversionary programs with over 700 participants that are using the Morwell youth space, and it is where disadvantaged kids that are living on the streets and are participating in crime can come in and they can eat, they can have showers there, and they can also be put in contact with a lot of other places where they can actually get some help, which is fantastic.

As I said, I met with the family, and they gave some pretty blunt feedback on what needs to happen. It is our job in this place to make laws that, one, give police more powers to actually be able to make arrests and stop and search people if they think that they have got concealed weapons. If they are charged and go to court, we need to have laws in place where our judges and the people that are sitting in there have options when they sentence people and also options about bail. If you are going back five, six, seven or eight times and you are breaching your bail, something is wrong. And if you get bail once again and you are back out on the street, which happens a lot, what is happening there? We need to make sure that there are options open and that this cannot happen. We seem to fall into this trap: if a person or a child that goes to court and gets bail then adheres to that bail and does the right thing, that is fantastic, but when a person is going back to court nearly weekly to face the same judge and gets back out on bail once again, that is when we do have issues. We need to make changes to the rules for the people of the court and also for our police, who do an unbelievable job, to make sure that they have all the powers that they need to keep us safe on the streets. We have only got to look around the chamber at the moment to see young expectant mums. I would hate to think that an aggravated burglary could go on in their homes, not only in the city of Melbourne but also around regional Victoria, wherever they are, and that is something that is on the table and can happen now.

We need to make sure that we do not come back in here and say we got it wrong. We do have opportunities in this place to make rules and regulations that benefit the community. That is what we are here for: we are here to keep the people of Victoria safe – the people that do the right thing, the silent majority that toe the line and make sure they live their life to the letter of the law. We need to look after them. Sometimes we change laws for people that do the wrong thing – that noisy minority that make the noise and jump up and down. We change rules for them. Well, how about we start to look at the silent majority that actually do the right thing not only for the people of Victoria but also in trying to provide a safe environment for their families.

There are over 300 amendments that went through in the other place. It is a start, but we have weakened bail laws and also youth justice laws, so there is more to be done to keep the people of Victoria safe. It is a start, but we need more, and we need it now.

Steve DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh – Minister for Environment, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (16:33): I move:

That the question be now put.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Environment has moved that the question be now put. In accordance with standing order 155, I accept the question.

Assembly divided on Steve Dimopoulos’s motion:

Ayes (56): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.

Anthony Carbines’s motion agreed to.

The SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.