Wednesday, 14 May 2025

Bills

Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Statement of compatibility

Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:38): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the ‘Charter’), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

In my opinion, the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill amends the Corrections Act 1986, Serious Offenders Act 2018 (SOA) and Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (SORA), to deliver several priority reforms to ensure that safety risks from serious offenders are appropriately managed, to appropriately denounce and deter assaults on custodial workers and make minor amendments to parole and other provisions that are not operating as originally intended.

Specifically, the Bill will:

• amend the SOA to implement recommendations of the 2023 statutory review of the SOA to strengthen the operation of Victoria’s post sentence scheme, address operational issues and reinforce the scheme’s ability to protect the community

• amend the Corrections Act to strengthen sentencing outcomes for people in prison who cause injury to custodial officers

• amend the SORA to ensure that people convicted of serious sex offences who are placed on supervision or detention orders under the SOA (a SOA order) must report to police under the SORA for the duration of their SOA order and at least five years thereafter to help manage their community safety risks, and

• make other miscellaneous amendments to ensure that the parole and other provisions in the Corrections Act are operating as intended.

Human Rights Issues

The Bill engages the following human rights in the Charter:

• The right to life (section 9)

• The protection from cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment (section 10)

• The right to freedom of movement (section 12)

• The right to privacy (section 13)

• The right to freedom of association (section 16)

• The protection of families and children (section 17)

• The cultural rights of Aboriginal people (section 19(2))

• The right to liberty and security of person (section 21)

• The right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 22)

• The right to a fair hearing (section 24)

• The right not to be punished more than once (section 26)

• The protection against retrospective criminal laws (section 27)

Human rights protected under the Bill

The proposed amendments in the Bill will strengthen protections for a number of rights in the Charter.

Strengthening the operation of the post-sentence scheme

In general terms, strengthening the operation of the post sentence scheme and altering the reporting periods under the SORA for serious sex offenders, will ensure that safety risks posed by serious offenders are appropriately managed, enhancing community safety. In doing so, the Bill promotes the Charter rights of community members, including the right to life (section 9), the protection of families and children (section 17), and the right to liberty and security of person (section 21).

A number of specific amendments in the Bill will also enhance protections for human rights in the Charter.

Clarifying Post Sentence Authority directions

The Bill amends the SOA to clarify that the Post Sentence Authority (the Authority) can give directions about who a person on a supervision order can live with. These directions can play a critical role in managing the individual’s risk, noting that certain co-residents may increase the individual’s risk (e.g. if the co-resident is antisocial or an active drug user), or may be vulnerable to being harmed (e.g. if the person on the supervision order has a history of family violence).

These amendments will therefore support the rehabilitation of the person subject to the SOA order, enhance community safety and help reduce risks of family violence. This promotes community members’ right to life (section 9), security of person (section 21(1)), and protections for children and families (section 17).

Clarifying the actions police can take following an arrest

The Bill also amends the SOA to clarify the actions Victoria Police can take after arresting a person suspected of contravening a supervision order, including allowing police to release the person unconditionally where appropriate. These changes will make it clear that police can release a person while they conduct further investigations to confirm if a contravention occurred, ensuring the person is not remanded for an extended period. This amendment will therefore reduce the risk of arbitrary detention of people on supervision orders, protecting their right to liberty (section 21).

Aboriginal representation on the Post Sentence Authority

The Bill also amends the SOA to require at least one member of the Post Sentence Authority to be Aboriginal. As the Authority is responsible for overseeing people on post sentence orders, Aboriginal representation will facilitate consideration of the specific needs and perspectives of Aboriginal people who are subject to the post sentence scheme. This will strengthen the cultural rights of Aboriginal people who are subject to the scheme (section 19(2)).

Strengthening sentencing outcomes for causing injury to custodial officers

The Bill also amends the Corrections Act to clarify that offences involving causing injury to custodial officers are prison offences and attract the presumption of sentence cumulation in section 16(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Sentencing Act). This amendment will strengthen sentencing outcomes, helping denounce and deter these offences and improve the safety of the prison environment. This will promote the right of custodial officers to security of person (section 21(1)). The reforms also recognise that a safe workplace and workforce are fundamental to a safe, secure, humane and rehabilitative prison system, and, alongside broader reforms being rolled out across the Corrections system, will help protect the rights of both custodial officers and people in custody.

Parole amendments

Finally, the Bill also makes amendments to clarify the application of two parole provisions in the Corrections Act.

Firstly, the Bill will amend the ‘No Body, No Parole’ provision to correct the unintentionally broad application of the provision. The amendment will make it clear that the presumption against parole in section 74AABA of the Corrections Act does not apply if the victim’s body or remains have been located and there is no longer a need to incentivise the offender to cooperate with police to locate it. This will reduce the risk that the provision will prevent a person receiving parole even after their victim’s body has been located and the Adult Parole Board has assessed that they are suitable – which could otherwise limit the right to protection from cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, the right to be free from arbitrary detention, and the right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (sections 10(b), 21(2) and 22(1) of the Charter).

The Bill will also amend the Corrections Act to ensure the Adult Parole Board can revoke an automatic cancellation of parole. This will allow the Adult Parole Board to reinstate a person’s parole if it was automatically cancelled under the Corrections Act, protecting their right to protection from cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and right to be free from arbitrary detention (section 10 and 21 of the Charter).

Charter rights engaged or limited by the Bill

Several reforms in the Bill engage or limit Charter rights.

Clarifying the Authority’s directions

The Bill amends the SOA to clarify the Authority’s power to give certain directions to people on supervision orders. The Bill clarifies that if a court imposes a condition on a supervision order about where a person can live, then the Authority can give directions about who the person can live with in accordance with any authorisation provided by the court.

Right to privacy (section 13(a))

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

Empowering the Authority to give directions about who people on supervision orders can live with could interfere with the person’s privacy, family or home.

However, it is my view that these provisions are appropriately circumscribed so as not to authorise any arbitrary interferences with these matters. As noted above, directions about where a person on a supervision order can live play a critical role in managing the individual’s risk by limiting their exposure to possible triggers and protecting people who are vulnerable to being harmed.

There are also a number of safeguards in place to ensure directions are only given where necessary and proportionate to this purpose, thereby protecting against any arbitrary application of a direction. Firstly, under the new section 36A(1), the Authority will only be able to give directions about who a person can live with if the Court both imposes a condition on a supervision order restricting where the person can live, and authorises the Authority to give directions in relation to that condition. Under the new section 36A(2), the Court will also retain discretion to order that the Authority cannot give directions about who a person can live with. Finally, the Authority is also subject to a number of obligations to protect rights of offenders, including the right to privacy. For example, section 139 of the SOA requires the Authority to aim to ensure directions constitute the minimum interference with the right of an offender’s liberty, privacy or freedom of movement necessary to achieve the purpose of the condition. The Authority is also a public authority under the Charter and is required to give proper consideration to, and act compatibly with, Charter rights (including the right to privacy) when making decisions in accordance with section 38 of the Charter. This would include any decision to give a direction to a person subject to a supervision order about who they can live with.

For these reasons, it is my view that these provisions do not constitute an unlawful or arbitrary interference with a person’s family or home and are therefore compatible with the right to privacy under section 13(a) of the Charter.

Right to freedom of movement (section 12), freedom of association (section 16(2)), and protection of families (section 17(1))

Empowering the Authority to give directions about who people on supervision orders can live with may also engage:

• The right in section 12 of the Charter, which provides that every person lawfully within Victoria has the freedom to choose where to live,

• The right in section 16(2) of the Charter, which provides that every person has the right to freedom of association with others, and

• The right in section 17(1) of the Charter, which provides that families are the fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to be protected by society and the State.

Directions about who people on supervision orders can live with could limit an individual’s ability to choose where to live and who they associate with, including whether they can live with their family or children. This could engage and limit the rights in sections 12, 16(2) and 17(1) of the Charter.

However, I consider that the amendments made by the Bill justifiably and proportionately limit these rights in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. As noted above, any limitations placed on these rights are necessary to serve the legitimate purpose of preventing the escalation of an individual’s risk of reoffending, including by assisting in their rehabilitation, and may in some instances, protect the rights of children and families under sections 17(1)-(2) of the Charter. These amendments will also promote community safety by reducing the risk of reoffending. The safeguards discussed above will also ensure that the directions are only made where necessary to achieve this purpose and constitute minimum interference with these rights.

For these reasons, I conclude that amendments to clarifying the Authority directions in the Bill are compatible with the rights in sections 12, 16(2) and 17(1) of the Charter.

Clarifying procedural requirements for attempted contravention offences

The Bill will also help reduce fragmentation of criminal proceedings by clarifying that the court that made a supervision order should be responsible for hearing and determining offences of attempting to contravene a supervision order, not just offences where a contravention has occurred. In effect, this change will require attempted contravention offences to be uplifted to the County Court or the Supreme Court (whichever court made the supervision orders), along with any related summary offences. This will support continuity of judicial oversight of the offender and reduce fragmentation of proceedings.

Right to a fair hearing (section 24(1))

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

Uplifting attempt offences could engage this right by requiring the Magistrates’ Court to transfer proceedings for charges of attempting to contravene a supervision order to the higher courts, effectively bypassing the committals process which would ordinarily determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction of the offence charged.

The Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and longstanding High Court authority provide that a committal hearing must be held in all cases in which the accused is charged with an indictable offence, except where a direct indictment is filed, or the charge is heard and determined summarily. While it could be argued that uplifting all attempted contravention offences to the higher courts and bypassing this procedural step could limit the right of the accused to a fair trial, I consider that there is no limitation as the County Court and Supreme Court are competent, independent and impartial and would provide an accused with a fair hearing.

Even if there was any limitation, I consider such limitation on this right imposed by the reforms to be proportionate and justified under section 7(2) of the Charter, for the following reasons.

The SOA already provides for the uplift of charges for contravening a supervision order. Consistent with these existing processes, the Bill reduces the risk of unjustifiably limiting the right to a fair hearing by enabling the higher courts to hear and determine a charge for an attempted contravention of a supervision order summarily, meaning the higher court must conduct the hearing and determination of the charge in accordance with Part 3.3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 as far as practicable, and may impose any sentence that could be imposed by the Magistrates’ Court. In most cases, proceedings for contraventions of supervision orders are heard summarily by the County Court or Supreme Court. If the court decides not to hear the charge summarily, a direct indictment is filed. This ensures individuals are not unduly disadvantaged by having the proceedings transferred to the higher courts without a committal hearing, protecting their right to a fair trial. The reforms will apply this same process to attempted contravention proceedings.

Uplifting proceedings for attempted contraventions of supervision orders also serve an important policy purpose, supporting continuity of judicial oversight by enabling the court that imposed the supervision order to hear matters related to an attempted contravention of the order it imposed. It will also reduce fragmentation of proceedings relating to the same offending circumstances across different courts which could also promote the right to a fair trial. I consider the reforms are the least restrictive means available of achieving these purposes.

For these reasons, I am satisfied that these reforms are unlikely to limit the right to a fair hearing in section 24(1) of the Charter, but that any limitation on the right is reasonable, proportionate and justified under section 7(2) of the Charter.

Information sharing powers under the SOA

The Bill amends the information sharing powers to clarify that public health services and hospitals can share information under the SOA with certain authorised persons. This will ensure that agencies with functions under the SOA have access to the information they need to perform their functions and keep the community safe, including the Multi-Agency Panel (MAP) and the departmental teams that support MAP members.

Right to privacy (section 13(a))

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

The amendments to information sharing powers in the Bill will enable public health services and hospitals to share private information about a person on a supervision order about the person’s support needs and risks, including medical information, engaging the right to privacy.

However, for the reasons outlined in previous statements of compatibility for the SOA, it is my view that the information sharing provisions in the SOA are appropriately circumscribed so as not to authorise any arbitrary interferences with privacy.

Effective information sharing under the SOA is critical to ensure the effective operation of the post sentence scheme. In some instances, this can include medical information – as access to details about medical diagnoses, medications and other information held by health service providers and hospitals can be critical to identifying changes in risk, ensuring people on supervision orders have access to appropriate rehabilitation and treatment services and in turn, protecting community safety.

I acknowledge that it is also important that the personal information of offenders and victims, which can contain extremely sensitive information, is adequately protected from misuse. In my view, the existing protections under the SOA strike an appropriate balance. The SOA provides that information can only be shared with a prescribed list of persons and for a defined list of purposes, which are consistent with whole of government standards on disclosure of information as provided for in the Information Privacy Principles in the Data and Privacy Protection Act 2014. The SOA also includes safeguards against misuse, such as penalties for any unauthorised use or disclosure of information and the requirement that relevant persons operate guidelines in relation to accessing of information to ensure that access is restricted to the greatest extent that is possible without interfering with the purpose of the legislation. As a further safeguard, public health services and hospitals are public authorities under the Charter, and will be required to give proper consideration to, and act compatibly with, the right to privacy under the Charter, as well as the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 and the Health Records Act 2001 when making decisions regarding the nature and extent of any information shared.

For these reasons, I consider that these amendments will not limit the right to privacy of people on supervision orders as any information shared under the reforms would be done so on a lawful and non-arbitrary basis.

Altering reporting periods under the SORA

The Bill will also alter reporting periods under the SORA for registrable offenders who are on supervision or detention orders under the SOA (SOA orders) for a serious sex offence (affected cohort). The amendments will ensure that the reporting obligations for the affected cohort, which require people to provide certain information to police, will be in place for the duration of their relevant SOA order and at least 5 years after the SOA order expires. These altered reporting periods will help protect community safety by extending a registrable offender’s reporting period during a period of transition following the intensive oversight provided by the SOA, and reduce the risk of further sex offending, during a period where a person is considered to pose an unacceptable risk or in the period of transition shortly thereafter where the risk of reoffending remains heightened.

Right to freedom of movement (section 12) and right to privacy (section 13(a))

Section 12 of the Charter provides that every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it and has the freedom to choose where to live.

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

Amendments to the SORA introduced by the Bill will extend the period during which affected individuals must provide Victoria Police with personal details, employment details and details regarding their travel outside Victoria. This engages the right to privacy and may place some limitations on the person’s freedom of movement.

However, it is my view that the proposed amendments will not result in an arbitrary interference with privacy.

The amendments serve a legitimate purpose of protecting community safety and deterring recidivism by supporting police to monitor the affected cohort. The amendments are also proportionate to that purpose. They target a clearly defined cohort of particularly high-risk individuals and clearly specify the new way in which this cohort’s reporting periods are to be calculated, ensuring they apply to a particularly high-risk period when a person is on a post sentence order or transitions away from being closely managed under the post-sentence scheme. It is therefore my view that any interference with privacy is not arbitrary and will not limit the right in section 13 of the Charter.

Furthermore, if the reforms do place any limitations on the right to privacy and freedom of movement, these are likely to be reasonable, proportionate and justifiable under section 7(2) of the Charter. As noted above, the amendments serve an important purpose of protecting community safety, and there are a number of safeguards in place to ensure any limitation on these rights is proportionate to that purpose:

• The Bill will only extend or reinstate reporting obligations if a court has imposed a SOA order for a serious sex offence, which requires the court to find that the individual poses an unacceptable risk of further serious offending.

• The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police and the Courts will also retain the power to suspend reporting obligations where they are no longer justified – for example, where a person has experienced significant cognitive decline.

• in terms of the right to privacy – Victoria Police are subject to a number of other obligations to protect the privacy of individuals who report under the SORA. There are also explicit protections in section 24 of the SORA which protect individual’s right to privacy when reporting. Victoria Police is also required to abide by the obligations in the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 and, as a public authority under the Charter, must give proper consideration to, and act compatibly with, the right to privacy when making decisions.

• in terms of the freedom of movement – the limitations are relatively limited, as they only require individuals to report on their movement rather than placing any restrictions on where the individual can go.

The above factors all serve to ensure that any limitations imposed by the reforms on an

individual’s right to privacy and freedom of movement are the least restrictive means of achieving the policy intent and are reasonable and justifiable.

As such, in my view, the reforms are unlikely to amount to an unlawful or arbitrary interference with the right to privacy of the affected cohort, and are otherwise compatible with the right to freedom of movement under the Charter.

Right not to be punished more than once (section 26) and right to be free from retrospective criminal laws (section 27)

Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be punished more than once for an offence in respect of which that person has already been finally convicted or acquitted in

accordance with law.

Section 27(2) of the Charter provides that a penalty must not be imposed on any person for a criminal offence that is greater than the penalty that applied to the offence when it was committed.

These rights may be relevant to amendments in the Bill which alter the reporting periods under the SORA for the affected cohort. However, it is my view that the extended reporting periods do not constitute a penalty or punishment, and therefore do not limit the rights in sections 26 or 27(2).

Both the SORA and the SOA are civil schemes that are preventative rather than punitive in nature. Altering the reporting obligations of people subject to SOA orders is directed towards prevention of further offending and protection of the community rather than further punishment of offenders. The altered reporting periods under the Bill will also only arise if the court has assessed that the individual poses an unacceptable risk of further serious offending by imposing a SOA order for a serious sex offence – a measure targeted at protection of the community and prevention of further offending rather than punishment. For these reasons, the additional reporting obligations imposed under the Bill therefore do not constitute a ‘penalty’ so as to engage the protections against double punishment or retrospective penalty in sections 26 and 27 of the Charter.

Strengthening sentencing outcomes for causing injury to custodial staff

Finally, the Bill will amend the Corrections Act to strengthen sentencing outcomes for assaults on custodial staff. These reforms clarify that causing injury offences in sections 15A to 18 of the Crimes Act committed against custodial staff on duty are prison offences, and should thereby attract the existing presumption of sentence cumulation under section 16(3) of the Sentencing Act that applies to prison offences.

Protection from torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment (section 10(b)), right to liberty (section 21) and right to human treatment when deprived of liberty (section 22(1))

Section 10(b) of the Charter provides that a person must not be punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.

Sections 21(1) and (3) of the Charter provide that every person has the right to liberty and security, must not be subject to arbitrary detention and must not be deprived of their liberty except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law.

Section 22(1) of the Charter provides that all persons deprived of liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Reforms to strength sentencing outcomes for causing injury to custodial officers will operate alongside emergency worker harm laws, which impose statutory minimum sentences for these same offences committed against emergency workers, including custodial officers. The combined effect of these provisions will mean that courts must require people who commit causing injury offences against custodial officers to serve the mandatory minimum sentence cumulatively unless exceptional circumstances exist so as to displace the presumption of cumulation, and unless a special reason exists so as to displace the mandatory minimum sentence.

In some circumstances, statutory minimum sentences have been found to limit the right to be free from cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment (section 10(b)) where a court has been compelled to impose a grossly disproportionate sentence. By requiring the statutory minimum sentence to be imposed cumulatively, these reforms could increase the risk that this right will be limited.

These reforms could also result in more people receiving longer custodial sentences. Where a law authorises detention that is unjust, it may limit the right to liberty, to not be subject to arbitrary detention and not be deprived of their liberty except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law (section 21(1)-(3)).

Given the reforms clarify the application of the presumption of cumulation applies to offences against custodial workers, section 22(1) of the Charter may also be limited by the reforms where they apply by virtue of the person already serving a term of detention in custody.

However, I consider that any limitation imposed by the Bill on the rights under section 10(b), 21(1)-(3) or 22(1) of the Charter to be reasonable, proportionate and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter for the following reasons.

Firstly, the reforms are necessary to ensure effective denouncement and deterrence of assaults on custodial officers and preserve their right to security of person. The existing presumption of sentence cumulation for prison offences in the Sentencing Act recognises that sentences for offences committed in the prison environment may not provide effective denouncement or deterrence if further time is not added on to the person’s existing sentence (particularly if they are nearing the end of their custodial sentence). The reforms also recognise that a safe workplace and workforce are fundamental to a safe, secure, humane and rehabilitative prison system, and alongside broader reforms being rolled out across the Corrections system, will help make prisons safer for both staff and people in custody.

The reforms are also carefully tailored to achieve the important purpose of protecting custodial officers’ safety and the overall safety and security of the prison environment while minimising any impact on human rights of offenders. That is, the reforms do not constitute an unreasonable expansion or change to the existing law, but seek to clarify the intended application of an existing presumption of sentence cumulation that already applies to prison offences and that some courts are already applying to causing injury offences committed in prisons against custodial workers. The relevant offences are also narrow and well-defined, and target particularly serious and violent crimes against exposed custodial officers. The reforms therefore seek to impose the minimum limitation necessary to achieve the policy purpose. Courts will also retain some discretion to determine sentence length (within the constraints of emergency worker harm laws), and to impose a concurrent sentence in exceptional circumstances. This will help protect against the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment that is inappropriate, unjust or disproportionate to the offending.

Any deprivation of liberty as a result of the reforms will therefore serve a just and legitimate purpose in accordance with the law that is non-arbitrary, and is unlikely to amount to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, or inhumane treatment when deprived of liberty. It is therefore my view that, in the event these rights are limited, the limitation is reasonable and capable of being justified under section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right to a fair hearing (section 21(1))

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

This right is relevant and engaged because by clarifying the circumstances that attract the presumption that the court must impose a cumulative sentence, the Bill will impact the sentencing discretion of judicial officers.

However, courts retain the sentencing discretion to make a finding that exceptional circumstances exist and consequently apply the sentence concurrently, not cumulatively. Retaining this judicial discretion ensures that the reforms are compatible with the right to a fair hearing.

Anthony Carbines

Minister for Police

Minister for Community Safety

Minister for Victims

Minister for Racing

Second reading

Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Community Safety, Minister for Victims, Minister for Racing) (10:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Bill will support the Victorian Government’s commitment to safer communities and safer prisons by strengthening protections for custodial officers and improving post-sentence management of people who have committed serious offences.

The Bill will implement a range of reforms to address priority issues affecting the corrections system and post sentence scheme:

• The Bill will amend the Corrections Act 1986 to denounce and deter assaults on custodial officers by strengthening sentencing outcomes for people in prison who cause injury to custodial officers on duty.

• The Bill will amend the sex offender registration scheme in the Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 to ensure serious sex offenders who are subject to post sentence orders must report to police for an extended period where appropriate.

• The Bill will amend the Serious Offenders Act 2018 to implement recommendations of the statutory review of the Act and strengthen the operation of Victoria’s post sentence scheme, and

• The Bill will make minor amendments to the Corrections Act to clarify the application of provisions that are not operating as intended.

Denouncing assaults on custodial officers

To help deliver Government’s commitment to safer prisons, the Bill introduces reforms into the Corrections Act to help denounce and deter offences on custodial officers involving causing injury.

Too many people in prison who cause injury to custodial officers are not required to serve any additional prison time for their offending. Despite an existing presumption in the Sentencing Act that requires sentences for prison offences to be served cumulatively, a lack of clarity in the legislation means that some perpetrators who cause injury to custodial officers receive concurrent sentences to be served at the same time as their existing sentences. This means they spend no additional time in prison after assaulting a custodial officer.

Custodial officers have a right to feel safe at work. The impacts of assaults on custodial officers are often significant, and can include ongoing health impacts and trauma requiring specialised support and treatment. Assaults on custodial officers also compromise perceptions of safety at work, leading to difficulties attracting and retaining staff, and can have flow on effects for the safety of prisons more broadly.

The Bill addresses these issues by putting it beyond doubt that certain offences involving injury to custodial officers are ‘prison offences’ and attract the presumption of sentence cumulation in the Sentencing Act. This means more perpetrators in prison will be required to serve additional prison time if they cause injury to custodial officers.

This amendment will strengthen sentencing outcomes, helping denounce and deter these offences and improve the safety of the prison environment. These reforms also recognise that a safe workplace and workforce are fundamental to a safe, secure, humane and rehabilitative prison system, and alongside broader reforms being rolled out across the Corrections system, will help protect the safety of both custodial officers and people in custody.

Implementing recommendations of the Review of the Serious Offenders Act

The Bill will also amend the Serious Offenders Act to implement recommendation of a statutory review.

The Serious Offenders Act provides the legislative framework for Victoria’s post sentence scheme. Under the scheme, a court can order the ongoing detention or supervision of individuals who have committed serious sex and violent offences but continue to pose an unacceptable risk of reoffending after completing their prison sentence.

The government completed a review of the Serious Offenders Act in 2023. The review found that the Serious Offenders Act is operating effectively and as intended, and also made 13 recommendations to further enhance the post sentence scheme.

Following government’s commitment to implement the recommendations from the 2023 Review of the Serious Offenders Act, the Bill introduces a number of legislative amendments to improve the operation of the post sentence scheme. These amendments will help strengthen community safety and support effective operation of the scheme by:

• clarifying the actions police can take after arresting a person suspected of contravening a condition of their supervision order,

• improving when victims must be engaged by the Post Sentence Authority to ensure they can be kept informed of important information without unnecessary trauma

• clarifying the directions the Post Sentence Authority can give to people on supervision orders to reduce their risk of reoffending

• creating more flexibility around membership of the Post Sentence Authority to respond to increases in workload, and increasing Aboriginal representation to improve consideration of the specific needs and perspectives of Aboriginal people on the post sentence scheme

• clarifying the information sharing powers under the Serious Offenders Act to ensure that agencies with functions under the Act have access to the information they need to provide appropriate supports to manage risks posed by people on the scheme

• clarifying procedural requirements for attempted contravention offences to reduce fragmentation of criminal proceedings

Altering reporting periods under the Sex Offenders Registration Act

The Bill will also amend the Sex Offenders Registration Act to help manage community safety risks posed by serious sex offenders.

The Sex Offenders Registration Act requires people who have committed certain serious sex offences to provide information to Victoria Police, including personal details, work arrangements and travel plans. These reporting obligations help reduce the risk of reoffending

Many people on the post sentence scheme also have reporting obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act. These reporting obligations provide an additional mechanism to manage the ongoing risk of reoffending, and are particularly critical when a post sentence order expires and individuals transition away from the intensive supervision and oversight of the post sentence scheme.

The Bill will amend the Sex Offenders Registration Act to ensure that people who are on post sentence scheme for a serious sex offence must report to police for the duration of their relevant Serious Offenders Act order and at least 5 years after the order expires.

These altered reporting periods will help protect community safety and reduce the risk of further sex offending.

Amendments to the Corrections Act

Finally, the Bill will also make minor amendments to the Corrections Act to clarify the operation of provisions that are not operating as Parliament originally intended.

The Bill will clarify that the ‘No Body, No Parole’ provision only applies if the body or remains of a victim have not been located. The amended provision will preserve an important incentive for people in prison to cooperate with police to locate the body or remains of their victims and bring some closure to victims’ families. A person will not be eligible to be granted parole if the body or remains of their victim is missing unless they can satisfy the Adult Parole Board that they cooperated to help locate the body.

The Bill also makes a minor amendment to allow the Adult Parole Board to reinstate a person’s parole in appropriate circumstances if it is automatically cancelled. Currently, a person’s parole is automatically cancelled if they are sentenced to a further term of imprisonment while on parole. The Bill clarifies that the Adult Parole Board can revoke an automatic cancellation of parole wherever appropriate. For example, if the sentence of imprisonment is very short, it may be appropriate for the Adult Parole Board to reinstate the person’s original parole order rather than requiring the person to go through the whole parole application process again.

Conclusion

The reforms in this Bill support safer communities, safer prisons, and increased efficiencies in the corrections system.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:39): I move:

That this debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 28 May.