Tuesday, 13 May 2025

Bills

Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (14:55): I believe I was discussing the new bail law. The impact of those new bail laws was reinforced by statistics that were read out to the chamber by the Attorney-General. We can see clearly that they are having an impact, hence we have implemented significant reforms in the justice space. I should say, just to round out that particular discussion, we are cracking down specifically on the crimes that are on the upward trend while people are out on bail – that is, aggravated burglary, home invasion, armed robbery and carjacking. I think we would all be in agreement that these are really serious crimes that can have a devastating impact on victims. It is completely unacceptable that alleged offenders are being bailed time and time again for these crimes, hence the imperative for the reforms that we have been driving.

The benefits of these reforms will not be achieved if the courts are not prepared for implementation, so we are speaking more broadly about the discussion about which reforms are prioritised or otherwise. Referring back to – and I will just be precise on that – the summary appeal reforms and the delay that was spoken to earlier, it is always important to speak within the context of the overall reform agenda that is being implemented and what it means for community safety. That is why I wanted to speak to some of the incredibly important reforms that have been prioritised with the courts – not least the new bail laws, as well as the Youth Justice Act 2024. These are historic. The Youth Justice Act is an enormous piece of legislation, to say the least, and it certainly specifically tackles the needs of youth justice matters. This is very important from the point of view of being directive in terms of preventing youths from being incarcerated in the first place when more appropriate rehabilitative or otherwise supportive alternatives can be implemented. However, there are important caveats – hence the bail laws addressing those issues, particularly when we are looking at some of the most serious crimes in our state.

I did want to speak to a couple of other matters with regard to reforms being driven by this bill, not the least relating to secret commissions for trustees. I will commend the member for Malvern. I found it interesting, and I think helpful for the chamber, that he spoke to the Royal Commission on the Butter Industry. He articulated that very clearly and in a very helpful way for the benefit of the chamber, so we understood the genesis of the secret commissions for trustees – the original act, I should say. These are really practical but also really important reforms in another respect, and that is to prevent injustices that could unnecessarily – I should say, we should never have injustice, but inadvertent injustices that could result were these changes not to be implemented now through the debate and the hopefully successful passing of this bill.

Firstly, the changes will remove the requirement to obtain assent of trust beneficiaries or the Supreme Court for the proposed conduct, which will streamline routine transactions. The changes break the old offence down into five separate offences, making them clearer and narrowing them – that has been discussed – to only capture conduct done with a dishonest or otherwise corrupt purpose, which is indeed fit and proper when we are talking about the reason for these legislative controls in the first place. Why is this important? Just to reiterate: this reform is important as recent Supreme Court decisions demonstrated that the current offence may capture routine, good-faith and standard transactions associated with the replacement of a trustee. That would clearly be an injustice, and hence it is important to bring about these reforms. Also, without these reforms, there is a risk that applications to the Supreme Court will increase for routine matters to ensure trustees avoid criminal liability. We can see there inherently that this would not be a just outcome and it could also be a costly outcome. It would impose a significant administrative burden, cause delays and add to the court’s workloads.

It makes good sense, and I should say as a rounding point that these changes align with an equivalent provision in New South Wales. So you can see that there is a solid imperative to bring about the amendment, which will mitigate the risk, shall we say, of such injustices prevailing. There are a number of reforms associated with this bill in different aspects – I should say, above all, some timely critical reforms – and hence it is appropriate for the chamber to be bringing them forth. I thank again the opposition for not opposing this bill, respecting that we are bringing forward changes that are much needed.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:01): I am pleased to say a few words on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. I have probably said those words a few times over the decade, because we seem to have one of these bills several times a year. I seem to be the lucky one on this side that gets to speak on them too, often following the member for Malvern, who, as I have indicated before, is a far more learned colleague than I will ever be on matters of legal opinion. The best I can offer is from having done legal studies 101 as part of an economics degree, and that does not qualify me for much, but I am indebted to the member for Malvern for his contribution and for his guidance on this legislation, which as the member for Albert Park indicated, we are not opposing.

Largely these are – I will not say inconsequential – certainly not controversial amendments in this legislation. We have some changes to secret commissions to trustees in return for a substituted appointment. I will not go into the detail of that, but I was interested to see that this was originally introduced in 1905 in the wake of the Royal Commission on the Butter Industry. It must have been something of a scandal at the time. Of course at that time there was only butter. I am reminded that I have in my possession in the office a Country Party central council minute book from the 1930s, which is replete with references and motions calling for government to ban margarine, highlighting that butter and margarine have been issues of political consideration for some time now.

The other issue that I want to touch on is the further delay in the commencement of the abolition of de novo criminal appeals, which was first proposed by the government in 2019. Here we are in 2025, and we are delaying it again. Indeed the government is delaying it for a third time now. At the moment if there is a criminal appeal from the Magistrates’ Court, that is heard in a completely new hearing in the County Court, that being a de novo hearing. That allows for entirely new evidence to be admitted and new legal arguments to be made. That is different from that for a criminal conviction in the County Court, which can only be made to the Court of Appeal on the basis of legal error, meaning there is no rehearing of the evidence. The government argued that these changes would lead to a more efficient appeals process and one that offered a lower burden on witnesses, on the courts and on the evidence that would have to be provided. At the time we did not oppose those changes and we took at face value the government’s claim that this would lead to efficiencies in the courts. But the commencement date was postponed. These amendments were scheduled to come into effect in July 2021, but that was initially postponed to 1 January 2023 on account of the disruption caused by the pandemic. I might say that governments around the world have been using the pandemic as an excuse for things for a long time, often with good reason but sometimes one does wonder how accurate in fact they have been. The second time the default commencement date was postponed to 5 July 2025 by a bill in 2022.

Here we are a third time – I was about to say ‘final’, but we are not even sure whether it is the final time – and the default commencement date for these changes now will not be until 1 July 2028. That will make it nine years since this reform was first proposed before it is actually implemented. The government’s excuse on this occasion is the significant time and resources required to implement the summary appeal reforms on top of these other reforms, so it is necessary to further delay the commencement. That may well have something to do with the budget for Court Services Victoria, as the member for Malvern indicated. I recall asking in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee last year about the budgetary cuts to Court Services Victoria – $19.1 million in the current 2024–25 year and a further $58 million cut in the 2027–28 year. On those cuts, I remember asking questions of Court Services Victoria, and it was clear that despite their best endeavours, this would lead to service changes within the courts and clearly put more pressure on the courts.

I think this is where the dividend of bad financial management is delivered. When the government does not handle the budget well and when it overspends – particularly in this case on infrastructure and infrastructure blowouts, and we have seen $40 billion-odd of infrastructure blowouts – there is a dividend for that, and it is not a pleasant dividend, it is a negative one. It is these cuts to areas like Court Services Victoria and it is cuts, like we heard in question time, to the Department of Education budget and to the proposed Gonski rollout, with it being delayed by three years and costing the sector $2.4 billion. That is the dividend of poor financial management, and we are seeing that now with this – another delay in these reforms, nine years after they were first proposed and seven years after they were first proposed or scheduled to actually commence these de novo reforms. If the government is serious that these reforms will deliver more efficiency, one wonders why it keeps putting them off.

There are other aspects to this legislation that I will not go into detail on, but there are clauses that improve the operation of the case management system in the Magistrates’ Court. There are amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020 in relation to NDIS checks and working with children checks, there are amendments to the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 and further there are some obsolete regulation-making powers being removed from the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. While I do not have any issue with any of those, I would highlight that the references to NDIS checks and working with children checks are yet another area of poor public service at the moment, where we are seeing very, very slow turnaround in some of those checks and frustration from people who are seeking to work particularly in the NDIS but also those wanting to get a working with children check. That is the consequence of a government that does not put public service first within its bureaucracy, and that is a criticism that I hear almost daily from my constituents.

I think when we are talking about the Magistrates’ Court we cannot ignore the fact that we have seen a significant increase in crime in this state under this government. In my own electorate it is more than significant in some areas. South Gippsland shire is a beautiful place and a beautiful place to live, and it is a predominantly very safe place, but the Crime Statistics Agency Victoria reports have actually shown that we have seen a 72 per cent increase in crime in South Gippsland shire, year on year, in the 10 years that Labor has been in office – a 72 per cent increase. In Wellington shire crime has increased 23 per cent in that time.

In the most recent statistics the number of criminal incidents reported in the three local government areas that make up my electorate show that it is continuing to rise. Wellington Shire criminal incidents reported rose 17.5 per cent in the 2024 year, 6.3 per cent in South Gippsland and 11.6 per cent in Latrobe, of which I have some coverage along with the member for Morwell. These are concerning statistics for my constituents, but they are far more than just statistics. Behind each of them is a victim, and there have been plenty who have contacted me, particularly from South Gippsland – from Leongatha and Korumburra – in the last year or so in respect to youth crime, home invasions, aggravated burglaries, theft from cars and theft of cars. That has been a significant issue, and the government’s bail laws passed recently, while the government likes to claim how successful they are, still will not address those youth issues. That is a significant concern for my constituents.

Katie HALL (Footscray) (15:11): It is a pleasure to follow the Leader of the National Party. I am pleased to see they are maintaining the rage against big margarine; I sort of lost track there during the butter versus margarine battles. I am also pleased to make a contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. As mentioned by previous speakers, this bill makes a series of amendments to existing legislation to implement time-critical reforms, enhance administrative efficiency and amend technical errors in the current legislation. I am also pleased that it is not being opposed by the opposition.

My contribution today will be focused on part 5, division 2, of the bill, which amends the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019. This bill will postpone the commencement of summary appeal reforms contained in the criminal appeals act from 5 July 2025 to 1 July 2028. The proposed reforms are vital to building a fairer and more effective justice system. The value of these reforms is such that their implementation should be carefully considered. One of these reforms includes strengthening the test for cross-examination in committal hearings. This reform will significantly reduce the amount of pretrial evidence given by victims and witnesses. I spoke on this specific reform when it made its way through this chamber, and I want to reiterate its importance. Making our justice system accessible to victims in a way that does not facilitate unnecessary retraumatisation and without compromising on standards of proof is a commendable and very important reform. Like anything worth doing, it is important that we get this right. This is especially true with regard to changes made to our legal and judicial systems, where the consequences of getting it wrong are grave. The government has listened to judicial experts and is delaying this reform to provide the courts with the necessary time to amend complex systems and processes.

Additional changes requiring delayed commencements include provisions in the Youth Justice Act 2024 that introduce more options for restorative justice, allowing offenders to hear directly from victims about the harm that they have caused to help victims heal and to give offenders insight into the impact of their offending. The benefits of these reforms will not be achieved if the courts are not prepared for implementation, and deferring commencement will allow for more time to be spent on critical pre-implementation activities, including further analysis of resourcing impacts.

This bill also makes a series of technical amendments to existing acts, including the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991. These amendments remove outdated requirements for criminal proceedings in legislation, such as requirements for making certain applications in person or by post. These changes will improve administrative efficiency and reduce the burden on the Magistrates’ Court. This will allow the court to expand its case management system to automate various high-volume administrative functions in criminal proceedings, such as the filing of applications and documents. Improvements to the administrative efficiency of our courts are vital to ensuring that our justice system serves the community fairly and in a timely manner. These improvements are supported by approximately $435 million in funding over the previous four budgets, which has helped to promote swifter resolution of court cases, with backlogs reducing by 14 per cent in 2023–24 and a decrease of 30 per cent since pending matters peaked in January 2022.

Other such amendments are to the Worker Screening Act 2020, where this bill seeks to correct some technical errors. The bill will correct the following errors: section 17 includes an incorrect reference to section 38, which should be 37; section 36 includes an incorrect reference to section 36, which should be section 35; and section 61 includes an incorrect reference to section 77, which should be section 72. These changes are not intended to alter the operation of these sections but will correct these minor drafting oversights, improve clarity and enhance the readability of the act.

Technical amendments are not the most exciting part of our job here in Parliament, and nor do they make room for much in the way of impassioned debate – but I am hoping to hear more about margarine and butter. But as I have previously mentioned when speaking on similar bills in the past, accessibility and clarity are essential to good governance, and legislation that governs us all should be accessible to us all. The Leader of the Nationals mentioned his university subject, legal studies 101. I did year 12 legal studies, but legal jargon and drafting errors contribute to a system in which understanding of the law becomes too difficult for a layperson, and the laws that govern us all should be accessible and understandable to us all. An egalitarian society should not be held hostage by lawyers and legal experts, and any act of Parliament that seeks to avoid this should be commended by all, as I anticipate this one will be.

I just want to take a moment at the conclusion of my comments to thank people in our community who help to bring the justice system out to people in the western suburbs who need support to access the justice system. In particular I would like to acknowledge the work of Westjustice, which is our community legal service. I spoke about Westjustice in my first speech in this place and the extraordinary work they do to make the legal system accessible to victims, to people who are pursuing matters through the courts who may have other challenges in doing so. I think particularly of the work that Westjustice does with McAuley social services, who are a very important family violence service in my community. In the context of this bill, where we are talking about not retraumatising victims by having them give too much testimony ahead of a trial, the work Westjustice does with McAuley social services is absolutely extraordinary. They have a clinic at the refuge in Footscray, where they help victim-survivors deal with a very complex range of matters, whether it be fines that are unpaid, a range of bills or the legal complexity that people find themselves in, where they should not be in the court system. They also assist victim-survivors to deal with important matters and to keep themselves and their children safe. I commend the work that they provide to victim-survivors in Footscray. This bill makes some important reforms in terms of making sure that the implementation and the intent of the legislation is protected and that it is well implemented. I commend the bill to the house.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:20): It is a pleasure to rise to make some comments on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. This is another bit of justice legislation – we seem to be having lots of legislation around justice bills. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of missed opportunities as well, because we know we are in the middle of a crime crisis. When initially you start to read these bills, you think, ‘Great, here’s an opportunity to outlaw motorcycle gangs and what they’re doing in our state, particularly with the tobacco wars. Here’s a way to be able to crack down on crime, particularly on youth crime. Here’s an opportunity to potentially further strengthen our bail laws, on which the government again continues to fail and not go as hard as it should.’ When you look at this bill, there are certainly some things that, whilst they might be important to look at, are missed opportunities. Probably when you look at the Liberal–Nationals’ side of politics and Labor’s, you can see the difference between them: one, the Labor Party, has been soft on crime; and ours, the Liberal–Nationals, are the ones that are in the corner of victims and ensuring that if you commit serious crime, then you have got to do serious time. I think that is not what would be happening under the Liberals compared to what the Labor Party have been doing. We know when the bail laws were wound back by this Labor government that they had a crack at trying to fix it, failed again and then had another go, and we are here again.

The government just has not gone far enough. A lot of the exemptions do not deal with youth crime, and that is so important when we are seeing young people, young offenders, waving around machetes on the streets. There are no consequences in terms of that. Those bail laws, those machete laws that are meant to come into effect and should have come into effect immediately, are not going to come into effect until September. There were reports in the paper yesterday about victims that were screaming and pleading with the government, saying, ‘Please bring in these laws today.’ What are we waiting until September for? Why are we waiting any longer? Why are they selling these weapons? Why are they selling them on the streets? Why are they being allowed for sale, full stop?

I did a Google search for some of these machetes only yesterday and found that many outlets are discounting them. They are discounting machetes, which means that a young offender can get a machete at a discount. They should not be able to get them at all. It is an absolute black stain on the Allan Labor government to actually outlaw something and ban something and then to give the opportunity for people to buy it at a discount and go out there and use it on the streets and threaten families. That is just a disgrace. No wonder we have got victims that are waving their hands in the air and saying, ‘Why? Why do you do something on the one hand but then not follow through on the other?’ I think we all know, and it is also in this bill, that it is because this government has run out of money. They put up ideas, but they have got no money to implement the ideas.

We have got a change to the Magistrates’ Court and the way that it works, the de novo change, which has been pushed forward three times because the government has got no money to do it. The government themselves have said, ‘Yes, we’re going to change the way the Magistrates’ Court operates and in terms of evidence being reheard when it gets to a County Court so as to streamline the system and to save on costs. We’re going to do all of that, but we do appreciate that it’s going to cost a great deal of money to do that, so we’re going to delay it, and we are now going to delay it another seven years’ – another seven years. Nothing could be clearer than that the government has absolutely run out of money. We know that the member for Malvern, the Shadow Attorney-General, has quite rightly pointed out a $19.1 million cut in the current 2024–25 budget – who knows what the cut will be in the next budget – and a $58 million cut in the 2027–28 year as well.

We know justice delayed is justice denied. In many situations we have Magistrates’ Courts that are backlogged up to 15 months, and if you have a scenario where you have a judge that is hearing somebody and potentially looking at putting them out on bail say, ‘You know what, it could be 15 months before we actually can hear this case; we better give them bail,’ that is why this system is failing. That is why it is a bail fail, because we do not have enough money in the justice system to get speedy process. The quicker you get the case through the courts, the more chances you have got of better justice for everybody and better outcomes for everybody. I cannot begin to think what victims would be going through having to wait 15 months before cases are heard and what hearing the evidence 15 months later means in terms of accuracy of evidence. People’s lives change in 15 months. The quicker we get these cases through the courts, the better it is for everybody.

When people are out on bail and they are breaking bail, that is a whole other situation as well, and that is why we have outlined policies around that – you break bail, you face jail. That is really, really important. It is clear and it is what people expect. It is what everybody expects. That is not, unfortunately, what this government is doing at all. I know the member for Malvern and the Leader of the Nationals pointed out that some of the changes this bill deals with around secret commissions for trustees go back to 1905 and, as the Leader of the Nationals was talking about, the butter industry. There were obviously issues back then. It is a great product, butter. But the thing is, butter can be quite soft, and we will not be soft when it comes to crime. We will not be soft at all, unlike those opposite.

We want to ensure that there is smooth sailing when it comes to families and victims being able to go on with their lives and not have to deal with the kinds of issues that this government is creating – real, big, serious issues. We saw an announcement today. The government turned out and said, ‘Fantastic, there’s going to be a 20 per cent uplift or thereabouts in people that are going to be locked up because of the serious crimes that they’re committing’ – machete-wielding criminals out and about in the streets, turning up outside your car, taking your car, carjacking or in your bedrooms in the middle of the night waving a machete. How horrible must that feel for a victim. That needs to be taken care of, and this government says, ‘Well, no worries, what we’ll do is we’ll ensure that there are more prison beds.’ Wouldn’t that be a great idea – in a crime crisis to actually have somewhere to lock dangerous criminals up.

Guess what this government is doing. They are closing a prison – 1100 beds off the system, off you go – and at the same time spending $727 million on building some new beds and who knows what. Seriously, it is a government that could not manage a chook raffle, a government that just spends money like there is no tomorrow. We have got a budget coming up, and here is a government that could very simply say in the middle of a crime crisis, ‘Let’s just keep Port Phillip Prison open. Let’s just ensure that we’ve got the beds there.’ You do not actually have to do much. It is not rocket science. Just keep them open until one day, hopefully, we get the crime crisis under control – it certainly will not be under the Allan Labor government, but one day hopefully we do – and we do not need the extra prison beds. Wouldn’t it be absolutely wonderful if the government did their work at the early stages to make sure people do not graduate to a life of crime. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, rather than ripping money out of crime prevention, we saw more money invested in crime prevention so young people could stay at school, look at work opportunities and job opportunities and not turn to a life of crime. Wouldn’t that be wonderful. Well, none of that is happening, is it?

Jade Benham interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: Not at all. It is not happening under this government. It is quite the opposite. We are spending money at the back end because we have done no work at the front end, and that is what this government does time and time again. They fail when it comes to managing everything. Labor, as we know, just cannot manage a thing. They cannot manage money. We are all paying the price. We are all paying for it.

I say to this government: we are not opposing this bill. Hopefully we get some serious bits of legislation coming in that get the opportunities going so that we crack down on the crime crisis that we have in Victoria, get the dangerous bikies off the streets, end the tobacco wars, end the problems with the drug issues that we have got in our state and fix the youth crime crisis so ultimately those that commit serious crimes in Victoria do serious time and, once again and finally, families will not have to look over their shoulders and can feel safe. That is very important. It is a fundamental job of every single government, and unfortunately the Allan Labor government has failed when it comes to keeping the community safe.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (15:30): There were a lot of metaphors in the member for Caulfield’s speech – more than you could poke a stick at – but he also touched upon the importance of early intervention, something I am on a unity ticket with him on, about its importance. I would be happy to assuage him of concern that that is not being done. As a former teacher in our state schools, I have seen firsthand the important work that is being done on a daily basis to intervene early to ensure that we do not have children and young people who are diverted unnecessarily into that life of crime, into the justice system, that we have wraparound services that are tough on the causes of crime as much as we are tough on crime. That experience as a teacher and working in community as a sport coach and in other forms of community showed me the importance of early intervention and the practical impact it can have to keep people out of the justice system who might otherwise end up there. It is an incredibly important dimension of our government’s approach. It informs the record funding that we provide to our education system, not just in the physical sense that the Deputy Premier talked about earlier but also in terms of programs that divert young people away from crime.

I will return to those themes later in my contribution, but I want to come back to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, and it is indeed a collection of miscellany. It goes from amending the Crimes Act 1958 to narrow that trustee secret commission offence issue, to amending the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019, to amending the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, to correcting section reference errors in the Worker Screening Act 2020, to amending the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 and to amending the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 to remove an obsolete regulation-making power to prescribe areas where police officers are not required to serve civil process. There is a lot in that, and we do see bills of this nature come before us from time to time that seek to make minor amendments to existing legislation and to correct for oversights in drafting and also issues that were once relevant – like the prohibition of trustee inducements that emerged out of that 1905, I believe, Royal Commission on the Butter Industry – but are now a hindrance, without any good or well-founded reason, to the operation of the economy and to trustees’ work.

The dimensions that I want to talk about briefly in my contribution relate to, firstly, the Worker Screening Act 2020 – that is part 4 of the bill – and part 5, the amendments to the Social Services Regulation Act 2021. I do so having been the co-chair, along with Susan Pascoe as the independent co-chair, of the Social Services Regulation Taskforce, which the Minister for Children and Minister for Disability initiated as part of the process of ensuring that our social services regulatory frameworks are fit for purpose and not unduly onerous and burdensome upon either individuals who work in our social services sector or their employers and those who are providing, partnering with government-funded organisations. These are incredibly important human services – often to Victorians who are incredibly vulnerable for a number of reasons but very often Victorians who are living in an aged care setting or who may have disability which impacts their life in a very profound way. My experience of having co-chaired that SSR, or the Social Services Regulation Taskforce, process really emphasised to me the way in which the vast majority of providers and individuals working in our social services sector do take their responsibilities – incredibly diligently – seriously around the importance of safeguarding.

Ensuring that we have appropriate worker screening and appropriate regulation of those working in out-of-home care is extraordinarily important. Firstly, in that out-of-home care dimension children who, because of their life circumstances – because of their family environments or lack thereof – find themselves living in out-of-home care are often some of the most vulnerable young people in our community. Therefore it is incredibly important that the workforce that is caring for them in those out-of-home care settings are appropriately screened, and the worker and carer exclusion scheme is an initiative that the government has put in place to seek to do that. So while in this bill it is superficially a small thing, it is actually important. The repeal will make it clear that a person can only be subject to an exclusion decision if they have both engaged in misconduct and been found to pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children and young people, which addresses, I think, the risk of unjust outcomes for carers while also preserving protections for children in out-of-home care.

That points to the reality that in this space of social services regulation there is a continual balance between de-risking and protecting the vulnerable to the greatest extent possible without unduly penalising those who are working in the system or placing regulatory burdens that are unduly costly and burdensome on the organisations that are employing people, which are often not-for-profit organisations and other altruistic bodies doing incredibly important work in partnership with government – really acting as the third sector – to improve society and communities. So you do not want unduly burdensome and onerous requirements being placed upon organisations of that nature. And yet, as far too many instances of harm have come to light, which processes like the royal commissions into our disability sector and into our aged care sector have shown, the risk of abuse is real. So striking that balance that always seeks to protect the vulnerable while not placing undue burden on the dedicated workforce which cares for those people is a very important thing.

As I say, it is superficially quite a small tweak, but actually there is a real purpose to that provision in the bill, much as there is to the amendment of the Worker Screening Act 2020, because the vast majority of those who work in our disability system, who are funded either through the NDIS or through other forms of, often government, funding to deliver disability services, are incredible people. The members of the Health and Community Services Union and the other members of our disability workforce – with whom I had extensive dealings in my time as Parliamentary Secretary for Disability and in a prior life in a personal capacity having had a deep interest in, connection to and involvement with the disability sector – are incredible people who are motivated by a deep sense of mission and purpose.

Yet there are inevitably in the context of our community a very small number who do not do the right thing, who do not always seek to put first the needs of those for whom they are caring. We have seen that in the context of some of those horrific instances that emerged in the disability royal commission I spoke of earlier. I have talked, in this place in fact, before about the very harrowing and indeed horrific case of Ann Marie Smith in South Australia, who was left in effect to rot and to die in a wicker chair despite having a number of workers who were funded, who ought to have been regulated and who ought to have been providing care to her and who did not. Their failures were not just an abrogation of their contractual arrangements with government or their employer, which was funding them to provide those services, but resulted very directly in the death of somebody who was, as I say, an incredibly vulnerable member of our national community. She was in South Australia, but that does not diminish the point in any sense whatsoever. So those amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020 and the amendments to the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 are important.

In concluding my remarks today, I come full circle to where I started, which is in relation to the work that this government is doing to ensure community safety. Just this morning the Minister for Corrections, the Minister for Police and the Premier announced a $700 million increase towards ensuring that we have adequate custodial space and the wraparound support services that are needed because of the reality that, as a consequence of the legislation we passed here just a couple of months ago – which I spoke on in full support – to toughen bail and to move away from the presumption of bail in all circumstances, we will ensure that people are held to account for their actions. That funding will make sure that there is space within our justice systems for those people who will not be given bail as a consequence of our changes. This is important. One has to have a holistic approach. That is what this government is doing. I commend this bill and its provisions to the house.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (15:40): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. From the outset can I thank the Shadow Attorney-General, the member for Malvern, for his diligent work on this piece of legislation, which really is an omnibus miscellaneous amendment bill amending a number of justice acts. Most of the provisions are minor and administrative changes, with the exception of the further delay to changes to the Magistrates’ Court criminal appeal processes that the Shadow Attorney-General spoke at length about and which I will return to shortly.

Changes to the Crimes Act 1958 contained in this piece of legislation are being made to clarify the trustee secret commission offence in response to recent court decisions. The purpose of the bill comes to a number of different points but, first, to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991 in relation to procedures in the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court, to amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 to make minor and technical amendments, to repeal an outdated regulation-making power in the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, to amend the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 to delay the default commencement and repeal of that act, and to amend the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 in relation to deemed exclusion provisions.

The first of the main provisions of this bill before us today is the narrowing of the definition of the offence: to give or receive a secret commission to a trustee in return for a substituted appointment. As we heard, the member for Malvern spoke at length in reference to the 1905 Royal Commission on the Butter Industry, but the bill amends section 180 of the Crimes Act 1958, which currently makes it an indictable offence for a person to offer or give to another, or for that other person to solicit or receive, any valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for appointing or otherwise authorising a person to be appointed as a trustee or to act in their place as a trustee without the assent of the persons beneficially entitled to the estate or the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The bill before us today narrows that offence by requiring the relevant conduct to have been done with a dishonest or otherwise corrupt purpose. It also removes the requirement for consent of beneficiaries or the Supreme Court. The government argues that the absence of a requirement for a dishonest or otherwise corrupt purpose puts trustees acting in good faith at risk of criminal liability for a range of transactions that have no dishonest or otherwise corrupt purpose. We have seen recent Supreme Court decisions that have held that a corrupt purpose is not an element of the offence. There is a risk that certain non-corrupt – and in many cases, good-faith – conduct could actually contravene the current provision. As I said earlier, the original offence was introduced following the 1905 Royal Commission on the Butter Industry, which found widespread evidence of bribery and secret commissions by agents. The view is that the offence is no longer fit for purpose, and the amendments will ensure that it captures dishonest and or corrupt conduct relating to trustees but, importantly, will not inadvertently capture benign conduct.

I return to the issue in this bill about delaying the commencement of abolishing de novo criminal appeals. We know that in 2019 the government proposed to abolish the current system of de novo criminal appeals from the Magistrates’ Court. At present an appeal from a criminal conviction in the Magistrates’ Court is by way of a completely new hearing, or de novo, in the County Court. This allows for new evidence to be admitted and new legal arguments to be made, different from those first heard in the Magistrates’ Court.

This is a different process to that of appeals arising from criminal convictions in the County Court, which can only be made to the Court of Appeal on the basis of legal error, meaning there is no rehearing of that evidence. The government argued – in 2019, I might add – that these changes will lead to a more efficient appeals process and one that imposes a lower burden on witnesses, as, except in limited circumstances, the evidence given in the Magistrates’ Court will form the evidence considered by the County Court on appeal. The Liberals and Nationals, while not opposing the changes, did place on record some concerns at the time. The 2019 amendments were scheduled to come into force no later than 3 July 2021. The default commencement date was initially postponed to 1 January 2023 by the Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Act 2021. The reason put forward at that time was the court system required more time to prepare for the change, as well as the impact of the COVID pandemic on the justice system. The default commencement date was then postponed to 5 July 2025 by the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. The government again blamed the effect of the pandemic and the need for additional resources. The bill before us today now seeks to delay the default commencement date of these changes for a third time – until 1 July 2028. These are changes that were proposed in 2019 and have been delayed three times – now until 2028. The government claims the impact of the other criminal law reforms and resources requirements as driving this decision, noting that:

In light of the significant time and resources required to implement the summary appeal reforms on top of these other reforms, it is necessary to further delay their commencement.

While the government continues to claim that the implementation of these changes will require additional resources, the government, as the member for Malvern spoke to, is currently slashing funding to Court Services Victoria. We will see in the coming years tens of millions of dollars being slashed from the courts budget. Is it any wonder that we see, time and time again under this government, delays when it comes to important reforms in the justice system and the delay time and time again of reforms that would see, in this case in particular, the need for witnesses to once again turn up and provide evidence, putting them under undue stress. We have recognised in the Parliament and the government has recognised – the opposition has not opposed this – that that is something we want to move away from. We want to move away from the current system, and we have time and time again supported that here in this place. We have passed these reforms, but this government, because of its inability to manage budgets, has had to delay the reform for a third time. This is something we do have real concern about in this bill before us today.

While the bill is largely administrative, buried in the detail of procedural changes and other minor matters is really just more evidence of the Labor government’s chaotic and dysfunctional approach to justice reform in this state. I refer to the measures that I just spoke about to abolish the current system of de novo criminal appeals from the Magistrates’ Court. If these measures sound familiar, it is because we understand that these are important reforms that we have to put in place. We have to stop ignoring the fact that we have come into this place time and time again and said we need to pass these reforms. They need to be put in place, but we are unable to do so, because this government cannot manage reforms through the justice system. Once again blaming the COVID pandemic for their inability to manage court budgets is simply unacceptable. Those opposite in fact cut $19.1 million from the current 2024–25 year and will be cutting a further $58 million in the 2027–28 year.

This is just another example of this government’s inability to manage money. In this case it is those witnesses that have to come before the courts, before the Magistrates’ Court and then now again before the County Court, that will have to deal with this because of the government’s inability to manage the courts budget. It should be no surprise, as we see time and time again the government’s inability to manage the justice system. We have seen it countless times this year, with the government’s inability to manage bail laws in this state and the government’s inability to manage machete laws in this state delaying the implementation of these laws or failing, in the case of the bail laws, to actually make sure that the laws were as strong as the ones they changed only two years ago.

This government talks a big game when it comes to governing for all Victorians, but what we see time and time again is the 10 years of financial mismanagement under the Labor government coming home to roost when it comes to core government services. It is the justice system today with the piece of legislation before us, and it is the fact that we are delaying for a third time an important reform that this Parliament has recognised on three occasions needs to be put in place. But because of their inability to manage money and because of the record debt and the fact that we are going to be paying over a million dollars an hour in interest repayments, the court budget has to be slashed. It is the same when it comes to our bail laws. We are seeing time and time again this government’s inability to manage basic core services, because it cannot manage money, and time and time again Victorians are paying the price.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (15:50): I too rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, and I am so glad that the member for Kew from the party who is currently in a state of absolute crisis has mentioned bail reform. The bail reform that this Labor government introduced a couple of months ago is the toughest in the country – so tough indeed that we know that it is working and that we are having to invest more into our prisons here in Victoria. My community loves the fact that we have the toughest bail laws in this state, so I thank the member for Kew for raising that.

Whilst this bill may not deliver major reforms or improvements, there are a number of time-sensitive changes and administrative improvements, which are always really important if you work in this sector and which need to be made in order to ensure that Victoria’s justice system is operating effectively. That is why time and time again here in this place we bring bills and legislation before the house to debate in relation to justice. We need it to be operating efficiently. We need it to meet modern-day standards and community expectations, which is why time and time again we have bills before the house. I would encourage those opposite, for the first time in their lives, to get behind these bills and to get behind what Victorians want to see. We bring them before the house because Victorians tell us that is what they want to see their government doing.

We need our legislation to be concise and clear, and that is always really important. That is what this bill is actually about. It is not about anything else. Indeed there are a number of massive changes that are coming to our courts this year, with our government having passed some of the toughest bail laws in the country. I cannot talk about courts without giving a big shout-out to just how fabulous the Wyndham law courts are looking at the moment. I was down not at the law courts but at Werribee police station with the member for Point Cook, the member for Tarneit and the member for Werribee to talk to the local police recently and to talk about some of the work that they are doing in youth crime. This is what local members in communities like ours in Wyndham do. We talk to folks on the streets. We are talking to victims of crime. We are talking to the local police about perpetrators of crime, perpetrators of youth crime and what we can do better. They cannot wait for these bail laws to come in place. They know that they will make a difference.

But the great thing in being there at that police station was that we also spoke about the tremendous work that the police are doing to work with young people that are interacting with the criminal justice system – whether they are perpetrators, victims or even missing persons – to find out what is going on in these people’s lives and what, if there is anything, the police can do with youth workers or the government or what it is they need in their lives to get on and find a pathway that diverts them away from the criminal justice system. This is just some of the great work that our local police are doing, and I have to give them a big shout-out and say thank you. The types of work that they are doing are quite often not the things that make the front pages of local newspapers and state and national newspapers. They are certainly never talked about by those opposite, who claim to be the best friends of Victoria Police and to know everything there is to know about Victoria Police. It was absolutely insightful and very much a rewarding experience to be there with my colleagues in Wyndham talking to our local cops about what is happening on the coalface.

We also have our government’s nation-first machete ban coming in, which the member for Caulfield was just talking about – well, misinterpreting, I do have to say – and we are going to do that in a third of the time that it took the United Kingdom to do that. There is always so much discussion about these measures in the media, but I do want to remind everyone listening that implementing a ban on objects such as machetes takes time; it cannot be done immediately. We know that because we have actually been guided by Victoria Police on this and in banning them. If we were to make machetes illegal right now, starting today, then thousands upon thousands of Victorians who currently own machetes for appropriate reasons and not criminal reasons – including our farmers out in the regions, local Landcare groups or gardeners – would suddenly be in breach of the law. That is not the intention of bringing forward legislation in this place, passing it in this house and rolling it out in the local community – to suddenly be enforcing laws and fining locals who have no intention of breaching the law but who find themselves on the other side of it. There will be an amnesty scheme set up, and this will allow folks to do the right thing and dispose of these weapons, most importantly – what those opposite continually fail to recognise, time and time again – in a safe and secure manner. We have asked Victoria Police what that is, and we are following their guidance on this.

It is also worth noting in this debate that our government’s bail laws are already having an effect. Like I said, we are seeing more people having bail denied to them for offences that we have targeted with our bail laws. We know that it is working; the numbers for those on remand do not lie. I look forward to seeing what these rates look like 12 months from now. Sadly, those opposite, with their announcement last week, seem to want to go back in time to when folks were being thrown in remand for months for nonviolent offences like petty shoplifting and left there. But this is diverting away from the bill at hand.

The changes that I have just talked about have already been made, and they are coming into effect. But this bill is about reducing administrative inefficiencies so that our courts, most importantly, can accommodate these changes. The first change off the bat is an amendment to the Crimes Act 1958, which deals with secret commissions of trustees. This change has been introduced as a result of recent Supreme Court decisions which have told us that the offence in its current form may inadvertently capture innocuous or good faith replacements of trustees. As a result of this, there is a likely chance that there will be more applications made to the Supreme Court for ordinary routine matters, because trustees who are doing the right thing will not want to run afoul of or break the law.

This will be a really significant administrative burden. What it will mean is that the court will be clogged with applications it may not actually need to hear. That is why this bill breaks down the single offence of commissioning a trustee in secret to five separate offences, which ultimately narrows the scope of each to better capture conduct that may be done dishonestly or with an otherwise corrupt purpose. It also means that there will not be a requirement anymore for trustees to obtain permission from the beneficiaries or the Supreme Court to appoint a trustee – for the purposes of these offences – which will have the benefit of streamlining routine transactions.

The Supreme Court already deal with a number of important matters and court cases, and this change would reduce their workload of approving trustee activities and give them more time to hear the cases that come before them. These changes would also, most importantly, bring us into line with New South Wales – we always like to think we are leading New South Wales with anything that happens here in this state – and the intention is to stamp out corrupt behaviour from trustees. Of course these changes will have appropriate safeguards as neither trust beneficiaries nor the court would consent to dishonest or corrupt conduct on the part of the trustee.

Another important change with this bill is the removal of several outdated requirements for criminal proceedings. I am talking about things like requiring certain applications to be made in person or by post, for example. In the digital age we know that all these requirements do is place further administrative burden on our courts. In this case we know that that burden is felt by the Magistrates’ Court. What these changes will do is allow the court to expand its case management system to automate many of its high-volume functions for criminal proceedings, such as the filing of applications or certain court documents.

As I have said, this bill does not deliver major transformational reforms. It may be more technical in the scope of some of its changes than in its substance. But these changes are still really important and necessary, and they need to come before the house if we want our courts to operate efficiently and effectively, which overall is ultimately this government’s objective. It means less time hearing administrative inquiries and applications and more time resolving cases and matters before the courts, which means that people spend, most importantly, less time waiting for their disputes to be resolved. Administrative efficiency and clearing backlogs are always important goals for our court system and this government, and this bill will help them in achieving exactly that. That is why I commend this bill wholeheartedly to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (16:00): I rise to talk on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. As a tradie from Traralgon, listening to our Shadow Attorney-General articulate certain sections of the bill does pique one’s interest. I will come to one part that the shadow attorney picked up.

The purpose of this amendment bill is to amend section 180 of the Crimes Act 1958 in relation to offences for the replacement of trustees. As a lot of members have said when they have gotten on their feet, we do need to move with the times and make sure that our legislation is in sync with the date and the year that we live in now. The bill will amend the Criminal Procedures Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991 in relation to procedure in the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court, amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 to make minor and technical amendments, and that is very important – that is our working with children checks, making sure that we are ticking that off. That has been very important for a lot of years now, but we need to make sure that we are keeping on the front foot and making sure there are no loopholes for anybody to be able to breach the laws that are needed and the standards that are needed, so it is great that it does that. The bill amends the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 to delay the default commencement and repeal of that act.

As I said before, the Shadow Attorney-General picked up one point coming through. I think a lot of the people on this side of the chamber will talk about this, because a change that we are making today as we read through this bill is pretty interesting. I do say that we do not oppose this bill coming through; we are very happy with this. The original offence was introduced following the 1905 Royal Commission on the Butter Industry, which found widespread evidence of bribery. When you see that, you think, ‘Well, you’ve got to go to the source and find a little bit more out.’ I went knocking on the doors of the member for Murray Plains and the member for Rowville, because it was back in 1905 and I thought they may have had their fingers on the pulse there, but it was a little bit before their time.

A member: Was it really?

Martin CAMERON: It was, but we need to make sure that we cover off all the boxes. As I said, we do not oppose this coming through. But as we are talking about justice, and we have had people talk about bail laws, it is just interesting to touch on a few things that are happening in my community at the moment. We have a court case that is running in Morwell at the moment which is getting worldwide attention. I know we cannot go into that a lot because it is a running court case. Ever since I have come into the chamber I have been asking for PSOs to be at our regional train stations, and one of the things that I want the PSOs there for is that presence on the street. We do have it at every metropolitan train station in Melbourne but at only four regional train stations. I just want to highlight one of the things that have happened with the court case.

A couple of days before that court case started, the police – and we love our police – came down. They had put in place to have stop-and-search powers on the streets of Morwell, in and around the bus interchange in Morwell and at the train station, because we have been having some issues on the streets. It was interesting that they came down for two days and enacted these stop-and-search powers. They could actually search people on the street for concealed weapons – and, yes, I am led to believe that many concealed weapons were found. Also, the flow-on of that was that virtually – you may not believe this, Acting Speaker – within an hour or so the streets had gone quiet and been cleaned up, because people coming into the streets trying to be unruly could see the presence of that uniformed officer on the streets. This is why we have continued to ask the government for the presence of PSOs in hotspots around regional Victoria. That presence on the streets (1) makes people feel safe and (2) actually takes out of the way the people that are there to cause grief and to cause dramas. It is amazing. I have been talking for two and a bit years in here to get the PSOs there, and that is my example. If we have those PSOs in uniform on the streets, it is going to make a huge difference. The point has been proved while we have had this court case and trial happening in Morwell.

Also, we talk about diversionary programs, because it is a big picture, trying to fix our youth crime. We need to have places for our youth to engage with. It was only last Friday that the member for Caulfield and I visited Mountain Track, which is in Jumbuk, which is just outside of Morwell. Laura and David, who run Mountain Track, encourage youth that have come from troubled backgrounds. They take them under their wing and they give them another outlet in life – a different view on life – to try and break that cycle of kids that are in our country towns. It happens in my area of Traralgon, Morwell, Moe and outer Churchill: they hang around the streets and they break the law. We need to be able to not round the kids up but give them another look on life that says, ‘You don’t have to go down that track that you’re on now of being in trouble with the police all the time’. It just proves that we need good funding for these diversionary programs. Gippsland Youth Space is another one – we have diversionary programs there. Sandy and her team have to go cap in hand to the government all the time to get funding. It is one thing to have these wonderful services, but we do need to make sure that we are funding them properly.

We talk about the bail laws. Down in Morwell I deal with the Gordon family all the time, and we have had the Gordon family in here. They have paid the ultimate price of youth crime and bail laws with the loss of their son Dr Ash. You sit down with that family and you live for an hour or so what they deal with on a daily basis. It is certainly like groundhog day for them. Every day they wake up and their much-beloved Dr Ash – their son, their brother – is not there. They live with it every single day. That is why when the government came out with newer and tougher bail laws I spoke with the family. We moved through and talked about what the bail laws meant, and the way the bail laws are changing would not have helped their son. That is why as a coalition we did release our own plan for tougher bail laws.

If you talk to a majority of people in the street in your electorate, they say they want tougher bail laws. They do not want someone that is reoffending to be able to come out and take their son’s or their brother’s life. They do not want that, so that is when we say, ‘If you break bail, you face jail.’ That is resonating with people. They need that tough love that needs to happen sometimes. When you are on a path of self-destruction you need to be pulled up and not be allowed back on the streets. You cannot go back on the streets, because at the end of the day you will cost someone their life. That has been proven with the Gordon family. It was also proven with the family of Harry Wright. Harry was a 91-year-old gentleman who lived in Morwell. They have gone through the same thing of his life being taken. If you break bail, you will face jail under a coalition government.

Jackson TAYLOR (Bayswater) (16:10): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. It is very miscellaneous in title and in detail. Can I start by thanking the Attorney-General for all of her fantastic work in preparing this legislation, which goes to a number of issues that will make our justice system work better, make it easier to access and make it more efficient. You could argue that two of those three things are the same, but I am running with three because that is what we tend to do in here; we tend to say things in threes.

I would also like to thank the minister’s office for their work and of course all of the staff across departments, who, let us be honest, do a great deal of the legwork. They make it happen. They draft the legislation. They are very good people. The wonderful adviser over there – who I am not sure would appreciate me mentioning her in Hansard, so I will not mention her name – is a lovely person. I know she would have worked very, very hard on this piece of legislation, so thank you very much.

Can I also thank our frontline emergency services workers, who have a great deal of interaction with our court system and indeed will see some of the impact from these changes being made in this place today, which very refreshingly have the support from those opposite. It is nice. It does not happen every day. If this was a piece of energy or environment legislation, it would be a little bit different, but that is okay. We have got bipartisan support today. I am very, very excited.

I would also like to thank our court staff. I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for our court staff. I remember being a police officer and trying to list charges at the last minute and stressing them out no end, and they were always lovely. They had smiles on their faces 99 times out of 100. There was the one time when they were like, ‘Come on, mate.’ But they are lovely people. They do a great job, and they make the wheels of justice turn ever so swiftly. I would just like to thank them and acknowledge all of their fantastic work.

I have mentioned those opposite not opposing, which is great. I would just like to acknowledge a few members who spoke previously. The member for Albert Park is always fantastic – always extremely articulate.

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: The member for Point Cook is acknowledging that – nodding away and hear, hearing. The member for Albert Park is always fantastic, and she explained how this will impact her community. She is very well versed – I believe she is a former parliamentary secretary if not still current in the legal justice space. The member for Laverton gave a very good contribution and is always very passionate. It is great to hear her talk about legislation in this place and what it means for her community and for all Victorians. The member for Footscray did a wonderful job. Hands in the air, I think she knows she nailed this one, so thank you very much to the member for Footscray for all her work. On the member for Greenvale, what can you say? He makes us all look bad. He is always extremely articulate and always makes me wonder if I should be doing better. Thank you very much to the member for Greenvale. I do greatly appreciate it.

What I also appreciate is being part of a government that really has a proud record of supporting our court staff – not being stagnant but supporting change. Even if it is not the biggest change in the world, we are making sure there is change and we are moving forward, making the justice system easier, making it more approachable and making it simpler for our frontline court staff, for people who work in the offices, for our police officers and everyone who may come into contact with the justice system. I am very proud to be part of a government that is making these necessary reforms and that is not sitting idly by. We get on with the job. We are very, very busy. We have got a great Attorney-General, we have got a good team, we are up and about and we have got a proud record of supporting not just in words but also in deeds and actions. You can measure a government by its priorities through its budget and its priorities of getting things done. This government, each and every single day, backs in our court staff.

We back in our frontline emergency service workers and in particular in this case the fantastic work of our police officers – some 3600 extra, funded by this government. Obviously part of the detail and efficiencies go to family violence, and it has been wonderful to see our government’s investment in the specialist family violence courts, which have made a huge difference at 13 locations across this state. I know from working with a local stakeholder of mine, the Eastern Community Legal Centre, and talking to their CEO Michael Smith just the huge –

John Mullahy interjected.

Jackson TAYLOR: He is a wonderful guy, member for Glen Waverley, and a fantastic advocate for his organisation, which does great work not just in the legal space but in social justice as well. But hearing his passion for the difference this makes and the role this plays in making our courts a safer space – a more inclusive and protective space for affected family members, for children and for people who are the victims of family violence – is incredibly powerful. It is something that I believe has bipartisan support as well, but I am very proud that our government has been part of this work and has established these courts. And we will continue to work with court staff, work with the front line and work with our not-for-profits to make it an even better system and fairer for everyone and to make sure we protect as many victims of family violence as we possibly can and support them through that court process. We obviously worked with police on the EBA recently. That is another measure of our support of Victoria Police and acknowledgement of the incredible work they do. It is a very dangerous job. Everyone deserves to come home from work safely. But there are inherent risks with Victoria Police, and our police do a wonderful job. It is no small feat for those who choose to take the path of being a police officer, and I thank them for all their work.

I note today there has been a bit of conversation around the reforms we have made in terms of passing Australia’s toughest bail laws. Being a former prosecutor I can tell you these are very, very tough. We have immediately, as per the first tranche of legislation, changed the overarching principle for bail decision making, where remand is no longer a last resort. In terms of accused youth offenders being remanded only as a last resort, that was changed; the tough bail laws will remove the principle of remand as a last resort. That was a significant change to the overarching principle. The amendments to schedule 2 of the Bail Act 1977 introduce new offences to provide that the onus is on the accused, taking some of those offences from schedule 2 and putting them into schedule 1, and that higher bail test – exceptional circumstances is a really high bar to pass.

The government has also made commitments in terms of a second piece of legislation, which is looking at the New South Wales model in terms of the high-degree test. The high-degree test will be applied in Victoria but applied more broadly. The results they have seen in New South Wales for the types of offences that we have seen, tragically, highlighted in many parts of our state have come down in the New South Wales example. They will be applied more broadly in Victoria. It is all part of the response of this government in listening to people and making the changes that we need, because governments need to listen to people. Of course we do, and that is exactly what this government has done through the fantastic work of the Attorney-General, the police minister, the corrections minister and every member on this team.

Politics can sometimes get in the way of these types of matters and topics, but I like to think that people all come here for a purpose – we have just got different ways of doing things. But it is always great to see the passion from all members of Parliament for making sure we have got a safe community. I am proud of the work that the Allan Labor government is doing in terms of making our community safer and supporting our police and our frontline staff. This legislation substitutes section 180 of the Crimes Act 1958 to narrow the trustee secret commission offence so that it only applies to dishonest or otherwise corrupt conduct. I think that was the one in terms of the butter references that the member for Morwell was making. I enjoyed that. I heard some churning of the butter behind me from the member for Glen Waverley. Fantastic.

It will amend the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 to defer commencement of summary appeal reforms and allow justice agencies adequate implementation time to ensure these reforms achieve their intended benefits. It will amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991 to enable the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to carry out certain administrative functions within its criminal jurisdictions more efficiently. It will make technical amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020 to correct section-referencing errors. It will amend the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 to correct an error that has the unintended consequence of expanding deemed exclusions for out-of-home care workers and carers in the out-of-home care sector, and it will amend the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 to remove an outdated regulation-making power to prescribe areas where police officers are not required to serve civil process.

It is not unsurprising at all that the government has consulted widely and been out there with key stakeholders. Of course we know key legal and financial industry stakeholders were consulted on the proposed reforms. Court and key government stakeholders, including the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Legal Aid and Victoria Police, have been consulted about the summary appeal reforms and the proposed changes, which is great to hear. The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Supreme Court of Victoria, County Court of Victoria and Victoria Police were also consulted of course on the proposed Criminal Procedure Act and the Sentencing Act reforms. The Department of Government Services was consulted on the technical amendments to the Worker Screening Act, and the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing was consulted with the Social Services Regulator and the suitability panel on development of the proposed amendments to the Social Services Regulation Act. All in all it is a fantastic piece of legislation. It is great to see bipartisan support, and I am proud to be part of a government that backs in our frontline court staff, makes Victoria safe and supports Victoria Police.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (16:21): I do not know if I could ever talk that quick; that was amazing. I am very happy to rise today to talk on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. As the previous member pointed out, we do not oppose this bill, and it does have bipartisan support in this chamber as it is at the moment. There has been some interesting discussion about this bill today, and nothing more interesting than the 1905 butter industry scandal. Apparently it was widespread. It caught out some slippery figures who ended up with sticky fingers in the end. That is the way the story from 1905 goes.

This bill has various miscellaneous items.

A member interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Thank you. It is always good to have a fan in the room. I will just go through the purposes of the bill, which are to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991 in relation to procedure in the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court; amend the Worker Screening Act 2020; repeal an outdated regulation-making power in the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989; amend the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019; and amend the Social Services Regulation Act 2021.

The debate has been fairly wide today. I will go to a few points, but I think one of our main concerns in this bill, although we do not oppose the bill, is delaying the commencement of the abolition of the de novo criminal appeals. This has been going on since 2019, and now it seems with the delay it is not going to come through until 1 July 2028. If I went down the pub and explained to people that a bill that started in 2019 was going to take nine years to do –

John Pesutto: That is nine Labor years.

Wayne FARNHAM: Nine Labor years – I do not know if that would ever pass a pub test, I really do not. I do not understand. I am going to go through the reasons in a minute, but to say to the normal person out on the street, ‘This bill has taken nine years,’ I do not think would ever pass any pub test. There seems to be excuse after excuse. It was scheduled to actually come in no later than 3 July 2021, but we did not make that date. The default commencement date was initially postponed to 1 January 2023 by the Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Act 2021. The reason at the time that was put forward was COVID, so the COVID pandemic apparently delayed that bill. I do not know why, but it did. Then it was changed again. It was postponed to 5 July 2025. That is coming up very soon. I am reading the reason here. Again we have blamed the pandemic for this along with additional resources into court maintenance, the ongoing effects of COVID-19 on the court system and the significant time or resources required to implement the reforms. We cannot keep using COVID as an excuse for bad governance. We actually cannot. I do not think that passes community expectation.

Now we are out to the extension of 1 July 2028. The government claims the impact of other criminal law reforms and resource requirements are driving the decisions, noting:

In light of the significant time and resources required to implement the summary appeal reforms on top of these other reforms, it is necessary to further delay their commencement.

Come on, give me a break – nine years. We are going on nine years. There is absolutely no way I can ever think of any valid reason for something to take that long. I really cannot. It just baffles me. Why would this take nine years? Yes, the government has put in excuse after excuse for why this has happened, but those excuses are pretty lame at best. As I said, it really does not at any point in time pass the pub test when we are talking about making our court systems more efficient. Essentially what this bill does is take the work of the Magistrates’ Court – it used to be that you could probably do a half-baked job in the Magistrates’ Court, throw it all out and then go to the County Court for an appeal – and actually make people do a half-decent job in the Magistrates’ Court. They can go to the County Court, but they take all that with them. It does not get thrown out like it did last time. I do not understand this. I am not the Attorney-General, I am not the Shadow Attorney-General and I am not a lawyer; I am just a normal person scratching my head thinking, ‘Why does this take nine years?’ I do not get it. I do not understand it. I do not know the reason for the delay. I cannot accept the reason for the delays, because to me they seem, as I said, fairly lame.

But when we are trying to make our court system efficient, why are we cutting money out of it? $19.1 million was cut in the current 2024–25 financial year. If our court system being under so much pressure and our legal system being under so much pressure is the reason why we have to delay these things, then why are we taking money out of that system? Why aren’t we investing in that system? Then there is going to be a further $58 million cut in the year 2027–28. With the growing population and with the bail law reform, we are assuming, as has been stated today, that people are being apprehended, people are being incarcerated and the figures are up. We are going to need more resources in this space, so why are we cutting money out of this space? None of this makes sense, and at no point in time does it make sense for something to take nine years to go there.

When we were sitting here today in question time, the Minister for Police got up and gave a statement, and he said, ‘Incarceration figures are up X per cent here and X per cent there.’ Well, when the bar was set so low, it was not hard to go up. When there was no-one being incarcerated and the bail system was a revolving door, the bar was set so low that it was not hard to go up. It is like if you are playing in a footy game and you lose, 100 points to zero, and then the next week you come out and lose by 100 points but you kick one goal and then you go, ‘Well, we increased our score by 600 per cent.’ The bar was too low. I think any time we introduce legislation into this chamber and anytime we introduce anything around justice and amendments and bail et cetera, we have got to make the most of the opportunity. We have got to make the most of the opportunity in this place to make things better. That is the community expectation. That is what we should be doing.

I do not think it is happening as well as the government thinks it is. If I reference our crime numbers in the Baw Baw shire for the last year, if I just flip to them, the most recent crime stats for Baw Baw show the total offences recorded are up 29.8 per cent, total criminal incidents are up 18.2 per cent, theft of a motor vehicle is up 59 per cent, breaches of family violence orders are up 20 per cent and criminal damage is up 24 per cent. Warragul incidents are up 24 per cent overall, Drouin is up 14 per cent and Trafalgar is up 28 per cent. When we talk about bail and crime in this state and when I read those figures from my local area, I do not think the government is doing that good a job. I do not think they are setting any marvellous goals. When things keep going up and when they are cutting budgets, that is not responsible government. Obviously there is work that needs to be done. When everything seems to be going up in relation to crime stats in my area, how can people in this chamber sit here and say straight to my face, or to my constituents, ‘We’re doing a great job’? You are not.

This bill will go through today; it has got bipartisan support. But I actually think the government is missing an opportunity again. When we talk about machete laws and how they take time, well, if the government had listened to us, we tried to pass bills twice on machetes – twice that the government knocked back. The previous member said, ‘Isn’t it great to have bipartisan support? Sometimes politics gets in the way.’ He was 100 per cent correct – politics got in the way on machetes, because it came from this side of the chamber. Now we have got to wait until September for machetes to actually be banned from this state. We have got to do it in a controlled way. But the government had that opportunity months and months ago. They had the opportunity months ago, and what did they do? They missed the opportunity again.

Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (16:31): I rise today to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, and I thank the Attorney-General for introducing this bill. This bill is not merely a collection of amendments. It is a thoughtful response from our government to the evolving needs of our justice system and the society it serves. It addresses critical gaps, corrects outdated provisions and ensures that our laws are fit for purpose in the complexities of the 21st century.

Firstly, this bill proposes narrowing the scope of the trustee secret commission offence under the Crimes Act 1958. This reform is both pragmatic and principled. Currently existing legislation criminalises certain transactions involving trustees without requiring proof of dishonest or corrupt intent. As a result, trustees and professionals engaged in routine good-faith transactions face the risk of severe criminal liability, which was never the intended outcome of this law. This bill in front of us today introduces a much-needed refinement by requiring that the offence only applies to conduct undertaken with a dishonest or otherwise corrupt purpose.

For the people of Mulgrave and indeed everyone else across the state who routinely engages in transactions in good faith, they can be assured that they will not face unjust repercussions for doing the right things. Moreover, this bill removes the requirement for trust beneficiaries or the Supreme Court to consent to the exchange of valuable consideration related to trustee replacement, such as reimbursement of reasonable costs. By streamlining these processes, we save time and resources for all involved while maintaining safeguards against dishonesty and corruption.

Another crucial aspect of this bill that I would like to highlight is the continuing development of summary appeal reforms. Six years ago Victoria introduced transformative changes to our state’s summary criminal appeals system. These reforms aimed to abolish summary appeals to the County Court and replace them with streamlined processes that enhance efficiency and reduce trauma for victims and witnesses. These commendable changes will require significant implementation, careful planning and adequate preparation, and thus this bill will extend the fourth commencement date for these reforms by three years to 1 July 2028. This additional time presents an opportunity to ensure that justice agencies and courts are ready to embrace these changes without causing undue disruption. In recent years our justice system has faced unprecedented challenges, including the impacts of the pandemic and the introduction of other legislative reforms. From enabling judge-alone trials to address the effects of the pandemic, our agencies have been stretched in adapting to new procedures. This bill recognises the need to prioritise resources and implementation efforts carefully. By extending the commencement date we demonstrate our commitment to a smooth transition that benefits all stakeholders.

For the people in my electorate of Mulgrave, especially those who are currently involved in legal proceedings, our reforms mean that they can have a more streamlined process and a quicker resolution for their cases. In addition, it also highlights the Allan Labor government’s commitment to protecting victims and witnesses, fostering a more compassionate justice system. This legislation also enables the extension of the court’s case management system to its criminal jurisdiction, modernising the Magistrates’ Court.

This reform paves the way for electronic filing of certain documents, a simple but powerful step forward towards efficiency. Modern registry services reduce paperwork, improve accessibility and save valuable time for both court staff and the parties involved. We understand that legal language and the judicial system can be challenging for your average Victorian to navigate. It gets an order of magnitude harder if you do not come from an English-speaking background, like thousands across our state but particularly in my electorate of Mulgrave. Through such incremental improvements the Allan Labor government aims to build a more effective justice system. Victorians can navigate the system with greater ease thanks to user-friendly electronic filing systems and options. In addition, this bill corrects technical errors in previous legislation, ensuring that references to sections related to the national disability insurance scheme checks and working with children checks are precise and functional. These corrections may seem minor, but their impact is so significant. They eliminate confusion, improve administrative processes and uphold the integrity of systems designed to protect vulnerable members of our community. By addressing these errors we demonstrate our commitment to vigilance and attention to detail in our legislative work.

Our bill also rectifies an unintentional exclusion that could affect out-of-home care workers. Under the amendment a person can only be excluded from working in the sector if the suitability panel finds both that they engaged in conduct and that they pose an unacceptable risk to children. This change restores consistency to exclusion decisions and ensures that workers are not unfairly penalised. For parents, care workers and the broader community this reform helps balance fairness with the crucial need to protect children, ensuring that only those who genuinely pose a risk are prevented from working in the sector. As the experts have pointed out, balance is key. It is key to maintaining an effective and ethical system.

The bill also repeals an obsolete regulation-making power in the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 concerning municipal areas where police officers are not required to serve civil process. This provision is no longer relevant as police officers no longer perform this function. By removing outdated regulations we simplify the legislative framework and ensure that it remains focused on current practices.

This Allan Labor government has taken sweeping steps to make sure our policing and judicial institutions have the necessary resources and power to keep our community safe. From Mildura to Mulgrave, Bendigo to Brighton, Shepparton to Springvale, that is exactly what we are achieving. This bill is another step on our path to a more efficient justice system and a safer Victoria for all Victorians. I know this will help further reassure my constituents in Mulgrave that they have a government looking out for them and their families, their property and their community. Only Labor governments are prepared to fully fund and support the services that provide that reassurance and tackle issues Victoria faces in justice. From the bill being considered today to the landmark tough bail law amendments passed earlier this year, it is pretty clear which side of this Parliament is all talk on crime and which side is prepared to take action and get the job done.

When I am speaking to friends, colleagues and constituents in my electorate, I get the overwhelming impression that the efficiency, fairness and good working order of our justice system is a top priority. When I have shared our priorities in this space, particularly the important work and extensive consultation we have done on this bill, the responses have been excellent. From new parents ensuring that there is a strong law and order regime in the areas they are raising their children in to elderly couples wanting and expecting to feel safe when they are doing the weekly groceries, Mulgrave residents appreciate the changes we are making to justice in Victoria and understand our plan for policing and for law and order in our communities and in our state more broadly. They know and agree that our tough-on-crime approach is the right one for Victoria in 2025. The introduction, consideration and passage of this bill is a simple, elegant and significant next step in our journey to deliver on our priorities, further reducing crime and delivering safer communities under the Allan Labor government.

By supporting this bill we take concrete steps to enhance trust in our legal system. We protect honest professionals, simplify court processes and uphold the integrity of worker screening and social services regulations. We enable careful implementation of transformative reforms and modernise Magistrates’ Court operations. This bill in front of us today represents progress in our judicial system. For the people of Mulgrave these reforms mean a more efficient, fair and accessible justice system that better serves our community’s needs. I commend this bill to the house.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (16:40): I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. I will not address matters concerning trustees and the other miscellaneous changes. I would rather focus my comments tonight on the de novo appeals part of the bill and what that says about the performance of the Allan Labor government. De novo appeal abolition from the Magistrates’ Court to the County Court is something I have always supported. It makes sense; it streamlines processes and it avoids subjecting witnesses and other participants in the trial process to a second hearing. But it goes beyond just some of the obvious efficiencies like that. De novo appeal abolition in place of a direct appeal to the County Court means that you impose what I would call a benign discipline on the judicial process. It means that practitioners appearing in the Magistrates’ Court will all understand that they have to bring their absolute A-game – they cannot keep aces up their sleeve for appeal; they have to bring it and leave everything on the field for the trial in the Magistrates’ Court, knowing that it would be assessed on the materials in the County Court. That makes sense.

The question is: why are we seeing a bill, which we are not opposing, that will delay for the third time such an obvious reform? It is clear that there are a couple of reasons for that. Obviously there is a level of incompetence by the government. It must be said and cannot be denied that a government that has had since 2019 to put in place the systems to accommodate this reform has not been able to do so. It was scheduled to commence in 2021, delayed to 2023 and delayed to 2025 and has now been delayed to 2028. Goodness knows whether we will see another bill at some point which will delay this further. The problem with all of this, apart from the obvious incompetence that surrounds it, is that it highlights the pressures that our justice system is increasingly facing, and there are a number of reasons for that. Not only do we have population growth, which itself is imposing obvious pressures on the justice system, but we have the financially straitened circumstances of the state budget – due to the mismanagement of the Labor government, it must be said. But there is also a structural problem in the way our justice system is being mismanaged.

When you look at the report on government services and in particular the ROGS data for 2025, it points out a number of things about how Victoria’s justice system in the criminal jurisdiction compares to other jurisdictions. There are two key data points that I do want to alert the house to. When it comes to the number of judicial officers in the criminal jurisdiction per case finalisation, Victoria ranks the highest out of all the jurisdictions. When it comes to recurrent net expenditure per case finalisation in Victoria, in the Magistrates’ Court we are the highest spending for each case processed. You have to ask yourself why we have got the most judicial officers per case finalisation and it is costing us more than any other jurisdiction to process cases, yet we have got a government faced with an obvious reform it has spruiked as early as 2019 and which has long held support, certainly in the legal community, delaying yet again a measure which can ameliorate some of those mounting pressures on the justice system.

It is a very serious set of numbers in the ROGS data, which demonstrate that Victoria’s judicial system is falling behind. That is not to say that the officers are not doing their best and that those who work in the justice system, in particular in our courts, are not working as hard as they can. Responsibility, rather, lies at the feet of the Allan Labor government for why that data continues to deteriorate, with no sign that it is actually going to improve anytime soon.

So if we look at the ROGS data, it is not great. It shows that our justice system is under mounting pressure. Then you go to the budget. Recent budgets have shown gradual but increasing cuts in the justice portfolio and the court services. As the Shadow Attorney-General and the member for Kew, among other speakers, have pointed out, we have got a cut this year of $19 million to our courts – from $832 million to $813 million – and that is slated to increase to the point where, in 2027–28, it will go to $58 million. Again, who knows what the size of that cut will be by that time, given where Victoria’s gross debt is headed, with no sign that that debt trajectory is going to be moderated anytime soon. We will see next week, but there is no indication that this government has that in hand. In fact it is getting worse.

We have seen a government that has been cutting. Whether it is youth justice custodial services, prisoner supervision and support, youth engagement, crime prevention – all of these programs have been cut. Yet the government is pretending that it can turn a blind eye to the need for obvious reforms like this one, which will just help ease the burden on the system we face. As for what the government does in the face of that, it is anyone’s guess. What we have is a situation where the government is claiming that its bail changes – I will not say reforms – will see more offenders who are facing trial being on remand. We will see whether that actually is the net effect of the changes the government has passed through the Parliament in recent weeks.

I make these points. As I said, the government has been cutting vital services in that area, but it cannot expect to deal with the increasing demand that will come from those changes – if they are to materialise – on top of the measures and pressures I identified before, and have the system operate without heaving under that mounting pressure. So we have got this problem. We have got a government that is cutting – cutting because it has mismanaged the state’s finances to the extent that it has – but also a system which is under what I would call increasing pressures through population growth and the like, which mean you have to introduce whatever reforms you can to ease those burdens.

One of the problems that I have identified and others have identified in recent years is with the net effect of these cuts, particularly in what I call the areas that are not as exposed to public attention in our justice system: the parole officers, the post-sentencing corrections officers, those officers who deal with people on bail and all of the community-based organisations that liaise with people, often kids, on bail who are awaiting trial. The problem we have got is that increasingly case loads are becoming unmanageable. As members of the CPSU who work in the corrections space have said when they have blown the whistle on these problems, how can you expect to keep the community safe, as a government, when those people working in those areas of justice – parole supervision, bail supervision, post-sentencing supervision – have case loads that have gone from, say, 20 in some cases to around 50 in other cases? How can you expect those corrections officers to be able to safely monitor the movements of people on bail and on parole? What you have got is a combination of pressure points, which means that the government cannot meet the challenges that its own mismanaged budget situation has created, but ultimately, and most importantly, the government cannot keep our community safe.

So the question has to be asked: in the face of all that, how can the government, with a straight face, come into this Parliament and say that yet again they have to delay what I would call low-hanging-fruit reform? This should be easy. It is beneficial for just about every participant I can think of in the trial process – from witnesses to defendants to practitioners and to magistrates and their staff, not to mention the equivalent counterpart staff in the County Court as well. It is an obviously low-hanging piece of reform, and yet those opposite glibly, blithely say to this Parliament, and through us the Victorian people, ‘We haven’t prepared the system for this reform,’ having announced it some six years ago, ‘We don’t have the money for it, obviously, and by the way, we’ll throw in’ – that universal excuse that we are accustomed now to hearing from the government – ‘COVID and the pandemic lockdowns.’ They have somehow been invoked to excuse what is clearly an indefensible failure of the government to proceed with justice reform.

We on this side of the house will not stand in the way of this bill, but I do think the government stands condemned. It stands condemned for not getting basic reforms right but also, behind the reforms, for mismanaging those constituent elements of the justice system that mean ultimately that it cannot keep the Victorian people safe. Next week we have Jaclyn Symes in the other place delivering her first budget. Let us hope that the new Treasurer can deliver some relief and some sign of optimism that they have heard the lesson.

Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD (Broadmeadows) (16:50): I rise to support the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. The bill is the kind of legislation that makes our justice system better every day. It makes necessary, practical and targeted amendments across a range of legal and justice frameworks. These amendments ensure our laws remain relevant, efficient and fair. The amendments contained in the bill may seem technical, but they speak directly to our government’s commitment to a legal system that is responsive, modern and capable of meeting the needs of Victorians. The bill makes amendments to several acts, including the Crimes Act 1958, the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the Sentencing Act 1991, the Worker Screening Act 2020, the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 and the Social Services Regulation Act 2021.

One of the key reforms in this bill is to section 180 of the Crimes Act 1958, which deals with the offence of secret commissions by trustees. The current law is too broad and could wrongly apply to people who have not done anything dishonest or corrupt. The amendment will fix that. It will make it a criminal offence only if someone deliberately acts dishonestly or corruptly. That is an important step to ensure that our criminal laws are targeted and consistent with modern principles of justice. We want to criminalise what is truly wrong, and this amendment does just that.

The bill also includes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991 that will streamline administrative processes in the Magistrates’ Court. These changes will allow the court to deal with certain procedural matters more efficiently, freeing up judicial resources and reducing delays. For example, the amendments will make it easier for the court to vary or revoke certain sentencing orders without requiring a full rehearing. This will reduce the amount of trauma for all involved.

Also, the court will be able to expand the electronic case management system to automate various high-volume administrative functions for criminal proceedings, including the filing of applications and the filing and forwarding of documents. These amendments are needed to remove outdated requirements that prevent the court from using the case management system to carry out administrative functions for criminal proceedings more efficiently. For example, there are some provisions that require certain applications or documents to be filed with the registrar or forwarded by the registrar and that require applications for a summons or arrest warrant to be made in person or by post. In this electronic day and age, being able to utilise the available technology to improve processes is highly valuable. Anyone who has worked in or interacted with the courts knows how precious time is and how even minor administrative issues can cause major delays. These amendments are a small change with a big impact. They reflect what people working in the system have been asking for: more flexibility, less red tape and a focus on resolving matters promptly and fairly.

One of the things I hear time and time again from my constituents is how frustrating and intimidating the legal system can be. What this bill does is chip away at those barriers. Other reforms worth highlighting are the technical amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020. This legislation plays a vital role in protecting vulnerable Victorians, particularly children and people with disabilities, from harm. The amendments in this bill will clarify and streamline aspects of the worker screening process, helping to ensure that those who pose a risk are kept out of sensitive roles while allowing safe, suitable workers to engage in critical services without unnecessary delay. As the member for Greenvale was saying earlier, it is really important to keep vulnerable people safe. We absolutely need worker screening, but you do not want to burden not-for-profit systems in ways that are not actually helpful in keeping people safe, so I think these are really important amendments. As we continue to professionalise and regulate our social services sector it is crucial that the laws supporting that sector are up to date, clear and effective. These amendments do just that.

The bill also repeals an outdated regulation-making power in the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. Removing unnecessary or outdated provisions is part of keeping our legislation modern and coherent. It shows that the Allan Labor government is paying attention and that we are committed to best practice in legislative drafting.

A further change in this bill is to the Social Services Regulation Act 2021. Specifically the bill improves how deemed exclusion decisions are handled. These are decisions where a person is excluded from a role or profession due to serious past misconduct. The amendments will ensure that such decisions are managed consistently and with proper safeguards. I want to take a moment to thank the many stakeholders who have contributed to the development of this legislation – court staff, legal professionals, community advocates, justice agencies and departmental officials. Good law reform happens through listening, through consultation and through a deep respect for the people and communities our laws are meant to serve. I am reminded of a conversation I had with a young woman in my electorate who had been involved in the court system, trying to get a fair outcome in a family law matter. She told me how even the smallest delays made her feel powerless and how every postponed hearing and every confusing procedural step added to her stress. What she wanted most, she said, was to feel like the system saw her and worked for her, and that is what this bill is ultimately about. It is about making the system work for her and for everyone like her.

Another significant change in this bill is the postponement of the commencement of the summary appeals reforms under the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019. These reforms are important. They aim to streamline appeal processes and improve justice outcomes. The bill extends the forced commencement date of summary appeal reforms in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 for three years to 1 July 2028, allowing additional time for implementation and planning and for affected justice agencies to prepare for the commencement of these significant changes to criminal procedures. In 2019 Parliament passed laws to modernise Victoria’s summary criminal appeals system. These laws, currently set to commence on 5 July 2025, will abolish summary appeals of criminal cases to the County Court and replace them with new processes aimed at enhancing efficiency and reducing trauma for witnesses and victims by no longer requiring them to reattend court and give evidence a second time on appeal. We know how harmful it can be for people to tell their traumatic stories over and over again, and this process will really help reduce that.

Since the criminal appeals act passed, Parliament has passed several other pieces of legislation which have made or will make significant changes to other aspects of criminal procedure. The Labor government recognises that significant time and resources will be required to implement the critical changes to the justice system, and further delays to the commencement of the summary appeals reforms are needed to ensure that implementation of all reform activities can be prioritised and delivered in a staged manner to minimise disruptions to the court system. The postponement allows time for justice agencies, including Victoria Legal Aid and the courts, to be fully prepared. It is about ensuring that when we make changes we do so with care, with planning and with the goal of better outcomes. I spoke recently with a local legal practitioner who told me how valuable this deferral is. He said, ‘These reforms are necessary and welcome, but they are complex. Getting the systems in place, training staff, adjusting procedures, updating templates takes time. This deferral gives us the breathing space we need to do it properly without risking justice for the people we serve.’ This bill supports the courts. It improves procedures. It protects the vulnerable. It reflects a government that is committed to good governance and to delivering for all Victorians.

The Allan Labor government has a proud record of strengthening our justice system. The recent changes to the Youth Justice Act 2024 introduced more options for restorative justice and for rehabilitation. The addition of the sentencing principle of impact on victims will allow youth offenders to hear directly from the victims about the harm they have caused. We have seen how powerfully this can affect all involved, and seeing the impacts of their crimes can absolutely help to turn lives around. Restorative justice both helps the victims heal and gives offenders insight into the impact their offending has as well as providing an opportunity to restore any harm and an important chance for victims to feel heard.

I will quote from a restorative justice case study published by the Queensland Department of Justice about a 14-year-old boy, Tyrone, which is not his real name. One victim stated that it put her at ease being able to speak with Tyrone. Another victim provided positive feedback to Tyrone on his ability to engage in the conferencing process. They also commented on the level of respect in the room. All participants commended Tyrone on owning up to his actions and his behaviour during offending. The success of this case was enhanced at the conference. Tyrone completed the voluntary work and the two written apology letters within one week of the conference.

Restorative justice conferencing should not be considered a soft option for young offenders. Facing up to what they have done and to the people they have harmed can be a confronting experience. The restorative justice process could also assist in helping to reconcile marginalised young offenders with their communities while minimising stigmatisation and social inclusion. Research indicates that victims often provide feedback that they feel better for having met with the offender and that the restorative justice process helps to reduce their level of fear and improve their perceptions of safety in their community. The rehabilitation principle includes a holistic focus to ensure positive outcomes, including family relationships, living arrangements, wellbeing, education, training and work, and I commend the bill to the house.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (17:00): I too rise to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. As the member for Caulfield pointed out earlier in the debate, when a bill around justice is introduced some of us become hopeful or could be forgiven for thinking that the Labor government are going to remove their collective heads from the sand and admit that there is a problem with justice and law and order in this state and make Victorians feel safe in their homes again, but no. That could be bringing forward the implementation of the bail laws or reinstating them to what they were. It could be outlawing machetes today. There are no provisions for police to issue AVOs on the spot for family violence offenders. Instead they are delaying, and as the member for Caulfield pointed out, justice delayed is justice denied.

As always, I do like to bring firsthand accounts from my community into this place, because ultimately that is my job. It is all of our jobs in this place as local representatives. Justice, law and order and the court process are extremely delayed, and we are having budget cuts year after year after year – $19 million extending to over $50 million in the 2027–28 year. I have had meetings in my office in Mildura over the break with community representatives from Red Cliffs and Merbein, which are the smaller towns on the periphery of Mildura that are deemed service towns. I think if you spoke to any of these community members they would say that they are anything but; they are thriving little towns. I was actually out at Red Cliffs on Sunday. I know there are members of the Clerk’s team from Red Cliffs. It is a beautiful little town, but there are issues. In Merbein it is the same thing. It is where you can go for the Great Australian Vanilla Slice Triumph these days.

However, in towns of this size and magnitude and in the Mildura local government area the crime stats are continuing to rise and rise and rise, and we are not seeing that data go down. I know you can make data sing any way you want it to. But the community are feeling it and they are really concerned, so they come to me to express those concerns. Their concerns are that these towns have police stations that are not manned – and they are not. They should have 24-hour police stations, and they do not have capacity to, because obviously we know that the Victorian police force is so under-resourced at the moment. Again, you can talk about how many recruits are coming into the force, but without supervising officers and without retaining those supervising officers how is that going to play out?

The member for Morwell also spoke about the presence of police and PSOs. We do not have PSOs in the Mildura electorate anywhere, but this seems like a solution that needs to be explored as a matter of urgency. This was one of those solutions that these community members brought to me. Why can’t we just get PSOs? They understand that it is no fault of the Mildura police. The local constabulary do a great job, but it is like playing whack-a-mole. If there are people rostered on at Red Cliffs and Merbein they are almost immediately called out to other jobs, usually in the Mildura CBD, whether it is in the mall or in the plaza. We have seen on social media, unfortunately, that they are hotspots. It is an awful situation, and they came to me to express those concerns and they came with solutions as well. It is something I will be taking up with the Minister for Police – to get some PSOs or even turn vacant shops into cop shops branded with the Victoria Police branding to offer some sort of police presence.

There are planning issues that also contribute to the social issues, particularly in Red Cliffs. That includes worker accommodation for Pacific Australia labour mobility scheme workers, who we need, as it is a vital program for agricultural centres like Red Cliffs. There is an application at the moment for 109 beds in the middle of Red Cliffs, where there has already been criminal activity. We have seen historically that there have already been a lot of issues, and there are noise complaints that would keep the police busy, but they are not there. Again, community safety is paramount. It is one of the fundamentals that any state government should be providing to their community.

This bill is largely administrative and technical in nature, but I was listening to the member for Morwell and other members on this side of the house referring to the secret commissions for trustees in return for substituted appointments. This means that we do not want that corrupt behaviour with trustees – trustees being appointed for the wrong reasons and being compensated et cetera – which came out of the 1905 Royal Commission on the Butter Industry. We know that corruption in the butter industry was spread thin. The member for Morwell, as I am sure a lot of us on this side of the house like to do when something is that historical, from1905, went to elder statesmen like the member for Murray Plains and the member for Rowville to get firsthand accounts on what actually happened in this royal commission. There was corruption spread throughout the butter industry. I was fascinated with this part of the bill report. It was a very corrupt industry, exporting sub-quality cream for butter. I am not sure if the member for Murray Plains still makes his own butter, but I imagine, given where he resides now, that there are still a few butter factories around in the dairy industry there, which is hurting at the moment. The lack of water, the land tax bills and the proposed emergency services and volunteers tax are just making it harder for farmers, like dairy farmers, broadacre farmers and irrigated horticulture food producers. It is just making life harder and harder. But that is where this piece of legislation originated, and it was great to have some firsthand accounts from that royal commission.

Peter Walsh: Labor’s taking a long time to bring it in.

Jade BENHAM: They are taking a long time to bring it in and to amend it correctly. It has taken a long time, but we know that Labor work in dog years. That brings me, obviously, to the delaying of the commencement of abolishing the de novo criminal appeals. This was a bill that was introduced in 2019 to propose the abolition of the current system of de novo criminal appeals from the Magistrates’ Court. This is something that we could be amending today to help the efficiency of the Magistrates’ Court, because we know it is not just bail laws that are letting the community down and having Victorians feel unsafe. It is also that court system, because it does not work efficiently. We could be changing this today, six years on from when it was first introduced. However, it was delayed the first time because of COVID, and it was delayed again because of the pandemic. When do we get to a point where we cannot use COVID and the pandemic as an excuse to delay things? It is not the pandemic; it is not COVID anymore. We need to stop blaming COVID. It is absolutely laughable that this should be delayed again. It should have been pushed through as quickly as possible. We know that the delay in this is because Labor cannot manage money. They cannot manage the justice system, they cannot manage the Victorian police force, they cannot manage community safety and they cannot manage themselves to bring this in. By the time this is introduced, now on 1 July 2028, it will be seven years on from when it was first introduced. Come on – it is laughable. We know that we cannot trust Labor to manage money and manage the justice system. Victorians cannot trust Labor to keep them safe in their own homes.

We do not oppose this bill, but obviously there are concerns with these sorts of delays. I thank the Shadow Attorney-General for his thorough work on this omnibus and miscellaneous bill, and I thank the member for Murray Plains and the member for Rowville for their valuable insights into the historical workings and where this all came from. It is very valuable. History always is.

Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (17:10): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. I might just follow on from the member from Mildura for a moment. I do appreciate the conversation about butter and the butter act, but I felt she was a little way off when she was thanking the Shadow Attorney-General for his contribution and work on this bill. Being a government bill, I thought it was introduced by the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General’s team and department, and I thank them for the work that they have undertaken on bringing forward this piece of legislation. The critique, as it was, is always appreciated from those opposite, but I did not think there was a lot of thanks for the effort and the work that were put in.

The bill itself goes to amending the Crimes Act 1958 and narrows the trustee secret commission offence so that it only prohibits dishonest or otherwise corrupt conduct. I will come back a little bit later in my contribution to that. It amends the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019. That is about extending the default commencement date of summary appeal reforms by three years, all the way out to 1 July 2028, to allow for additional time for implementation and planning. This bill, as it is a miscellaneous bill, also goes on to a number of other acts that it seeks to amend: the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991. That allows the Magistrates’ Court to achieve efficiencies in their case management. We know for the Magistrates’ Court that every efficiency we can find in that space is important because of the volume of work that they do on behalf of Victorians. This bill also seeks to correct the section reference errors in the Worker Screening Act 2020. I will come back to those a little bit later and go into some of the details. In the main, and as this is not a particularly controversial bill and it is supported so far by all sides of the house, that goes really to some of the reference points that need to be cleared up in the bill so that we are getting the right reference points. Second last, it amends the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 to rectify an unintended deemed exclusion for out-of-home care workers. Finally, it amends the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 to remove an obsolete regulation-making power to prescribe areas where police officers are not required to serve civil processes. As we know, Victorian police do not undertake those civil processes, so those processes should appropriately be removed and not imposed upon the Governor in Council in a way which is unnecessary.

I do want to note a number of contributions that have been made. The member for Laverton is always talking about community safety and the importance of it, including holding forums in the community that she represents. I was with her, the Minister for Police, the member for Tarneit and the member for Werribee recently at the Werribee police station, which is the largest police station outside of the CBD. It was great to hear from police directly about some of their challenges and some of those really rewarding aspects of their roles. I certainly thank them for all the efforts that they are making across the community, and I thank Acting Inspector O’Connell, who gave us some time, and all those officers who gave us some fairly frank views around what is going on in the Wyndham area. We always appreciate that frankness of advice but also advice about how the community can remain safer as well. One of the interesting things that the police said on that occasion was that it is important to lock your doors and lock your car – you know, that old classic. That was one of the things that they recommended Victorians undertake and do to make sure that they are not victims of crime. I thought it was really important just to reiterate that that is their best advice for people across the community as a starting point to prevent crime.

I want to say a few things about community safety in general. Many of us on this side of the house have been engaging with the Premier and the police minister and others within government on what is happening in our communities and beyond, addressing those real issues around community safety and how people feel in the community at the moment. This government has been working very hard on making sure that people do feel safer and people are safer in our community, and one of those changes has been to the bail laws. Those bail laws place community safety above every other consideration. For those people who are looking at and undertaking the processes around bail, they have increased the bail test to make sure that it is harder to pass for those people who are repeat offenders and committing the worst crimes. These changes are really about reducing the risk of someone on bail reoffending in the community. They create a new offence when people are undertaking criminal activity while on bail. Particularly they go to some of those really distressing crimes that we have across our community like non-aggravated home invasions and carjackings. It is important that we undertake that work and there are real consequences for people.

I will come back to some of those other changes, but we also know that there is the other side of the equation, which is about our earliest interventions and what we can be doing to make sure that people are engaged with their community and they themselves feel safe in the community. People are carrying edged weapons fundamentally because they are not feeling safe themselves, so how do we build up those really important cultural aspects, those community aspects that make sure people feel really close to their community and part of it? That includes making sure that we have got the facilities that we need across our community, and councils have a big role to play in that. I have concerns about one of my local councils in particular not providing those community facilities, and I hope that they start to really pick up their game on that.

In the community that I represent we have seen 144 new police dedicated. After we built the largest police station outside the CBD, in Werribee, we included extra police and extra police sometimes in some of the most important areas. There are 19 family violence specialists, because that is a really significant crime that travels across our community, and police do spend a lot of time on family violence. I particularly want to thank the police who make such an effort in that area, because it is important for a good community and a good community over time.

I also want to talk about the Point Cook police station, which is being built at the moment. It is a fantastic investment in the community. It is alongside our new SES facility that has just opened, and we know how the SES and Victoria Police work hand in hand so often, because the SES are such a support for a whole range of matters but particularly significant traffic accidents and being there to support our other emergency services workers. A big shout-out to the SES and all the crew down there. The police station in Point Cook, which is the first police station in Point Cook, is a really big deal for the community. These new stations top and tail the east and west of the electorate. The Point Cook police station is at the far eastern end of the electorate and the Werribee police station is at the far western end, meaning that we will have access to police from across the community. No-one will be more than 5 kilometres from a police station. I cannot wait to see that police station really take shape. There was involvement of police in the design and making sure that that police station is really set out for the community need. I look forward to that opening and I thank the police minister, who dug the first piece of soil out of the ground. The sod was turned, which was wonderful to see, but I just cannot wait for that to be opened.

Banning machetes – I know there has been some contention by those opposite, ‘Why not today and why not quicker?’ It is a very quick process, a process taken on advice from Victoria Police, but there are some complications relating to some farm workers in the community I represent, who do an amazing job in terms of their farm tools, their edged blades, to cut cauliflower and broccoli. They give out those farm tools at the start of the day and they collect them at the end of the day. They sanitise them. They do all the work that you want responsible farmers to do, because you do not want knives being ground up into the fields. They do a lot of that work, but we have got some more work to do with that community. We have got some more work to do with the Sikh community as well. If I think about the effort that we are making here, it is three times as fast as what they did in the UK, so I look forward on 1 September to that opening up. I do thank the Auditor-General for the important work on this bill and many other bills, and I look forward to its speedy passage through the house.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (17:20): It is a pleasure to rise on this Tuesday afternoon and make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. Others before me on this side have gone over the changes that the bill makes, and as has been stated, they are relatively minor changes, but there is of course that one exception, that being the change to the Magistrates’ Court criminal appeal processes and to a larger degree the changes to the Crimes Act 1958 to clarify the trustee secret commission offence in response to recent court decisions. In relation to the latter, the bill narrows the offence by requiring the relevant conduct to have been done with a dishonest or otherwise corrupt purpose – you can certainly understand the nature and the reasoning and the rationale behind that – and also removing the requirement for consent of beneficiaries or the Supreme Court.

I want to make a few comments on the delaying of the commencement of abolishing the de novo criminal appeals. There is a bit of history to this that I would like to touch on.

Brad Rowswell: Tell us.

Tim BULL: In 2019, member for Sandringham, the government proposed to abolish the current system of de novo criminal appeals from the Magistrates’ Court. The reasons for this have been outlined, but the point I wish to make is that these changes that were made in 2019 were scheduled to come into force no later than 3 July 2021. The default commencement date was pushed out to 1 January 2023, and that was when another bill came into this chamber, the Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Bill 2021. The reason put forward was that the court system required more time to prepare for the change as well as the impact of the COVID pandemic on the justice system. That sounds like a fair enough piece of commentary in 2021, because there was a little bit going on at that time. The default commencement date was then postponed to 5 July 2025, and that was done courtesy of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Trial by Judge Alone and Other Matters) Bill 2022. So in 2022 we sat here, it was an election year, and we agreed that we were going to put it out to 2025 and give ourselves three years to get this job done.

Brad Rowswell interjected.

Tim BULL: Despite this being post COVID, member for Sandringham, the government again blamed the pandemic and the need for additional resources to be provided to the courts. In that commentary at the time, the minister said:

… the ongoing effects of COVID-19 on the court system and the significant time and resources required to implement the reforms …

were key factors. The keywords there are ‘resources required to implement the reforms’. But here we are again today, and this bill that is before us now seeks to again delay the timeframe of implementation – until 1 July 2028. So we started all that time ago, and now we have pushed it out to beyond another term of this government. After almost two full terms of this government we have not had it implemented.

The government claimed that the impact of other criminal law reforms and resourcing requirements – again that term pops up, ‘resourcing requirements’ – were driving the decisions and noted:

In light of the significant time and resources required to implement the summary appeal reforms on top of these other reforms, it is necessary to further delay …

the commencement date of these changes.

Brad Rowswell interjected.

Tim BULL: Yes, seriously. So in that commentary over the three periods where we have delayed the commencement date, we have noted that the rationale is that the resources required are not there. But here we are today, and at least, thank goodness, we have stopped blaming COVID. It is incredible that it is almost two full terms away and this has not been implemented.

I want to make a very valid point that was raised by the member for Malvern in his contribution – that is, that each time this has been delayed we have had references to resources being required, but we have a government that has currently cut funding to Court Services Victoria. How can we blame a lack of the resources required to implement these changes and then cut funding to Court Services Victoria? This is the fund that, obviously, funds Victoria’s courts and tribunals. What those reductions have been – and these are the government’s own budget papers, not our commentary – are a $19.1 million cut in this current year, 2024–25, and, cop this, in the out years a $58 million cut in the 2027–28 year. That is in the budget papers. But we have a bill before us now and we are saying this has not been implemented because we do not have the resources required to do it. That is hypocrisy at a level that you simply cannot imagine. You cannot cite resource requirements while you cut a budget so severely. This government cannot have it both ways.

Whilst the reforms to abolish these criminal appeals were designed to speed up processes in the County Court – that was the commentary we were given – and they were also going to relieve the burden on witnesses, the continual delay to these reforms by Labor means one of two things. Either these benefits have been grossly overstated or Labor’s funding cuts to the Victorian courts have been given a higher priority than putting these reforms in place. If you are going to say that it is resourcing and then make cuts, clearly you are giving more credence to the bottom line than you are to actually implementing these changes. I will conclude my comments on the bill with that – by highlighting the extraordinary level of hypocrisy that is coming from the other side. You cannot have it both ways. If resourcing is the issue, do not cut the budget to our court system.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (17:28): I rise to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. We know that all Victorians deserve the right to feel safe in their homes, their communities, their streets, their neighbourhoods and their workplaces. That is why, along with ensuring that we provide Victoria Police with the powers, tools and resources they need to keep us safe, we also need to continue investing to address the root causes of crime through measures that support housing, employment, skills, education, health, wellbeing and socio-economic outcomes for all of our communities. It is also why fundamental to maintaining a fair, safe, accessible and resilient justice system for all is ensuring we continue to reform and modernise our criminal justice, courts and social services sectors to suit contemporary settings and community expectations. That is what this bill is all about.

The justice legislation amendment bill implements these critical forms to achieve administrative efficiencies and correct technical errors across numerous pieces of legislation. The bill will, one, amend the Crimes Act 1958 to narrow the trustee secret commission offence so that it only prohibits dishonest or otherwise corrupt conduct, amend the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 to extend the default commencement date of summary appeal reforms by three years to 1 July 2028 to allow additional time for implementing and planning, and amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991 to allow the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to achieve efficiencies following investment in its case management system. It will correct the section references errors in the Worker Screening Act 2020. The bill will amend the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 to rectify an unintended deemed exclusion for out-of-home care workers and, finally, the bill will amend the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 to remove an obsolete regulation-making power to prescribe areas where police officers are not required to serve civil processes. When combined, these reforms will strengthen and modernise a number of Victorian acts to support the courts and improve the operation of Victoria’s justice and legal systems.

In terms of the amendments to the Crimes Act 1958, the bill will replace section 180 of the act relating to secret commission of trustees. The changes break the old offence down into five separate offences, making them clear and narrow to only capture conduct done with dishonest or otherwise corrupt purposes. The changes will also remove the requirement to obtain assent of trust beneficiaries or the Supreme Court for the proposed conduct, which will streamline routine transactions. These reforms to the Crimes Act are important, as recent Supreme Court decisions demonstrated that the current offences may capture routine good-faith and standard transactions associated with the replacement of a trustee.

In terms of the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991, the changes will allow the court to expand its case management system to automate various high-volume administrative functions in criminal proceedings, such as filing applications and documents. The amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020 will make technical amendments to correct section references and errors relating to processes or required definitions for working with children checks and national disability insurance scheme checks. Amendment to the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 proposes to repeal section 330G(2)(a) of the act to ensure out-of-home care cannot be subject to an exclusion decision under the worker and carer exclusion scheme unless they have both engaged in misconduct and pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children and young people. This approach addresses the risk of unjust outcomes for carers while preserving protections for children in out-of-home care.

The amendments to the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 are changes technical in nature, and the amendments to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 will postpone the commencement of summary appeal reforms contained in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 from 5 July 2025 to 1 July 2028. Commencing the reforms in July 2025 would cause significant disruption to the court system, as the legal sector and courts are not yet prepared to implement these changes. This will ensure that the reforms do not impact court efficiency and the implementation of other recent significant reforms, including bail, youth justice and committal processes, which also promote victim interests.

A recent victim-centric reform includes strengthening the test for cross-examination and committal proceedings. This reform will significantly reduce the amount of pre-trial evidence given by victims and witnesses. The recent changes to the Youth Justice Act 2024 introduced more options for restorative justice, allowing offenders to hear directly from victims about the harm they have caused, to help victims heal and give offenders insight into the impact of their offending. The new bail laws as well, for example, will put community safety front and centre of every bail decision. We are cracking down specifically on the crimes that are on an upward trend while people are out on bail – that is, aggravated burglary, home invasion, armed robbery and carjacking. These crimes have a real and serious impact on victims, and it is completely unacceptable that alleged offenders were being bailed time and again previously for these crimes. The benefits of these reforms will not be achieved if courts are not prepared for their implementation. That is why deferring the commencement of these reforms will allow additional time for them to be implemented.

In terms of court funding, the opposition has had quite a lot to say as part of this debate, but going back through the budget figures, the facts speak for themselves. We are continuing to invest more in the courts and legal systems than previously was the case. The 2024–25 budget provided a total investment of $164.9 million to support the ongoing operation of therapeutic court programs, court holding cells, improving court access and undertaking repairs and maintenance of court buildings. This investment builds on the approximately $435 million in funding over the previous four budgets, which has helped promote the swifter resolution of court cases, with backlogs reducing by 14 per cent over 2023–24 and a decrease of 30 per cent since pending matters peaked as a result of COVID in January 2022.

These reforms will build on those ongoing investments we have continued to make to support community safety: $4.5 billion for Victoria Police and 3600 new police officers recruited since 2015, making Victoria home to one of the largest sworn police forces in the nation. 180 new police officers have been recruited across Merri-bek in recent years and 21 additional dedicated family violence prevention officers across Merri-bek have also been recruited. We have finalised the new police enterprise bargaining agreement – a 4.5 per cent annual increase for officers, a 0.5 per cent increase for general duties officers and other improved standards and workplace conditions. And we heard the Minister for Police today highlighting the appointment of the new commissioner, Michael Bush, at the helm of Victoria Police. We have introduced stronger bail laws that place community safety first and cracked down on those dangerous and violent repeat offenders, and of course today there was the huge announcement of $727 million through this year’s budget to improve and expand our corrections and justice system’s capacity and to keep corrections staff safe. It is also about the other reforms: tobacco licensing, illicit tobacco trade crackdowns, organised crime reforms and crackdowns, outlaw motorcycle gangs, unexplained wealth and our crackdown on dangerous weapons such as machetes. Combined with the bill today, each of these reforms will help keep people across Victoria and my community of Merri-bek safe. Victoria Police officers across the Fawkner and Brunswick police stations do an outstanding job in that regard.

On Thursday 3 April local police held a neighbourhood policing forum at the Coburg town hall that was attended by over 100 local residents, with locals receiving a really comprehensive update on key safety and crime trends over the last 12 months and beyond, including overall offences recorded being at 13,700 in 2020, up to 15,300 in 2024. The top five recorded crimes across Merri-bek were reported as stealing from a motor vehicle, general and other thefts, criminal damage, breaches of family violence orders and motor vehicle theft. Family violence, sadly, continues to remain one of the biggest contributors to police call-outs: 2004 incidents were reported in 2020 but that reduced to 1839 incidents in 2024. Breaches of family violence orders and various types of family violence incidents were highlighted: verbal abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, economic abuse, sexual abuse and other abuse. The three most common drug offences recorded included cannabis, methamphetamine and prescription drugs. Youth offending has gone down across Merri-bek, with the incident rate for young offenders in 2020 being at 25 per cent and as of last year, 21 per cent. Road safety continues to remain a top issue across our community. The community safety survey that was highlighted on the night identified a number of concerns from 382 respondents, including safety in public places, road safety, drugs and alcohol, safety of property and possessions, serious organised crime, prejudice or hate-motivated crime, sexual harassment or offending, family violence and cybercrime and online safety.

It is in that regard I particularly commend the work of local police in improving safety in public places through local area commander Inspector Andrew Markakis and his team, which launched Operation Priority in central Coburg, which is focused on central Coburg, Sydney Road and Victoria Street Mall. It is an operation that is very much about supporting local crime prevention and community safety outcomes for traders, families and shoppers through increased police visibility, presence, patrols and proactive community outreach. Operation Priority is directly helping to respond to local community safety and antisocial behaviour concerns that have increasingly been raised with me and many others over previous months.

Local Victoria Police officers were recently wonderfully recognised for their work at Pascoe Vale Rotary Club’s 14th ‘Monty’ Montgomery community policing awards: Sergeant Andrew Thomson, who took out the lead award for his fantastic work with youth; Acting Sergeant Adam Biderman; Sergeant Geoffrey Kwist; and Acting Senior Sergeant Kristie Givney. There were also commendations to Superintendent Wayne Cheeseman, Superintendent Lorna McCarthy and many others.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (17:38): I rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, and it is indeed miscellaneous. There is not terribly much to it, and it is fairly interesting what they have included in this. Despite the number of tidy-ups and minor amendments that are being made – and the opposition are not opposing this – I want to focus most of my contribution on the abolition of de novo criminal appeals. We have an extraordinary situation with the delays in bringing this forward.

Despite criticism from the Law Institute of Victoria and the Victorian Bar Council, who opposed this reform with concerns around miscarriages of justice, this reform passed this place in 2019, with the regular fanfare and cheering from ministers as well as the backbench. We have a current system in place where if you are accused in the Magistrates’ Court, you can seek a right of appeal, as of right, to have that appeal heard virtually as new – de novo – in the County Court. It is heard again in its entirety. The prosecution has to re-prove its case, all of the evidence needs to be put back before the court, all of the witnesses have to be recalled – it is a complete retrial. Witnesses have given their evidence once, and then have to give it again. You can imagine the level of trauma that could be associated with that. It could be the case that maybe the lawyers in a case have not gone the full hog and put everything on the table because they know that if they have not quite got it right, if they have missed something, they can appeal and they can bring that evidence forward. This is a change that was put forward in 2019 to be implemented no later than 3 July 2021.

Look at where we are now in 2025. We are six years on from when this was first raised – 5½ years from when this was first raised. It had to be implemented no later than 3 July 2021. It was delayed again through another bill until 1 January 2023. That was giving it an extra 18 months, and then a few things happened. We had a bit of COVID. Different things happened along the way, and the most recent delay has pushed that date to 5 July 2025. That is just around the corner. That is only a few weeks away, probably just under a couple of months. This is something that was brought in in 2019, put before the Parliament, voted on and agreed to go forward with, but now it is proposed to be delayed until 1 July 2028. That is seven years from the initial implementation date and nine years since it was first argued in this chamber. I find it extraordinary that it is being delayed by that period of time – seven years at least it is being delayed, and probably nine years. This is because the government have not got their act together – not at all. They are arguing that things need to be done: ‘We need some time to line the ducks up to make sure that the courts have the resources and the equipment and the systems in place.’ Give me a break. How long has it been? Seven years, and they could not get that sorted out.

I want to comment on the contribution that was made by the current Attorney-General back in October 2019. She made note of the additional resources that are required to run a complete retrial, arguing why the de novo appeal should be got rid of, and she talked about the significant impacts that a retrial would have on witnesses who were recalled and required to come back again, essentially to tell their story again in a different judicial setting. You would think that she understood the impact and the trauma that could cause – it does not allow somebody to move on and to deal with it, knowing that it is going to come up again in another couple of years. She also made comment that the de novo appeals:

… came out of the 17th century, and one would hope that things have certainly moved on and that our judicial system has certainly modernised and updated since then.

One would have hoped that since 2019, when this was put on the table, the government would have made sure these things happened, but apparently not. Apparently we are not ready. Again I will quote from the current Attorney-General back in October 2019. She noted:

A lot of the safeguards that are in place today that were not in place then means that the de novo appeal is no longer necessary and is in fact quite an extensive burden on our judicial system and on a lot of people personally.

It will be nine years, when this comes in, since she noted that this is an extensive burden on our judicial system and on people. But does she care? No, because she is the one that is now putting the delay in place for another three years. She either does not get it or does not care. Or there is a third reason, which I will come up with in a moment. She also argued that:

… this is a really beneficial development in our judicial system.

But it was not just the minister and current Attorney-General who was singing its praises. The Deputy Premier went on to commend the government for bringing the legislation forward to ensure that:

… Victoria has, to the best extent possible, not only a fair, transparent justice system but an effective justice system as well.

So he was thinking this should be done. The Deputy Premier is over there; I am sure he must be thinking that if he was in that key role, he would be doing things a bit differently. It was cheered on by the Minister for Agriculture and our current Minister for Environment. The member for Bayswater was today speaking about a new streamlined and modern appeals process. The mouth for Mordialloc – of course he was in there as well. But we know that the government is not ready. They are slashing funding everywhere. The government cannot manage money, and we are paying the price.

Hot on the heels of reports published just a couple of days ago that the state government secretly ripped $2.4 billion from state schools after delaying by three years its commitment to provide the funding required to pay for the long-promised Gonski reforms – so we know that that secretly was done – conveniently members of the government have forgotten about the slashing and burning that has taken place in court services, and you can find this in the budget papers. It is not something that we have come up with here; you can find that in the budget papers. At Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings even 12 months ago $77 million worth of cuts was confirmed, with a $19.1 million cut in 2024–25 – that is this current financial year – to be followed by a massive $58 million cut in 2027–28. There we have got an extensive cut to court services, so this means further delays. The backlog remains and grows. It means job losses. The government have not got the money to invest in court services, so what we are going to see is that this reform of repealing de novo appeals is going to be nine years down the track because the government cannot manage their money and they have made such massive changes to funding to the court services. You look at the County Court backlog – it does not get any better; at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – there are so many things that the government have done that make it harder for those working in those systems. The staff and the lawyers who work across our court services do their best, but what happens when the funding is slashed? They have got to make changes. They are under a lot more pressure. Especially when you have less staff, you cannot do the same amount of work.

It just beggars belief to hear the member for Mulgrave say that they are the government prepared to fully fund – well, she is clearly not familiar with the budget papers and how to read those, and she also made that comment about the opportunity to make sure the courts and systems are ready. I mean, give me a break. You have had since 2019 when this was first introduced into this place to get it ready, and it is not. That is a massive failure by this government.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (17:48): Ninety-three – I am just looking at the abc.net.au website for the federal election. Ninety-three seats; we need 76 for majority. Interestingly enough –

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on his feet has already veered a long way from the bill. He could at least start by talking about it in the introduction.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I thank you for your point of order. I have sat here amazed at how far and wide this debate has been today. There is no point of order.

Paul EDBROOKE: I think it is closer than the butter war. Ninety-three seats, and the federal colleagues of those opposite were spouting the same lines about managing money and all this kind of stuff. We heard that for weeks and weeks and weeks and months. And I mean, I am never satisfied, but I would have been satisfied with 76. But 93 – I think there is probably a lesson to be learned from those opposite in that, a lesson that the Australian people taught the Liberal Party and the Greens comprehensively on the 3rd, and that is that you need to know what you stand for. You need to be able to stand for something, in fact. You need to have good policy and you also need to back good legislation and good policy, regardless of what side of the chamber you are on.

I have heard some really some brilliant contributions from people on this side of the house – the member for Albert Park, the member for Pascoe Vale and the member for Mulgrave, who I can assure those opposite can read a budget very well, and she will be delivering for her community, I am sure, in the upcoming budget. We have heard some very, very well thought out contributions. What we have heard from those opposite is just a cacophony about the butter battle, the butter war, the butter industry, some widespread rubbish about butter. There was a margarine in there as well; I am not quite sure what that was about, but from those opposite I kind of stopped listening a little bit there.

I know that this bill does quite a few things. It narrows the Crimes Act 1958 trustee secret commission offence to only capture dishonest or otherwise corrupt conduct, and I think that had something to do with butter in 1905. It defers the commencement of summary appeal reforms in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019. It improves the operation of the case management system in the Magistrates’ Court. It corrects technical errors in the Worker Screening Act 2020. It rectifies an unintentional deemed exclusion for out-of-home care workers in the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 and it removes an obsolete regulation-making power from the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, which I am assured is not used today.

We have heard the condemnation of our Magistrates’ Court and of the way our police force works, and standing here as a member of the Allan government, who have recruited record numbers of police, resourced those police and are now giving them the bail laws to support them, their decision-making and their operations, I am proud to stand here to further enhance our offering to the community of Victoria. We have heard others say that this bill is an omnibus bill that does not really deliver much. Again, with the butter, I do not know what they were talking about there. But anyway, I know that the police that attended the Frankston community morning tea were very much on board with what this government is bringing to the table, and so is the community. I heard the member for Point Cook talking about a community event that he was at where the police attended, and I think my experience was much the same in Frankston. We had a lot of people interested in talking about perceptions of safety – that they may feel unsafe – but then the police were talking about actual threats and actual safety.

One of the things I will pick up on is those basics, like the member for Point Cook pointed out. When people said, ‘How can I make myself safer?’ there were some very, very obvious answers, and they were things like lock your car doors, lock your back doors and keep your windows locked, things that I think are very general. You do not need to be a spy to work those ones out, but it keeps those people away that would be looking for opportunities to steal from people.

The other thing the police imparted to people in my community was to a couple of older community members there who had seen in the news some information about home invasions, and it kind of was a trigger for me because I realised that there are people in our community that actually think that some of those home invasions are not focused and that they are random, and the police in our area said, ‘Well, that isn’t the case.’ If you want to keep safe from home invasions, the best way to do that is do not deal drugs, do not be a criminal and do not hang around with criminals, because mostly these are targeted. People do not go to that level of crime, usually, without a reason, because it is an offence, and now we know that with the bail laws the likelihood of actually getting bail after committing an offence like that is much lower. Of course that is not exclusive, and the police said that, but they said generally we can explain sometimes why these things happen. They certainly did not talk down the fact that there are trends that go up and down. They were very straightforward with that, but in those opportunities to talk to our local police and even the meeting I had the other day when I spoke about this bill and asked them what they thought about some of these changes, they were not backwards in coming forwards in what they say. They work at the coalface every day. They have to deal with some amazing community members; they have to deal with some very, very difficult community members as well, and I am proud to be standing here and giving them the resources they need to do that, and tidying up some legislation at the same time with this omnibus bill.

In Frankston we have also got the new Department of Justice and Community Safety building and a Magistrates’ Court that has only just been redeveloped. That was on the back of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Family Violence, and that has made that Magistrates’ Court much friendlier to people that have to go in there and do things that they would never have found themselves doing in their normal lives. There are things that are very uncomfortable – having to face offenders and having to have conversations that are very, very uncomfortable – and I guess it flies in the face of some of the dialogue we have seen today from those opposite about how we are going to lose jobs. That is just made-up heuristics. It is a bias that comes out of being in opposition, I think, because what we have not heard today is any data or any foundation of evidence from people opposite telling us that this is a fact and that they are basing their assumptions on evidence. Indeed most of what we have heard today were assumptions, even if they were about butter.

We have heard, as I said, some really, really good contributions from people on this side. People have shared their lived experience about working in the justice system, about operating in the justice system and about how these changes will improve the interaction of their community with police, with Magistrates’ Courts and with other checks as well. I just want to say thank you to everyone on this side of the room that did that. Yes, this bill does correct some technical errors. From time to time we have that, but it is something that must be done. It does not make it any less interesting, in my opinion. Yes, this bill is rectifying the unintentional deemed exclusion for out-of-home care workers in the Social Services Regulation Act 2021. From time to time we find that, whether it is that laws need improving, that federal laws interfere with state laws or that there is some friction there, things have to be improved. We have to adapt and have to overcome to make our system as efficient as possible, and I think that that is what this bill does. For those on this side of the chamber that recognise that, I applaud you. Well done, and thanks for your contributions. For those on the opposite side of the chamber, I feel a little bit sad that everything always has to be through that bias of ‘It must be bad because it’s the government bringing it in, and we don’t like the government. We don’t like the colour of the T-shirts they wear.’ This is a good bill, and I commend it to the house.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (17:58): I rise to make my contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. In starting off, I am disappointed in the member for Frankston. His contributions are usually a lot better than the one he just delivered. What I found really surprising was that he doubled down at the end by saying how the contributions from his side of the house had all been fantastic. I might remind the member for Frankston to look over his shoulder and to watch everyone reading the cheat sheet that was given out on this particular piece of legislation. I was tempted to raise a point of order about reading from documents, but I thought, ‘No, I’ll just let them go. Let’s just see what happens with this legislation.’ There were a lot of them reading the cheat sheet, member for Frankston, so if you think the contributions were fantastic, I think you should actually be complimenting the ministerial advisers who wrote those cheat sheets rather than the members who delivered them over that particular time.

Like some others on this side of the house when they saw a justice bill coming in, I thought this might have been something out of the Minister for Police’s bottom drawer. We heard several months ago when there was an issue about having a review of how bail was working that the police minister said, ‘We don’t need a review. I’ve got all the answers in my bottom drawer.’ If this is the best that comes out of the police minister’s bottom drawer, I am very, very disappointed on behalf of the people of Victoria. If you are someone that is living in fear of a home invasion – if you are one of the older people in our community who actually really worry at night about aggravated burglaries – this bill will not give you any comfort at all that Victoria will be safer into the future. I would urge the police minister, if you have got those answers in your bottom drawer as you say you have, get them out, dust them off and let us actually bring legislation to this house that makes a meaningful difference to the safety of the population of Victoria.

The main, centre part of this bill is just to kick down the road the implementation of one particular part – the de novo appeals between the Magistrates’ Court and the County Court. Everyone says that the wheels of justice move slowly. The implementation of these changes is actually glacial. Think about the fact that these amendments were actually introduced in 2019 and were supposed to have a date of no later than 3 July 2021 to be implemented; then there was legislation that came in to kick that 3 July 2021 down the road to 1 January 2023. They could not make that. When you press a computer to start writing a document in the Labor government I think the default words are ‘blame COVID’. It is about blaming COVID. Everything is about blaming COVID. The reason COVID is such an issue is the fact that we had a Premier and a government that made COVID a lot worse for all Victorians, effectively worse than anywhere else in Australia or anywhere else in the world, with the record lockdowns and with what they did to businesses here in Victoria. Yes, there is a lag from COVID, but it is a self-inflicted lag by the then Andrews Labor government, and it has been carried on by the Allan Labor government. It was kicked down the road to January 2023. Then we had a postponement to 5 July 2025, and now we are dealing with another postponement until July 2028. It is nearly a decade from when this legislation was first introduced to amend the de novo criminal appeals between the Magistrates’ Court and the County Court to when we might see that change implemented. I would not hold my breath. I have no doubt there will be some legislation somewhere in the future that actually delays it even further.

Some of the things that came to light out of the second-reading speech talked about these reforms:

In light of the significant time and resources required to implement the summary appeal reforms on top of these other reforms, it is necessary to further delay their commencement.

I wish the Allan government would have the same sympathy for small business or for business in Victoria when they introduce changes to how business operates. They do not get a decade to adapt to it. When there is a new tax introduced it is introduced immediately because the government wants the money so desperately, because they cannot manage money.

What we are finding here is nearly a decade to implement this. One of the reasons it is being held up is because there have actually been cuts to the funding of the court system here in Victoria: $19.1 million has been cut in the current financial year in the budget, and there will be $58 million in further cuts in 2027. The government can find billions for cost blowouts on projects. We look at the Metro Tunnel and another $700 million-and-something going into that particular project. They are saving pennies by cutting the court system and how the court system functions and cutting the implementation of what everyone believes will be positive changes to the court system while they blow billions somewhere else. That money – $19 million, $58 million – is small change compared to the cost blowouts in major projects but would make a significant difference to the functioning of the court systems here in Victoria.

We all, I think, are in heated agreement in this house, where we are very complimentary of what our police force do to protect us in light of the challenges they face every day – and they do. The stressors the police are under and the things they have to face – it is a very difficult job they face, and no-one is going to criticise the police. But what the police will say is that they do their job, but the court system lets them down, because these people get out again and these people are reoffending. There is a spinning wheel of recidivism in the justice system here in Victoria. Small reforms would actually make a difference to the whole process and make life better for the police, but again, a small budget cut and the police do not get the support of this government as we go through that.

I come back to the police minister’s bottom drawer. I am sure the police force in Victoria is just as interested as we are as to what is in the police minister’s bottom drawer to make their life better and their job easier to do to protect all of us for what they actually do in the community. What I hear constantly from that side of the house is how there has been record recruitment of police. I know from the police stations in my electorate that they have record vacancies. Yes, there might have been a lot of police recruited, but there are a lot of police leaving the police force through stress, through burnout and through just the severe challenges of doing the job, and no amount of recruitment is making up for the numbers of police that are leaving. There have been more police recruited, but we still have record vacancies. I know there are stations in my electorate that have the highest vacancies ever, and that is a similar story across regional Victoria, and I assume there are some of those issues in Melbourne as well. The government constantly stands up and crows about how they have recruited record numbers of police and how they are giving the police force all the resources they need, but it is not true. Yes, they are recruiting police, but there are a lot more going out the other end, and we are finding we have got significant vacancies all the way through.

As they say, the wheels of justice do move slowly, but it will take nearly a decade to implement changes to the court systems that would be positive and would speed up the process in the court system rather than having it bogged down by having to do a full appeal – effectively a retrying of a case in the County Court if someone wants that appeal. This legislation should be brought through a hell of a lot quicker than July 2028, because I just think it is appalling that the government cannot get the system to do it as quickly as it should.

As I said, if you own a business in Victoria and the government changes the rules, you have to do it immediately. If you own a business in Victoria and there is a change in the tax regime, you have to pay it straightaway. I am sure there are a lot of people that come into all our collective offices who are now getting land tax bills from the changes that have been made to land tax who would have loved to have a 10-year implementation of those land tax changes rather than having them done effectively immediately and then finding the tax increasing by 50 and 100 per cent within the first couple of years.

They had nothing to say to those out on the steps this morning, who are finding their emergency services tax is going to go from $10,000 or $15,000 to $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 on 1 July. That is how quickly they can implement revenue legislation, but it takes nearly a decade to get changes to the courts. The Liberals and the Nationals will not be opposing this legislation, but we are appalled by the fact that we are spending time debating something that is going to take nearly a decade to implement.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (18:08): I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. Although the changes that are contained within the bill before the house this evening are quite technical and do go to some quite specific components of legislation, these changes will make a significant difference to the justice system. The other mechanisms that are contained in the bill specifically relate to the social services provisions that I will go to a little further in my contribution.

What we know and understand is that the legislation before the house and the changes that relate to the Crimes Act 1958, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019, the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the Sentencing Act 1991, the Worker Screening Act 2020, the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 and the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 go to providing for a more streamlined and efficient process, which a number of members on this side of the house have made some fantastic contributions to. I particularly want to acknowledge the contributions made by the members for Pascoe Vale; Footscray; Greenvale; Mulgrave, who I can see in here; Bayswater, who always gives an outstanding contribution; Point Cook; Broadmeadows; and Frankston. I have no doubt that the member for Clarinda, who is up next, will be outstanding as well.

Listening to those contributions I understand that they are working with their local communities and having those discussions with constituents – whether it be at a street stall or whether it be in a meeting or over a coffee – and getting a sense and understanding from constituents about the changes that are needed within the justice system to make it fairer, more streamlined and better for those that are in, in many instances, incredibly vulnerable situations within their lives and the lives of their family. Those changes are very welcomed and are important changes which are contained within the bill that is before the house this afternoon. Other members have spoken about, as I mentioned, the streamlining of processes, the better use of technology, reducing red tape and burdens, improving flexibility, those numbers of reforms which go to better and fairer access and outcomes, and of course making sure that we are working right across the justice system to provide the very best outcomes for those that are in so many instances dealing with what are incredibly complex matters.

A number of members have spoken about individual circumstances and cases. I indeed want to thank and put on the record my thanks and appreciation for all of those that do terrific work within the legal system who work and in many instances live in my community, and I acknowledge the work of places like Northern Community Legal Centre and Westjustice, who do really important work within the legal space to provide fair representation for those within our community who need and deserve it and who make up some of the work that goes on each and every day. I cannot remember which member made the point around constant listening and feedback in working with places like Northern CLC and of course Westjustice and a whole range of other legal services, but making for a better system is something that is very warmly welcomed within the community and is indeed something that goes to a very important matter that the government needs to deal with and is dealing with by process of legislation.

I want to touch on social services and the social services reform taskforce that I had the opportunity to co-chair a couple of years ago in a parliamentary secretary position. I have spoken about the group before, and I acknowledge the incredibly important work that has been done in this space at a time where there are both changes from a federal level and changes within the state with what is a really dynamic, fluid situation. Over those 12 to 18 months that I had the opportunity to co-chair the group, I got a sense of the understanding, the passion, the hard work and the dedication of those individuals and their organisations, and that is something that I want to put on the record and say a massive thanks for, because these are pieces of work that go often unnoticed within the community. They are people who often do not get the appreciation that they deserve, and indeed that process, I believe, has yet again led to another significant and important reform.

The government understands that the justice system and our corrections system are not just viewed in isolation; they are viewed in many respects right across the whole gamut of all portfolios. That is a fairly clunky way of saying that if we invest in education, if we invest in TAFE, if we invest in health and if we provide wraparound services to give local communities the very best chance in life and the best start, we are equipping both individuals and communities to be their best. We know and understand that the justice system is complex. People do break the law and they do do the wrong thing, and that is why the other end of the spectrum goes to provisions that were provided for both the powers and the resources for Victoria Police. There were announcements, such as right up until just this morning, made of course by the Premier, and they are providing those additional resources within the corrections facility and the work that has been done around bail. We know and understand that making sure that communities feel safe is a top priority and one of the most important things we can do as a government. Making those provisions and providing that resourcing is incredibly important, and making the changes to the system as we go, yes, to make it more robust but also to make it more streamlined and efficient is something that we need to do as a government. I want to take the opportunity to thank every single person that has worked hard to bring these reforms to the house.

As I mentioned at the start of the contribution, in many ways some of these provisions are very specific and in their nature quite mechanical, but what we know is that they relate to individuals, and when they relate to individuals that are in many instances in a very important period of their life and effects that go to both their personal circumstances and also those of their family, we need to make sure that, as one of my fantastic colleagues said earlier, we are always listening and we are always providing for that support each and every day. Both the changes that are contained within the references to the specific acts but also broadly the work that is done in the social services review and the provisions that are provided within those changes go to an opportunity for the system to serve the Victorian community better. As a government we are guided by those values and that framework of providing for a better system – and for what is a very complex system – and of course by making sure that we are listening to those that are in a very vulnerable position and we are constantly reviewing and working with people that have got lived experience and experience within the field for the changes that relate to the social services that I mentioned earlier.

This piece of legislation builds upon what is a whole series of projects, initiatives and announcements that go to providing for a stronger, more effective, better justice system, and it is why listening to the contributions particularly of those members on this side of the house often puts in stark contrast the views of this side compared to the views of others. We know and understand that when you listen to Victorians, you get the best outcomes for Victorians. When you work hard to support local communities, you get the best outcomes. We will always work hard to make sure that we are listening to bring legislation before the house that serves Victorians, that keeps them safe and supports them this day and every single day that we are in government. I commend the bill to the house.

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (18:18): I am going to make a brief contribution the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. Just following on from what the member for Sunbury said, we know this government is one of announcements, not outcomes, and this bill is just another example of that. It exposes yet another case of mismanagement and broken promises by this government, and although at the first glance it makes minor and technical adjustments, it also pushes out the timeline around those crucial judicial reforms, due, honestly, to this government’s catastrophic budget mismanagement. This is the third time this government has delayed the move to abolish de novo criminal appeals from the Magistrates’ Court. They originally announced it back in 2019, and they had cross-party support at that time. These reforms aimed to streamline court processes, enhance efficiency and reduce the trauma experienced by witnesses, and this bill, as we said, now pushes these needed reforms back to July 2028, seven years behind schedule. As the member for Murray Plains said, I think we can expect that it will be more than a decade before these are actually introduced.

The government continues to claim that these repeated delays are due to resource constraints, but to be clear, it is a direct consequence of this government’s chronic budget mismanagement. Court Services Victoria is facing further cuts – $19.1 million was slashed from this year’s budget and there is a staggering $58 million planned reduction in 2027–28. It is astonishingly hypocritical that the Labor government continues to cite resource shortages as justification for delays while systematically gutting court funding by $77 million. It is a pattern of delay, and defunding reveals a government incapable of properly managing the state’s finances and prioritising essential services.

Courts across Victoria are already buckling under excessive case loads and insufficient resources, and instead of addressing these issues, Labor prioritises short-term budget fixes over long-term judicial reform. The very reforms Labor heralded as essential have now been conveniently shelved because of their financial mismanagement. Additionally, these persistent delays severely impact the integrity and effectiveness of Victoria’s criminal justice system. Victims, witnesses and defendants remain in limbo, denied the promised relief of streamlined processes. This government’s inability or unwillingness to allocate the necessary funding reflects poorly on their commitment to justice and to public accountability, of which we know they have none. These delays create confusion and uncertainty within the legal community and the broader public. Stakeholders across the sector remain frustrated and demoralised by this government’s inability to implement reforms that they have championed in the past.

This bill is not just about administrative adjustments, it is a clear symbol of Labor’s fiscal irresponsibility, and it highlights how badly the Allan Labor government has mismanaged this state’s budget. It prioritises political expediency over our essential court system reforms. The delays encapsulated in this bill reflect a disturbing lack of transparency and accountability and demonstrate Labor’s preference for financial bandaids rather than genuinely addressing the systemic issues plaguing our judicial system. This state deserves a government that can manage the public finances responsibly and deliver on critical justice reforms, and this bill makes it abundantly clear that Labor is failing on both counts. It is time Victorians demanded better. They should demand justice reforms implemented on schedule, supported by adequate resources and free from political gamesmanship. As I said at the start, this is a government all about announcements, not about outcomes, and this bill is another example. While we will not oppose this bill, it will be the job of the people on this side of the house to hold this government to account for its cuts and broken promises.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (18:22): I rise today to join with the member for Sunbury and the previous speakers – especially on this side of the house – to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. This is another important bill, one that makes various legislative amendments to support the courts and improve the operations of the various justice and legal acts. As we know, there has been a great deal of work taking place this year to improve our justice system, particularly around bail and youth justice, and this demonstrates that community safety is an important priority for this government.

I was happy to be involved in the debate on our tough bail bill, a bill that put community safety above all in bail decisions, removing the principle of remand as the last resort and creating the toughest bail laws ever for serious offences, including a new bail test that is extremely hard to pass, and targeting repeat offenders of the worst of crimes. For that reason, I thank the Premier, the Minister for Police and all involved for making this bill possible. It is a really important measure, and we are seeing the results. The latest remand rates show an almost 75 per cent increase in remand use from this time last year, and they also show an increase of almost 350 more adults on remand from this time last year. These numbers show that our new bail laws are clearly working and that bail decision makers are listening.

In a similar line to the previous speaker, the hardworking member for Sunbury, we do listen to our community. It is really important, because there is a really clear expectation from our community on this. It is one of the most common concerns in my community. When I am out doorknocking in Clarinda – as I have been over the last couple of months, except for a short period of time – in Cheltenham, in Mentone and in Dingley Village, it is always great to hear the positivity about the electorate and also to acknowledge the concerns of our constituents. Crime is still a major concern for many, along with the importance of quality public health care, major infrastructure projects and local development and also ensuring amenity for local residents. We will keep working hard and also listening to our constituents, particularly around community safety, and will continue to work around the government’s new tough bail laws to keep Victorians safe, putting community safety above all and creating the toughest bail laws ever for serious offences, targeting repeat offenders of the worst crimes. I thank all my constituents who raised community safety with me as always. Feedback is very important to me and very important to the government. Those were positive changes which sent a clear message that community safety must be placed above all, and we will keep working on making sure that that is the case – making sure that we have the legislation to keep our communities safe and to keep our justice system operating efficiently and effectively.

That will continue here with this Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. This is another important bill that makes a host of legislative amendments to support the courts and to improve the operations of various justice and legal acts. The first of those changes is an amendment to section 180 of the Crimes Act 1958 to narrow the trustee secret commissions offence so that it only applies to dishonest or otherwise corrupt conduct. This is an important and necessary change following recent Supreme Court decisions on the interpretations of the offence and interstate Supreme Court decisions on the equivalent offences in those jurisdictions. I am sure I do not have to go into details, but these interpretations create a real risk that trustees and associate persons may be criminally liable for routine, good-faith transactions that facilitate the replacement of a trustee, such as the payment in favour of or transaction costs and expenses to an outgoing trustee. So that needed to be sort of rectified, and it will be addressed here by this amendment.

Further, we have changes to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991 to enable the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to carry out certain administrative functions within its criminal jurisdictions more efficiently. These are necessary changes that will enable the court to expand its case management system and to automate various high-volume administrative functions for criminal proceedings, including the filing of applications and filing and forwarding of documents. These are important changes that will allow for a much greater flexibility for the courts and in the longer term enable the court to adopt other systems or approaches to carry out administrative tasks more efficiently as new circumstances or new technologies emerge.

We have heard from colleagues, especially on this side of the chamber, that there are changes to amend the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 to defer the commencement of summary appeal reforms and allow justice agencies adequate implementation time to ensure that these reforms achieve their intended benefits as well as technical amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020 to correct referencing errors.

Finally, I would also like to mention the changes to the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 to correct an error as well as to the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 to remove outdated regulations, making powers to prescribe areas where police officers are not required to serve civil process. There are a whole host of various legislation amendments to support the courts and improve of course the operations of various justice and legal acts. Therefore it is important that we make these amendments to avoid any disruptions of the court system and to make sure that there are no impacts to court efficiency and the implementation of other recent significant reforms, including as mentioned, our bail, youth justice and committal processes.

The new bail law will put community safety front and centre of every decision on bail, and we are cracking down specifically on the crimes that are on an upward trend while people are out on bail – namely, aggravated burglary, home invasion, armed robbery and carjacking. These have real and serious impact on victims and on the community, and it is completely unacceptable that offenders are being bailed time and time again on these crimes. The benefits of this reform and others will not be achieved if the courts are not prepared for their implementation, so I commend this bill to the house.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (18:31): I also rise today to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. This bill makes a series of changes, mostly technical and administrative, to legislation across the justice portfolio. Many are straightforward. Some modernise existing provisions and others tidy up outdated cross-references or correct inconsistencies, and on paper this is nothing controversial. But just because these are housekeeping measures does not mean that they are unimportant. Every piece of legislation that comes through this place should contribute to making our justice system fairer, faster and more accessible.

One of the key amendments in this bill is to section 180 of the Crimes Act 1958, which currently makes it an indictable offence to offer or receive a secret commission for appointing or substituting a trustee unless that has been approved by the beneficiaries or the Supreme Court. Recent court decisions have clarified that the current wording of the law does not require a corrupt or dishonest motive for someone to be convicted, and that means someone acting in good faith, without any malicious intent, could technically find themselves on the wrong side of the law. This bill fixes that by narrowing the offence so it only applies when there is a dishonest or corrupt purpose. It also removes the need for court or beneficiary consent in situations where there is no misconduct. That is a reasonable update, and it brings some needed clarity to the way we treat trustees who are doing the right thing. This change will apply retrospectively to 1 April 1959, which does sound a bit dramatic, but the government has said it will not affect any existing convictions. Again, I support this. It is a sensible correction to what was clearly an overreach.

Another part of this bill postpones the already long-delayed rollout of reforms to abolish de novo appeals – full retrials in the County Court following conviction in the Magistrates’ Court. These reforms were supposed to streamline the system, reduce delays and, most importantly, spare victims and witnesses from having to go through the trauma of repeating their evidence all over again. The plan was to stop these full retrials back in 2021. That got pushed to 2023 due to COVID and again pushed to 2025. This bill kicks the can down the road to 2028; that is almost a decade of delays. The government says it needs more time and resources to make these changes, but that does not stack up when you look at what is happening behind the scenes. Court Services Victoria, already under enormous pressure, is copping cuts – $19.1 million this year and a further $58 million by 2027–28. That is a $77 million reduction in funding to a system we are told cannot move forward without more support. It does not make sense. If you need more resourcing to implement justice reforms, why cut the budget for the very body responsible for making it happen?

This kind of decision-making is frustrating for everyone, but it is especially devastating for those of us in regional Victoria. Let us be honest: justice in regional courts like Benalla, Seymour, Shepparton and Wangaratta is not delivered the same way it is in the city. In Benalla crime has risen by nearly 11 per cent in the last year. In Mitchell Shire, which includes Seymour, it is up 36 per cent. In Strathbogie it is up 37 per cent from last year. Greater Shepparton, Greater Bendigo and Campaspe are all showing upward trends. Family violence incidents are climbing in every local government area in my electorate – every single region and every single town. I have had constituents contact me from Violet Town after their cars were stolen and dumped. Farmers near Colbinabbin are reporting break-ins in sheds and machinery theft, and the Murchison community house, a place meant to bring people together, was robbed. In Mitchell shire we have seen terrifying crimes involving young offenders, machetes and home invasions. In Seymour a young mum has told my team that she is scared to let her kids play in the front yard after a string of aggressive incidents occurred next door and there were no police follow-ups. This is what is happening; this is the lived reality of my community. And what makes it worse is the response – or rather, lack of response.

Instead of urgent investment in community policing, court access or victim support, we get piecemeal legislation that does not touch the core issues. Instead of speeding up court processes, we get delays dressed up as reform, and instead of listening to regional communities, we get budgets that make it harder. And let us not forget, local police stations are already stretched to the limit or closed entirely. Officers are working double shifts just to keep a presence in some of our towns. Courts are often sitting only a few days a month, and cases are delayed not by weeks but by months. If you are a victim in regional Victoria, it is a roll of the dice as to whether you will get a swift response or even a response at all, and all the while people are losing faith. They are turning to Facebook groups to warn neighbours instead of calling 000, because they do not believe help will actually come. They are sending screenshots to my office saying, ‘What more do we have to do to be taken seriously?’

I do not oppose the bill. These are necessary updates, but this government needs to stop patting itself on the back for fixing commas and crossing out obsolete clauses while the bigger problems go ignored. We need a justice system that works for all Victorians and not just those within reach of a Melbourne courtroom. That means funding our courts properly. That means listening to frontline police and prosecutors, and that means ensuring victims in Benalla, Seymour, Kilmore and Broadford get the same respect and responses as those in the city.

This government must stop ignoring the justice crisis in the bush. While the technical changes in this bill are fine, they are absolutely not enough. We need more legislation, we need more leadership and we need investment. We need a government that recognises regional Victorians deserve the same standard of justice, safety and accountability as anyone else in this state. Justice delayed is justice denied, and for people living in regional Victoria that denial is becoming far too familiar.

Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (18:38): I rise to give my contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, which implements time-critical reforms to achieve administrative efficiencies and correct technical errors and legislation. I am not really sure where to go after saying that much, it being almost at the end – well, I was meant to be one of the last speakers. I have heard everyone talking about everything else. It has been a very wideranging debate, and there have been some really lovely lines. I did like what the member for Euroa said. It is only a very small bill – there is not much in it – but I love the way that everyone interprets what is being said.

I do like the statement, ‘delays dressed up as reform’, which is one way to look at it. The other way to look at what we are doing in this bill is getting it right, taking the time, being careful, being curious and looking after the people that this bill supports. I think they are all really interesting things. I also like that song From Little Things Big Things Grow, and there are just a lot of little things in this bill; they are important things. I do not know why – it is because it is late on Tuesday – I look at this bill and keep thinking of that milk commercial where the guy goes to the shops and says, ‘I want milk,’ and the lady says, ‘Light milk, skim milk, almond milk,’ and on and on, and he says, ‘I just want milk that tastes like milk.’ It is the same thing for this sort of bill. It is just the small things in this bill that in the scheme of things might not seem to be all that important, but they are.

I also apologise because I am sure I am going to say the same things that a lot of other people have said during their debates, such as that this bill will amend the Crimes Act 1958, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019, the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act 1991. It will correct errors in the Worker Screening Act 2020, amend the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 and amend the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. What does that mean, really? It just means that we want to look after everyone that works in the courts system. These amendments make things easier, make things fairer, make things equitable, support people that work within the courts and justice system and can make their lives a little bit easier, which is good for their health and wellbeing. Again, these little changes might not seem like much, but to some people they mean a lot.

It also is the same thing – we are supporting people that are going through the courts system and the magistrates system. We are trying to make it fairer, more equitable, again to help people go through what they are going through. As I said, I have heard a lot of different things. The member for Mildura I am not really sure spoke about anything on the bill, which was good. It is always entertaining. I like the member for Murray Plains, who commented that some people were reading notes that might have been given out to us or not. Then he proceeded to read notes, and that is okay. I do not begrudge that. I am going to refer to my notes. These bills are minor, and it is trying to get your head around it, to make sense. Again, there is the way we interpret the bill. I was disappointed that the member for Nepean came in and spoke for 4 minutes and was very negative. Again, that is okay; I guess that is politics, and we have got one side of the chamber and the other side. But there are good things in this bill, and there are more important things in this bill than just doing the political thing of slamming each other from across the way.

I find some things amusing about the bill too, and I might just talk quickly about the bill. It corrects mistakes in the Worker Screening Act 2020, and they are just technical fixes. I do not know how people do this, how they sit in their offices and they go through all this legislation and find these points. I really say this to people – not so much to everyone in this chamber, but to people at home. God bless them if they are looking at Hansard; there have got to be better things to do. But if you are, a good example of correcting what one might call minor errors is in part 4 of the bill, which is amending the Worker Screening Act 2020. To not go too far into what the bill actually says and what is being changed, section 17 includes an incorrect reference to section 38, which should actually in fact reference section 37, section 36 includes a reference which actually belongs to section 35 and section 61 includes an incorrect reference to section 72 which actually should be in section 22.

I love it. It does not sound like much, but as I said, this goes to supporting people working in the justice system and the courts system. That to me is an example of important but necessary and mundane changes happening as part of this bill, and it is part of our work. It is part of what we do here. It is really great when we get really exciting bills that we can sink our teeth into, but that is not always our job. In other debates I know we have talked about the clerks or officers out in the back room with their many coloured pencils going through all the bills, acts and legislation. How on earth do you find out that section 35 was actually meant to be 36, and then 71 was 72 but 61 talked about it? I do not know, but again, I know many people have thanked the officers and the people that are doing this really important work. I thank them. I think being able to do that is really quite insane.

I want to make sure that I leave a little bit of time to talk about butter. I know that is going to really upset the member for Frankston. A lot of people have talked about butter, and I know the member for Werribee is really keen to get up and have a chat about butter. But I have got something that no-one else can say about butter and also the reason that it is in this bill, because obviously there was some nefarious activity going on in the butter industry and there was a royal commission in 1905. I note that the royal commission into butter report in 1905 was 13 pages long. The royal commission into mental health report was five volumes and over 3000 pages long, so they did not really work that hard back then. I should not say that. My great-great-great-grandfather Evan James came out from Wales when he was a young kid and he actually moved to Benalla – I do not know if you know this story, member for Shepparton. He actually ended up being the shire president of Benalla for quite a number of years, but he also owned a butter factory. He used to make butter and send it off I guess to Melbourne, and they would then send that off to London. Unfortunately – I looked it up – my great-great-great-grandfather died in 1904, but the royal commission started just around that time. So I am happy to say that there is a reason I can talk about butter in this chamber, because I had a family member involved in probably the corruption of the butter industry. Or maybe not. I should not say that – I want to call him an uncle.

I think I have only got a minute and a bit left, which is a relief for everyone. I do want to just go back quickly and say –

A member interjected.

Paul MERCURIO: Bread? Yes, I am earning my bread right now. Look, there is a lot of work. I just want to say too that there was a lot of consultation with the powers that be in making sure that this bill was discussed and agreed to. I would like to very much thank the people and the stakeholders who that were engaged in this: the police, the court system. These people helped shape the clear and more focused offences in this bill. Victoria Legal Aid, the Office of Public Prosecutions, the Magistrates’ Court and the Supreme Court – they were all involved in talking about this bill and the small changes that it makes.

I would just like to reiterate again as we debate these bills, in conclusion, these things are really important. Sometimes they do not make sense, but they are really important.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (18:48): The member for Hastings was criticising the member for Mildura about being a little bit all over the shop. I am sorry, I think I might have to call you out as well on that one. But I did enjoy your contribution –

The ACTING SPEAKER (John Mullahy): Through the Chair.

Kim O’KEEFFE: Back to the bill. I rise to stand to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. The bill amends a number of acts to support the courts and aims to improve the operation of the Victorian justice and legal system. It amends the Crimes Act 1958, the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the Worker Screening Act 2020 and the Sentencing Act 1991, to name a few. The bill extends the forced commencement date of summary appeal reforms that were made in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Appeals) Act 2019 for three years to 21 July 2028.

In 2019 the Parliament of the time passed laws in relation to Victoria’s summary criminal appeal system. These laws will see the abolishment of summary appeals of criminal cases to the County Court and replace them with new processes that will seek to enhance the overall efficiency and reduce trauma for witnesses and victims, who will no longer have to re-attend court and give evidence a second time on appeal. Currently an appeal from a criminal conviction in the Magistrates’ Court is done by way of a new hearing in the County Court, which process allows for new evidence to be admitted and new legal arguments to be made. The government has argued that these changes will lead to a more efficient appeals process and one that seeks to impose a lower burden on witnesses. Except in limited circumstances, the evidence given in the Magistrates’ Court will form the evidence considered by the County Court on appeal.

Whilst we on this side of the house do not oppose the changes, we do have some concerns. The 2019 amendments, which I already mentioned, were scheduled to come into force by no later than 3 July 2021. The default commencement date was initially postponed to 1 January 2023. At the time the government argued that the court system required more time to prepare for the change as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the justice system. The default commencement date was then postponed to 5 July 2025. The government again blamed the effect of the pandemic and the need for additional resources into the courts, noting the ongoing effects of COVID-19 on the court system and the significant time and resources required to implement the reforms, making it necessary to further delay the commencement of de novo appeal reforms until July 2025. The bill that we are now debating seeks to delay the default commencement date of these changes for a third time – until 1 July 2028. This time around the government claims the impact of other criminal law reforms and resource requirements as driving their decisions, noting that in light of the significant time and resources required to implement the summary appeal reforms, on top of these other reforms, it is necessary to further delay their commencement. The bill before this house now seeks to further delay the commencement of these reforms to seven years after they were originally scheduled to commence. While the reforms to abolish de novo criminal appeals were designed to speed up processes in the County Court and relieve the burden on witnesses, a continual delay to these reforms by Labor suggests that either these benefits have been overstated or Labor’s funding cuts of the Victorian courts have been a higher priority than reforming criminal appeals.

The bill makes technical amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act and the Sentencing Act to allow the Magistrates’ Court to extend the use of its case management system in its criminal jurisdiction. The minister in the second-reading speech alluded to this amendment seeking to modernise registry services and improve the overall efficiency of court operations by enabling certain documents to be filed electronically.

Section 180 of the Crimes Act 1958, currently in force, makes it an indictable offence for a person to offer or give to a trustee, or for a trustee to receive or solicit for themselves or any other person, valuable consideration for the appointment of a new trustee in the trustee’s place without the consent of all trust beneficiaries or the Supreme Court. The bill will narrow the trustee secret commission offence by requiring the relevant conduct to have been done with a dishonest or otherwise corrupt purpose and remove the requirement for consent of beneficiaries or the Supreme Court. This offence was first introduced in 1905, more than 120 years ago, after the Royal Commission on the Butter Industry had found widespread bribery and corruption involving agents, including the receipt and payment of secret commissions. I know there has been quite a bit of discussion around the butter story. That was a long time ago, 1905, and I must say we had a very successful butter factory in Shepparton, which still has the heritage building used, as a cafe. So there is a long history when it comes to the butter industry across my electorate as well. I had to add some stories in there.

As a result it was later consolidated into the Crimes Act. Recent decisions made by the Supreme Court on the application of section 180 have held that a corrupt purpose is not an element of the offence. This has left trustees and other persons engaged in routine, good faith transactions relating to the replacement of an outgoing trustee at risk of serious criminal liability. Because of this it follows that the offence is no longer fit for purpose. The amendments made under the bill will seek to ensure that only conduct done for a dishonest or otherwise corrupt purpose will be captured by section 180 itself. Hopefully, through the amendments the bill makes to section 180 of the Crimes Act, it will save those involved, as well as the court, time and resources.

One brief amendment that I would like to mention is that the bill makes amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020 to correct errors in cross-references in the act relating to the national disability insurance scheme and working with children checks. As previous speakers have mentioned, there are currently significant delays when it comes to both NDIS and working with children checks. This can cause significant restraints across the board. We need to have the right protections in place and processes that are efficient and effective. While the reforms to abolish de novo criminal appeals were designed to speed up the processes in the County Court and relieve the burden on witnesses, the continual delay to these reforms has been ongoing.

While the government claims that the implementation of these changes will require additional resources, the government is currently slashing funding, which has been raised in this house today. As it was revealed during the PAEC hearings after the release of last year’s budget, this government is cutting more than $77 million to the state’s justice system, with a $19.1 million hit to be in this financial year, followed by a massive $58 million cut in 2027–28. It is clearly inconsistent with the implementation of these reforms for the government to undertake a budget-slashing exercise at the very time they are now supposed to come into operation. Labor’s funding cuts to the Victorian courts have been a higher priority than reforming criminal appeal. It was also revealed during the hearings that the very successful County Court backlog reduction program has been axed by the government.

With an already two-year delay to VCAT’s digital transformation program and a dispute with IT contractors, it continues to hinder the modernisation of VCAT’s operations altogether. Victoria has the worst court backlogs in the country, and what we see is a slash to the budget significantly impacting the state’s justice system. Delaying access to and the lack of managing the state’s justice system is having a significant impact. We are all very aware of the delay in the VCAT system. This has been an ongoing issue where people who need to have their cases heard are having to wait for long periods of time, which can be very distressful.

The justice system across the board has so many issues. We know that crime in this state is out of control, and we are seeing the escalation right across the state. Bail has become weaker and weaker under this government time and time again, and every week we hear of criminal activity that is leaving communities feeling disillusioned and unsafe. We are in the midst of a youth crime and bail crisis, and our bail laws are weaker now than they have ever been before, all because of this government having their priorities all wrong.

Last week I met with Senior Inspector Simpson from the Shepparton police station, and we are currently organising a community crime forum. Crime is a huge topic and concern across the community, and bringing community together and ensuring they are informed and heard is so important during these times, as is making their safety a priority. People do feel frightened, and they also are really concerned about the increasing rates of crime. Inspector Simpson also raised his frustration with having to let reoffenders back out into the community time and time again. There is a significant breakdown in the justice system.

I also want to acknowledge that the police are doing their job. They are working as hard as they can. As my police officer noted to me last week in my office, he feels that he is doing the best he can, but he has very hard restraints. They are doing their best to keep their community safe. Victorians are paying the price for Labor’s broken bail laws, which are forever continuing to fuel a crime crisis across the state. We are seeing more and more cases where offenders who breach bail or reoffend whilst on bail are walking free onto the streets and youth offenders remain exempt from any penalty for ignoring their bail conditions. Serious crimes such as burglary and robbery are not even listed as serious offences under the Bail Act 1977 by this government.

The government should be condemned for its budget cuts to the Victorian justice system. Victorians expect a government that protects them, not one that neglects them and cuts critical resources from the state’s justice system.

John LISTER (Werribee) (18:57): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025. I know we have had a lot of miscellaneous conversation from people on all sides, but I really want to get down to one of the reasons why we are looking at these particular changes in this legislation. Justice Kirby is cited as saying that ‘regular law reform is vital to a civilised society’. In this place I have also emphasised that reforming our laws and the settings they create is not just set and forget. I was reflecting earlier with some of my colleagues about some of the reasons why we do this regular law reform, and I noted that in Western Australia it is actually still an offence to possess 50 kilograms of potatoes. I think it is something that is a bit of an anachronism from a time when there might have been people who were smuggling potatoes across the border and not paying the tariffs that we had pre Federation. It is really important that we do have these laws, and thinking about those potatoes makes me also think about butter. We have had a lot of conversation about butter in this chamber. There have been some slippery slides into discussion that is not necessarily about this legislation.

This legislation is an example of government working with our legal system to make necessary changes. Regularly consulting with people like the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victorian Legal Aid, Victoria Police, the Magistrates’, County and Supreme courts, Court Services Victoria, the Department of Government Services and all these different agencies means that we can find where our law is lacking and where we need to strengthen it. Quite often we hear those opposite talking about how we are not doing enough. They cite the machete ban as one of those examples of not doing enough quick enough. Well, that comes about because we are bringing this in with advice from Victoria Police about the timeframes that they need to bring this in safely, and to go and counter that advice in this place is pretty shameful. We listen to Victoria Police. It was only earlier last week that I was out with the Minister for Police and with my other Wyndham colleagues at the Werribee police station to talk to our police. It has been something that –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required by sessional orders to interrupt business. The member will have the call when the matter returns to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.