Tuesday, 3 March 2020

Bills

Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (16:27): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020, and can I say at the outset that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. We do not have any amendments to this bill to present. There are a number of times when I have spoken on bills relating to police. In this case, this is a bill relating to the Attorney-General, and I represent Edward O’Donohue from the other place on Attorney-General matters.

When we talk about law and order in this place, particularly from the coalition’s perspective, we talk a lot about justice, we talk a lot about fairness, we talk a lot about putting victims first, and that is the main reason why we are certainly not opposing this, because this bill largely looks at amending the Crimes Act 1958 to increase the maximum penalty for manslaughter, child homicide and workplace manslaughter; to introduce a new homicide by firearm offence with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, up from 20 years, and a standard sentence of 13 years; and to clarify the relationship between homicide by firearm, child homicide and manslaughter.

When it comes to, particularly, some of these kinds of very serious offences, where there is the death of a loved one and they leave behind family, friends and a whole lot of others who are left to pick up the pieces that we call victims, it is really important that we ensure that justice is served. We have seen in many instances when it comes to these offences what we would term as quite light sentences and that sentences do not necessarily reflect the crime. So where there have been increases, particularly around manslaughter and manslaughter with a firearm, we believe that is very important in terms of ensuring there is proper justice.

The bill makes consequential and related amendments to a number of other acts to ensure the law treats homicide by firearm in the same way as it treats manslaughter and child homicide. The bill amends the Bail Act 1977, the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Corrections Act 1986, the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Sentencing Act 1991 and the Serious Offenders Act 2018.

As I said, there are a number of changes in this bill. Firstly, clauses 3, 4 and 21 increase the maximum penalty for manslaughter, child homicide and workplace manslaughter from 20 years to 25 years. I want to say specifically that this is the maximum penalty. This does not mean obviously that those who are charged with manslaughter in these cases will receive that penalty, and I will come to that in a minute, but they are open to a maximum penalty. At least the upper boundary of the range of possible sentence that may be imposed for these offences provides the sentencing courts with greater scope to address the most serious cases and sentence serious offenders for a period of imprisonment which is proportionate to the gravity of the offending, facilitating community safety from further unlawful and dangerous or criminally negligent behaviour.

Clause 9 clarifies the higher maximum penalty for manslaughter, child homicide and homicide by firearm. This will only apply to those offences that are entirely committed after the increases take effect. What we mean here is that it is not stuff prior, but it is stuff that happens, offences committed, after the date. Those committed before are guided by the penalty that applied at the time the offending occurred.

Another part of this bill looks at the penalty for workplace manslaughter being increased on the same day that the offence itself commences. In practical terms the offence commences with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. I will have some more comments to make about this particular increase, but what I will say about this is that the workplace manslaughter laws were only just before Parliament. They have not even taken full effect and were only recently been passed by Parliament a few weeks back. They were consulted on back then on a 20-year basis, so within a matter of weeks we have effectively brought in another bill and upped the ante from 20 years to 25 years—a 25 per cent increase for that offence without any consultation. The fact that the opportunity would have arisen in the first instance by doing a consultation shows a bit of sloppiness on the side of the government. It does not show real transparency by doing that consultation and getting this right in the first place.

The industrial manslaughter laws, workplace laws, we were informed are the real cherry for the government. They are, if you like, a flagship policy for the government. A number of members of the government stood up and spoke about just how important industrial manslaughter laws were going to be for the government, and we certainly understood that. But for them to do that, to not properly consult and to now up the ante with a prison sentence of a further 25 per cent, it does not appear that the government have done their homework on this. They did not get it right in the first place. They have certainly tried to slip this in amongst some of the changes that are being proposed in this legislation. One might call it sloppy. One might also call it a lack of transparency of the government in the way that they have done this.

The bill specifically introduces an offence of homicide by firearm, with a 25-year maximum penalty and a 13-year standard sentence. This offence is intended to send a strong message to the community, which expects people who use firearms to do so safely, and highlight the potential serious consequences of handling a firearm dangerously. This is very, very important. There have been a number of very important cases where situations have arisen where one would have thought they would have been murder cases but whether it has been through a plea-bargain or the offender saying that they accidentally triggered the gun the negotiated outcome has been manslaughter rather than murder. What this does is trigger the seriousness of the crime so it is treated as a firearm manslaughter, which triggers the additional five-year penalty.

Thirdly, clarifying the relationship between manslaughter and other offences. Clauses 4 and 5 make it clear that the prosecution is not prevented from charging an accused with manslaughter when the facts could also support either child homicide or homicide by firearm. The bill gives options, which is very important. Clause 7 of the bill amends section 421 of the Crimes Act 1958 to provide that manslaughter, child homicide and homicide by firearm are all alternative verdicts to a charge of murder. Again it gives a suite of options in terms of charges for the DPP to look at, whether it be child homicide, homicide or homicide by firearm. Judges will need to consider the standard sentence when imposing a sentence for homicide by firearm but will not need to have regard to the additional factor when sentencing for manslaughter or child homicide.

The government suggests that this delivers their election commitment to introduce a new offence of homicide by firearm in cases where there is the discharge of a firearm. As I said, there have been a number of high-profile cases that we have seen in the public recently that show there needs to be a separate homicide by firearm offence, particularly where women have been shot and killed by their partners. This is very important, and we absolutely agree with this. We need clarity in the law when it comes to these situations.

Certainly we know of domestic violence situations where a number of women are living with that as a daily occurrence. Even the threat of these kinds of acts is horrific, but in the situation of the most tragic scenario of the use of a firearm to ultimately seriously injure or cause death to a female there needs to be separate laws that give absolute certainty as to where the scenario must lie in this. The cases that I will refer to are those of Karen Belej and Tamara Turner in 2016 and Rekiah O’Donnell and Kara Doyle, both in 2013.

A person may commit manslaughter by an unlawful or dangerous act which causes death if there was an appreciable risk of causing serious injury. Manslaughter may also be committed by criminal negligence where a person commits an act causing death in the circumstances of gross negligence.

People need to understand the consequences of having a firearm in their possession and the dangers associated with it. I will make the comment as well and will draw some attention to the amount of guns we have got in our community at the moment. That is not taking away from those that need guns for work purposes, for farming or agriculture—there is a whole range of people—and even for sport that are following the laws and doing the right thing. That is fine. My issue is particularly a lot of the additional illegal firearms that we are seeing in our community at the moment. We saw in the paper only today a whole range of serious gun-related incidents right across the state, with 52 people shot and 14 fatalities across Victoria, which is twice as many as what we had in the previous 12 months, so guns are becoming a real problem in our community.

We have had Luke Cornelius say recently that in the north-west area, his area, we are now starting to have a gun culture in our community and that there is a real problem in terms of guns, particularly those illegal guns that are hitting the streets. We are seeing reports of about two people a day that are being charged with some type of gun-related offence and those many serious offenders that are being charged at the moment. We had 70 people charged with stealing firearms in 2019, which is about three times higher than the previous year. As I said, an average of two criminals a day are being found in possession of illegal firearms in Victoria, which is huge when you think about it.

If you combine that with those that have legal firearms that then use them, as we have seen in these cases, the whole gun situation is an important one to have appropriate laws around to ensure that the community are protected. That is why we think there needs to be a lot more work when it comes to all of this. We would say from our side certainly that there has not been a focus by the government on really ensuring that we get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and ensuring that community safety is the absolute focus. I will talk a little bit more about that shortly.

Let me just finish off on some of the other issues. Manslaughter differs from murder. In fact for murder to have been committed the offender must have intended to act to either kill or cause serious injury to the victim. If that intent cannot be proved, the offender may be convicted of manslaughter instead. We have seen this on many occasions where there is either a deal done or there is an inability to prove intent, and that is where manslaughter gets used.

Currently in Victoria the maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years, and it is the lowest penalty within Australia. And that is important. I certainly will give credit where credit is due. Government must look at trying to harmonise the laws and see what other jurisdictions have done. When I spoke on some of the changes to the road safety laws here in the last sitting week I spoke about some of the dangerous driving laws and immediate suspension of licences. What I said then is that New South Wales, who are doing very well in reducing fatalities, have some laws in place that we do not. We should be looking to those laws to ensure we get some consistency, and we have that here. There are other states that have got the 25 years, so as part of the change we should not be at the lowest base; we should be always trying to improve ourselves and looking to other jurisdictions within Australia.

The other thing that I wanted to point out which is really important is that data from the Sentencing Advisory Council shows that between July 2013 and June 2018 the highest sentence for imprisonment imposed for the offence of manslaughter was 12 years, with a median term of eight years. So even though we had 20 years, the highest sentence was 12 years and the average was eight—so it is a long way from the 20. We certainly understand the importance of judges and judges being able to assess court cases and look at situations case by case, but certainly victims of crime and the victims of crime that have been mentioned as part of this legislation have said that they support the intent of what we are trying to do here but would also suggest that we need to look at what the judges are doing to ensure we get more on the side of justice and more on the side of ensuring that we put our victims first and not be in the bottom half of where we are in that situation.

More recently two offenders received certain sentences of 13 years imprisonment, and the highest sentence ever imposed for manslaughter in Victoria is 15 years imprisonment. The highest sentence ever imposed—15 years. So we have already a 20-year scenario, and the highest we have ever gone is 15. Well, we have never got to the 20 for a start, so by increasing it to 25 does not necessarily mean we are going to get anywhere near the 25 years. So my plea today is that we should always look at putting our victims first. We need to be considering these situations as they occur.

When you have some of the horrific murders that may be termed manslaughter for a whole range of different reasons and they cannot pursue a murder case and they have effectively gone through a manslaughter charge, we do need to ensure that we are getting closer to what the community sentiment is, and the government is recognising, obviously, that in the change in this bill, moving from 20 to 25. We would also suggest that that needs to be the sentiment of the community, and it is up to the Attorney-General to provide that there is more of a focus around this to be able to ensure that we get closer to where the community sentiment is, because it is no use having maximum sentences that are never reached. That is not to say that we want to be giving everyone maximum sentences—as I said, there are reasons for looking at it on a case-by-case scenario—but if you have got a maximum sentence and you are not getting there and you are not using it, then why have it? We all know of some horrible, horrible situations and crimes where you would absolutely expect someone would get the maximum sentence, and before you know it they have got 10 or 15 years or something and you just shake your head and say, ‘Why wasn’t the maximum sentence given in this scenario?’.

I have mentioned the workplace manslaughter legislation, and it is only three months after introducing the workplace manslaughter legislation provisions that the government is now basically bringing in these changes—that is, increasing the penalty by 25 per cent from 20 to 25 years—without proper consultation. Again, why was the proposed new maximum imprisonment of 25 years for workplace manslaughter not introduced at the same time the original legislation was proposed and flagged?

I just want to briefly touch on the actual cases leading to some of these changes proposed. So in the scenario of Nelson Lai, who was 35 years of age and fatally shot his 22-year-old girlfriend, Rekiah O’Donnell, at his Sunshine home in 2013, despite threatening to kill Ms O’Donnell in the months before he shot her Lai was found not guilty of murder. Lai was convicted of manslaughter after he told the Victorian Supreme Court jury Ms O’Donnell’s death was a tragic accident and that he would have never pulled the trigger if he had thought the borrowed gun he was waving around was loaded. I mean, why the hell is someone waving around a gun like this in the first place at his girlfriend? Why did he have the gun in the first place? To have an excuse, to say, ‘Well, I didn’t know it was loaded when I pulled the trigger’—I mean, heaven help us. That is just appalling; that is absolutely appalling. And what did he receive? He received a sentence of nine years and five months in prison with a non-parole period of six years and 11 months. A non-parole period of six years and 11 months—pulling a trigger, suggesting he did not know the gun was loaded and killing his girlfriend, and that is what he gets. Now, in this scenario, as I said before, we are increasing the maximum penalty to 25 years, but I would hope that, again, we see a proportionate lift in the outcome of these scenarios, because it is not good enough achieving those kinds of outcomes in our courts. It is just not good enough. It does not send anywhere near the right message in terms of a justice and fairness system, and it does nothing for the victims and their families.

In that case the victim’s mother welcomed these new laws proposed. Ms O’Donnell’s mother, Kerryn Robertson, has been fighting for the introduction of a homicide by firearm offence since her daughter’s death. She has welcomed the new laws as long as the judges impose higher sentences, and that is the big preface—as long as the judges impose these higher sentences. She said:

In our case if this law was around, he could have got five years extra or even more.

Just increasing the manslaughter laws from 20 to 25 years doesn’t mean they—

the offender—

will get that, there are … loopholes people use to get away with …

things, like mental health and drugs and what have you. Ms Robertson said she would continue advocating for even tougher laws, including the introduction of Rekiah’s law, which would mean that anyone who shot and killed someone would be charged with murder. Good luck to her. These are important things that someone should be advocating for, and I commend her for her work. We also want to ensure there are no excuses, and it goes on in terms of that particular scenario.

Another case I wanted to raise is covering the manslaughter causing the death of Mildura White Ribbon campaigner Karen Belej in 2016. The legislation was prompted by the family of Ms Belej, who was shot and killed when Brandon Leigh Osborn, who she had a relationship with, pointed a .357 magnum handgun loaded with a single bullet close to her head and pulled the trigger. Osborn was initially charged with murder, but the charge was downgraded to manslaughter under a plea bargain by the DPP. He was sentenced to, again, a maximum of nine years after putting a magnum shotgun to the head of his girlfriend and killing her, with a minimum of six years for the manslaughter charges as well as being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.

We have seen that the family pleaded with the then Attorney-General to look at having these laws changed. I know that the previous member for Mildura, Peter Crisp, has been advocating for some time on this particular case and trying to bring in these additional laws. In my role as Shadow Minister for Police I meet with some of these families on a regular basis and am aware of the struggles they go through, and they are constantly saying that we have a legal system in Victoria and not a justice system and that we need to move more to a justice and fairer system. So I would say in terms of all of those cases that these are important changes. We certainly support these increases, but, as I say, we need to ensure that the courts uphold the intent of these and see that the community sentiment around these laws is upheld when judges are handing down these decisions.

In my last few minutes I just wanted to touch on some of the changes to the firearm prohibition orders. Coming back to what I said before about some of the illegal guns that are on our streets at the moment, the government did bring some laws back into play in May 2019, which were considered effectively—certainly by the government—as game changers, as things that would get guns out of the hands of criminals and things that would get guns off the streets. These are laws that followed laws from New South Wales that have been applied very successfully, taking a lot of guns off the streets, giving police the powers to take those guns—to seize those guns—and to ensure that those that should not be carrying guns are in fact not carrying guns.

So in the first 12 months of the scheme we had only 181 of 2200 people identified as targets for these laws. So we had 2200 people targeted and we were only able to issue 181 of those with firearm prohibition orders. That is compared to 3657 over a five-year period in New South Wales, and they are basically working on about 730 a year. My understanding is it has now been over 12 months and we have got 250 of these firearm prohibition orders in place. We had a situation where there was a challenge in VCAT very quickly after they were introduced. In fact the first firearm prohibition order was challenged by a former bikie gang head, and that to me again raises a whole lot of questions around these laws. Initially the order was overturned when Colin Websdale was the first to test the legislation, which highlighted the difficulty of defining the public interest in determining these kinds of laws.

Following the firearm prohibition orders being introduced into Parliament, there was an inquiry by the Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee, which has members of the government and opposition on that committee, including Rod Barton, Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, Dr Catherine Cumming, Enver Erdogan, Stuart Grimley, David Limbrick, Edward O’Donohue, Tim Quilty and Samantha Ratnam. This committee unanimously said that there were a whole lot of issues with the government’s introduced firearm prohibition orders and proposed changes to those firearm prohibition orders. The committee chair said:

The recommendations made unanimously by the Committee are well thought out and address the concerns I’ve expressed above and others that are outlined in the Report. I hope that the Government takes these recommendations on board and moves to amend the legislation to ensure that it is more fit for purpose, enforceable and ultimately achieves the goal we all share—to maintain the safety of our community.

That is very important. It was, as I say, one of five recommendations that we are looking at to be able to take guns off our streets, particularly illegal guns off our streets, and an all-party committee have suggested that they need to be improved; that we need legislation in place in this Parliament to amend those laws to ensure we get those illegal guns off our streets; that we get those guns that should not be in our community out of our community. As I said to you, the report from the Age today talks about the doubling of the killings on our streets in 12 months and a number of issues resulting from gun crime. We need to do whatever we can to ensure the community is safe, and that is why we believe that we need to ensure that this Parliament does whatever we can to make that happen. On that note, I think I will conclude my contribution.

Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Youth) (16:57): It is my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of this very important bill. I want to speak to this bill through the frame of my portfolio responsibility, in particular as the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence. As we know, family violence remains the number one law and order issue facing our state, with Victoria Police responding to a family violence incident every 7 minutes, which I think we would all agree is far too often.

When we came to government in 2014 we did so acknowledging the scale and complexity of the challenge that was before us in preventing and ending family violence in our community. That is why we established the Royal Commission into Family Violence and committed to implementing each and every one of its recommendations—all 227 of them. I am very proud to be able to say that we have so far acquitted 143 of those recommendations, with all others underway. It is also why in doing that we have made record investments—over $2.9 billion—to deliver a family violence system that keeps Victorians safe and to do that as a whole-of-government responsibility. I have been known to say many times in this place in order to convey the significance of that investment that that $2.9 billion constitutes more than that of every other jurisdiction in Australia, including the commonwealth, combined. That is something that we should be incredibly proud of here in Victoria, the fact that we are introducing world-leading reform and that this reform is one that will not only benefit Victorians but will also inform policy work done in other Australian jurisdictions and in other international jurisdictions.

We cannot speak about family violence, and we certainly cannot end family violence until we address the behaviours that lead to it. That means that we work to change attitudes and challenge gender stereotypes, and that is very fitting as we head into International Women’s Day, but it also means that we must hold anyone perpetrating family violence or violence against women to account. We have a duty as a government and as a state to send a very clear message to perpetrators that when you commit such an act of violence you will face significant consequences that befit the horror that you have inflicted on somebody else and all those who love them. This is especially when those actions result in the deaths of women and children, and as we have heard, often this happens at the hands of the people who are supposed to love them the most—their partners. This is why the legislation before us is so important and it is why I wanted to speak about this legislation through that frame.

I want us to pause and reflect on four women who were shot and killed by their partners, and I note that the member for Caulfield also referenced these cases. These are Karen Belej, Tamara Turner, Rekiah O’Donnell and Kara Doyle. These are four communities left devastated by the loss of these women—four families forever changed. This is a spot at the dinner table that is no longer being filled. This is a permanent absence in the lives of people who cared so very deeply about these women. We can never truly comprehend that grief or the anguish that these families experienced and must experience and feel each and every day. It never leaves. I have had many families of victims who have sadly lost their lives as a consequence of family violence tell me that very thing—the loss is with you for life.

The one thing we certainly can understand of these families is their expectation that the perpetrators of these crimes are held to account. As we have heard from the member for Caulfield in talking to those four cases I just referenced—those four lives I just referenced—the sentencing I think by anyone’s measure would be considered inadequate. Sadly, though, too many families have been left disappointed at the outcomes of cases involving firearms. Often in these cases men—and yes, it is usually men, none of us would be shocked to learn—who kill their partners with a firearm accepted culpability but they denied intent. They were originally charged with murder but those charges were either dropped for lack of evidence or were unable to be proven in court and the offenders were convicted or pled guilty to manslaughter instead. A lot of the challenge in these cases is that there were no witnesses; it is effectively his version of events and of course she is not alive to tell her story. That can lead, sadly, in some cases to some outcomes that most of us, indeed all of us, would probably regard as unsatisfactory.

In those cases that I have just outlined, where offenders were convicted or pled guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter, judges were then constrained by the maximum available penalty of 20 years, which meant that sentences imposed, as we have seen in the examples given by the member for Caulfield, fell short of community expectations and of course of the expectations of those grieving families. That is why before the last election we made a commitment to the families of these four women and all others who have sadly lost their lives in similar circumstances that we would introduce a new offence of homicide by firearm so that sentences could more adequately reflect the harm caused. With this bill we are delivering on that commitment.

The new homicide by firearm offence will have a maximum penalty of 25 years and a standard sentence of 13 years. While a standard sentence provides guidance across all cases of homicide by firearm—for example, cases involving recreational firearm use or hunting accidents—we still expect that the average sentence for men who kill their partners with a firearm would be significantly longer than 13 years. That would certainly be my hope. This is about sending a very clear message to perpetrators of family violence and violence against women who may have access to a firearm that if they are found guilty and culpable of killing their partner with a firearm, they will be held to account just as they should be. There are no ifs and no buts; they will face a significant time in prison.

I do not think I need to labour the point about why this is so important. It is not just about appeasing the families of these particular four victims but it is about making sure that our system reflects the gravity of the crime. We know that in recent years in Victoria the debate—it is not even a debate; the awareness raising and the discussion—about the significance of the issue of family violence in our community has been at fever pitch, but we need to ensure that our efforts continue to be focused on making sure that we are shifting the dial and making sure that we are actually achieving real change and real outcomes so that there is not a need for a ministerial portfolio for the prevention of family violence. I would love to do myself out of a job so that we are not still standing here talking about a woman a week losing her life at the hands of a partner or former partner and not still standing here talking about family violence being the leading cause of disability and death for women aged between 15 and 44.

The legislation that is before us today needs to be seen in the context of that much bigger and broader reform that we are embarking upon here in Victoria, a reform that sees every minister in this government have responsibilities. This change that will, albeit in a very targeted way, go to specific circumstances is about in part ultimately holding perpetrators to account and providing a disincentive where men who have access to firearms may feel compelled or inclined to use those against their partners. This is a very important piece of legislation to that end. It is a very important component of a whole-of-government commitment to family violence reform and a whole-of-government commitment to ensuring that we are ending family violence and that we are making meaningful progress to that end here in Victoria and for the benefit of people across our nation as we inspire change—and indeed internationally.

We cannot bring back the women killed by their partners or undo the untold hurt that has been felt by their families, by their communities and by all who loved them, but we can ensure that those who commit these incredibly awful crimes are held accountable and that our courts have the powers to impose sentences that properly reflect the expectations of the community and properly reflect the gravity of the crime that has been committed. This legislation is an important step on our journey towards a Victoria that is free from violence, and that is the very reason why I commend the bill to the house.

Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (17:07): I am delighted to rise to make a contribution on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020 We have heard that the bill will amend the Crimes Act 1958 to increase the maximum penalty for manslaughter, child homicide and workplace manslaughter. It will also introduce new homicide by firearm offences with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard sentence of 13 years. Thirdly, it will clarify the relationship between homicide by firearm, child homicide and manslaughter. The bill will make amendments to various acts to ensure the law does treat homicide by firearm in the same way that it treats manslaughter and child homicide. It will make amendments to the Bail Act 1977, the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 and various others in a long list.

There is no doubt that loopholes in the law currently exist where there are those who are found guilty of manslaughter purely by the fact that there was not enough evidence to be found guilty of murder, and then having been found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder, the punishment is much lighter. This is clearly unacceptable to the families and relatives of those deceased, and is important to ensure the law and its penalties are adequate for those horrific crimes.

Clauses 3, 4 and 21 increase the maximum penalties for manslaughter, child homicide and workplace manslaughter from 20 to 25 years imprisonment. That is a significant step forward in my view, so I am very supportive of those changes. This lifts the upper boundary of the range of possible sentences that may be imposed for these offences, providing sentencing courts with a greater scope, and that is what we want—we want that greater scope to give them the flexibility, so to speak, to address the most serious cases and sentence serious offenders to a period of imprisonment which is proportionate to the gravity of their offending and facilitates community safety further from unlawful and dangerous or criminally negligent behaviour.

I just want to touch on clause 9, which clarifies that the higher maximum penalties for manslaughter, child homicide and homicide by firearm will only apply to offences that are entirely committed after the increases take effect. Offences committed before that date will continue to be guided by the maximum penalty that applied at the time the offending conduct occurred. As it is intended that the penalty for workplace manslaughter be increased on the same day that the offence itself commences, in practical terms the offence will commence with the maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

Clause 5 introduces the offence of homicide by firearm, with a 25-year maximum penalty and a 13-year standard sentence. This offence is intended to send a strong message that the community expects people who use firearms to do so safely, and to highlight potentially serious consequences of handling firearms dangerously.

Clauses 4 and 5 make it clear that the prosecution is not prevented from charging an accused with manslaughter when the facts could also support either child homicide or homicide by firearm. Judges will need to consider the standard sentence when imposing a sentence for homicide by firearm but will not need to have regard to this additional factor when sentencing for manslaughter or child homicide.

In my electorate of Ovens Valley we have seen some horrific murders and cases over the last recent years, which is typically out of character for country or regional communities. We have had two violent murders in the Ovens Valley in recent years and it really has rocked our communities in separate cases. One was 11-year-old Zoe Buttigieg, who was murdered in her Wangaratta home in October 2015, and then in January 2016 Whorouly resident Karen Chetcuti was murdered by her neighbour. These horrific crimes sparked the Enough is Enough campaign, which has contributed to pressure being put on the Victorian government to make the changes that we are seeing here today.

The Enough is Enough movement is led by local resident of Wangaratta Tania Maxwell who now sits in the other place. This is a terrific example of the work that she has done, and her campaigning on this issue and other family violence issues with Carol Roadknight has delivered her a position with a voice in the other place. At one point a thousand people led by Tania and Carol marched through the streets of Wangaratta calling ‘enough is enough’ in a campaign for tougher parole laws and tougher sentences. Today this legislation is an example of those tougher sentences, where perpetrators cannot seek the loopholes. Hopefully we can support those higher sentences. This shows the importance of sentencing that reflects these community expectations. In some ways the government is slow to react. As I say, some of these situations go back to 2013, but we are now beginning to reap the rewards of that campaign Tania and Carol and others have done in local communities like mine and in other communities around metropolitan Melbourne and certainly regional Victoria.

There have been a number of high-profile cases that are cited for the need for the homicide by firearm charge, where women were shot and killed by their partners—Karen Belej and Tamara Turner in 2016, and Rekiah O’Donnell and Kara Doyle, both in 2013. Kara Doyle was a young girl who went to school in Finley, just up near my patch over the river. She was a good friend to many in my home town of Cobram and the community members there, and Sasha Parish, who still works and lives in Cobram and is very active in our local community, was another one of those who fought hard through the Enough is Enough campaign to ensure that a campaign like that delivers the changes that we are seeing here in this place today. So I take my hat off to people like Sasha who has worked extremely hard and has never forgotten Kara Doyle, and has continued to push for these very changes.

When I say the government is slow in making those changes I do not mean it as disrespect, but Kara was killed in 2013 and we are now seven years down the track. I believe that people like Sasha Parish, Tania Maxwell and Carol Roadknight will feel that their efforts and their dogged belief to make changes have certainly now been recognised. I take my hat off to them. I think it is a wonderful effort they have gone through, and this is a great mark of respect for the work that they did and continue to do.

A person may commit manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act which causes death if there is an appreciable risk of causing serious damage. Manslaughter may also be committed by criminal negligence where a person commits an act causing death in circumstances of gross negligence. Manslaughter differs from murder in that fact. For murder to have been committed the offender must have intended either to kill or to cause really serious injury to the victim. If that intent cannot be proved, the offender may be convicted of manslaughter instead. That is when we talk about the lower penalties that reflect that crime, and particularly in those circumstances that we have just reeled off with some of those examples, people have used those loopholes to certainly reduce their penalty.

Currently in Victoria the maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years imprisonment, the lowest maximum penalty within Australia, so I think if nothing else, we are lining up with other states in terms of pursuing longer jail terms for people who commit those violent acts. Data from the Sentencing Advisory Council shows that between July 2013 and June 2018 the highest sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence of manslaughter was 12 years, with a median term of eight, and I think that reflects clearly what we are talking about here. The difference between murder and manslaughter could very well be eight to 10 years imprisonment. In all these cases you have got to consider the family and the relatives of the person who has died to make sure that for the crime that has been committed against their family member, their loved one, the punishment reflects what that crime was.

I am a little concerned that it is only three months since introducing the workplace manslaughter legislative provisions. The Andrews government has not particularly managed that legislative agenda well, already amending the penalty in relation to workplace manslaughter. Increasing the penalty for workplace manslaughter by 25 per cent from 20 to 25 years is significant, and it is concerning in such a short space of time, but I do hope that this legislation has been thought through completely as families and relatives are relying on us as legislators in this place to reflect community standards for those who commit these disgraceful crimes. You would have heard from our lead speaker, the member for Caulfield, that we are not opposing this bill, and I certainly wish it a speedy passage.

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (17:17): I rise also to contribute to the debate today on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020, another really important piece of legislation from the Andrews Labor government. This bill goes again to the heart of justice and fairness in Victoria. We have seen over the course of many years that there have been some pretty tragic deaths, some tragic killings, where the sentences imposed unfortunately have fallen well short of community expectations. Some of these are really some of the most dreadful cases: for example, cases where children have died at the hands of those who were meant to be caring for them and cases where workers have died at work—and to that end I must say I am so extremely proud that the Andrews Labor government has introduced and now passed laws to make workplace manslaughter a criminal offence—and cases where very sadly women have been killed by guns fired by their partners or their former partners.

It is in relation to those final cases that before the last election in 2018 Labor promised to do something about this and about matching the sentences more readily and justly with community expectations. That was a promise that we made to the Victorian community, that we would strengthen Victoria’s homicide laws to make sure that those who commit the most serious crimes receive sentences that better reflect their level of culpability in causing just such utterly tragic and senseless deaths. That is what this bill is intended to do, and that is what this bill will do once passed.

I would like to acknowledge the former Attorney-General and of course our current Attorney-General for their work in championing these changes and of course for listening to and acting on the advocacy of a number of families and community members who sadly have been impacted so personally by the issues that we are addressing today. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions made by many others. That includes the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Legal Aid, Victoria Police, the Criminal Bar Association of Victoria and the Law Institute of Victoria, who have all contributed to these amendments in some way.

I do want to particularly acknowledge other Victorians, and they are the families who have lost loved ones who have been killed by firearms, of whom I will speak a little bit more later. But I note that they have acted with such dignity and determination in advocating for these changes over the last couple of years in truly what can be only described as heart-wrenching, tragic circumstances.

We have heard that this bill is due to commence on 1 July 2020, and when it becomes law it will actually introduce some pretty fundamental and significant changes to homicide law in Victoria. As we have heard, the first major change is obviously increasing that maximum penalty for manslaughter. It is currently 20 years maximum for offences of manslaughter and of course now workplace manslaughter and child homicide. This will increase to 25 years imprisonment. Second, there will be a new offence created known as homicide by firearm. Third, the prosecution will have the discretion to bring a charge of manslaughter rather than homicide by firearm or child homicide in appropriate cases and will be able to bring a charge of manslaughter, child homicide or homicide by firearm in the alternative to a charge of murder. It is really important that that clarity is brought out in the law, because that obviously goes to directions to juries in trials.

If I can, I will start with the maximum penalty, which has obviously been articulated already by members on both sides here. We are increasing the penalty from 20 years to 25 years. As we have heard, that is to better reflect community expectations that sentences for manslaughter really should be higher than they currently are. This is important because we have seen a number of cases of manslaughter—thankfully not a lot, but cases nonetheless—that were so egregious and involved the highest level of moral culpability but where unfortunately the sentences in those cases did not adequately or even nearly reflect the seriousness of the offending. We know that that has to change, that justice demands that that must change, and that is why we are introducing this bill today, and it is why we are acting on our commitment that we made to the Victorian community before the election in 2018.

We acknowledge and we hear the community, who say that upper-end sentences imposed to date have not been adequate in all cases, so by now changing the law to increase that maximum penalty we are sending a very clear message to sentencing courts that the community is expecting higher sentences. Effectively what we have done is to increase the scope of available penalties to the court so they have a broader sentencing bandwidth, if you like, to apply depending on the particular circumstances of the case before them. The higher penalty lifts that upper boundary and gives sentencing courts much greater scope to address some of the most serious offences.

Does this mean that sentences for manslaughter are going to increase? It probably does, and that is the intent of the bill as well, to be able to provide that guidance to courts to say that in some of the most serious cases it is entirely appropriate that sentences reflect the seriousness of that moral culpability and the type of offending. Of course this is going to better and more consistently align with community expectations in relation to these types of offences.

It is of course also important to note that sentencing judges and courts will always retain their full discretion and their independence to impose lower sentences where this is warranted; for example, in cases which more resemble accidents than cases that look more like murder but where mens rea, or intent, was not proved. That is obviously the fair and proper way to operate and for courts to operate, because clearly sentences imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offender’s conduct.

We have heard also about a particular type of case which has really brought about this new offence of homicide by firearm. These are cases where generally it is a gunshot by a partner or a former partner, in cases where there are no witnesses and in cases where also the offender claims that he—usually he—did not intend to fire the gun. Obviously in the absence of intent it is very, very difficult to prove murder, and what is happening is we are seeing the lesser charge of manslaughter brought and the community, particularly families, feeling quite betrayed and sharing disappointment and distress at the lower sentence that often follows from a conviction for manslaughter.

The penalties for manslaughter obviously must be broad enough to cover the scope of manslaughter offences, and that is exactly what we are intending to do with this bill. But I guess the real issue here is that we are addressing some very serious cases of homicide where women have been killed by their partners or former partners by gunshot, as I said, in situations where there are no witnesses and where the woman is deceased. Homicide by firearm sets a standard sentence of 13 years, which again is a very clear indication to courts that they can lift that bar in terms of the sentences that they may impose for charges of this nature.

We are meeting community expectations in terms of sentences that are imposed for charges of manslaughter, and we are giving clearer direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions in terms of the manslaughter charges that may be brought in the alternative, and I commend this bill—a bill about justice and fairness for Victorians and another promise made and kept to the Victorian community.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (17:27): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020. As has been mentioned, this bill is seeking to amend the Crimes Act 1958 to increase the maximum penalty for manslaughter, child homicide and workplace manslaughter; to introduce a new homicide by firearm offence with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard sentence of 13 years; and to clarify the relationship between homicide by firearm, child homicide and manslaughter. It also makes a range of consequential amendments. Obviously the main focus of this bill relates to the heinous crime that we have seen committed in this state by offenders, which is homicide by firearm. Those who spoke in the house before me have already noted the deaths of Karen Belej and Tamara Turner in 2016 and Rekiah O’Donnell and Kara Doyle in 2013. Any death is terrible, but the situation of the deaths of these particular individuals is just beyond words when you think of the circumstances of those deaths. I pay tribute to their families and those that have advocated for changes within the legislation.

We understand the importance of having strong laws and strong penalties that can be meted out to deal with offenders of these types of crimes, particularly crimes that are being perpetrated by partners and particularly crimes that are being perpetrated by a male partner on a female. I think any move to strengthen those laws is important and supported. Having said that, it is imperative that we ensure that our justice system is delivering penalties, delivering sentences, that meet the expectations of the Victorian community. I say that in the context where increasing penalties in and of themselves from 20 to 25 years does not do anything if the courts are not willing to listen to the Parliament and ensure that the sentencing that is being meted out to deal with offenders is meeting community expectations. Now, the community understands a very clear link between Parliament increasing sentences, increasing penalties, and them not necessarily being reflected within the courts by our judiciary. Whilst we have a clear separation between the legislature and the judiciary, it is still important that the courts understand that they have an obligation to be meeting the expectations of the Victorian community and that those community expectations are delivered through this Parliament. So it is important that those in our court system ensure that they are listening to the concerns.

When we look at the facts of the cases involved and when we look at the circumstances in which people have been killed, yes, there is a clear need to ensure that we have strong laws to deal with those offences. But again I just place on record my concern that we have an ongoing battle with the judiciary to ensure that they listen and deliver sentences that meet community expectations. It is also imperative that the government is identifying areas in which the law needs to be altered, needs to be changed, and is ensuring that the law reflects the concerns of the Victorian community.

At this juncture I wish to place on record my congratulations and thanks for the long and hard work done by victims advocates across the state, who have fought for many years on behalf of victims, and who volunteer their time to advocate and support the call for stronger laws. Whilst there are many across the state I again place on record my congratulations to Bev and Noel McNamara, constituents of the Ferntree Gully electorate. With the brutal death of their daughter they saw an opportunity to provide support for the families of other victims. They have been tireless in their work, in their advocacy and in their support. They receive phone calls all year round, day and night, from people wanting help. They are there within the court system as part of the advocacy to try to get laws changed. Over the years and over their journey they have delivered on behalf of victims with some of the changes we have seen in legislation.

Even today I spoke to Noel, who again was wanting to have further reforms made to ensure that there are better protections for victims of crime and the families of victims of crime. Whilst it was a terrible circumstance that they faced as a family, they saw fit to take that terrible situation and turn it into good to support others. Every Saturday morning Noel will be out there selling sausages in Ferntree Gully, raising money for victims of crime. He is a cherished member of our community. Our community rallies behind him and supports him and Bev in the work that they do. I pay tribute to them and the work of others.

I note in the legislation, though, that with the changes to the manslaughter provisions increasing the penalty from 20 to 25 years it will also apply to the workplace manslaughter legislation that this Parliament has only just dealt with. This is an interesting revelation, given the fact that the workplace manslaughter legislation that this house debated just last year was the result of months of consultation, I am told, that involved community stakeholders, representatives of the union and representatives of industry. They worked through a range of issues that were canvassed through that process.

It was always canvassed in the context that there was going to be a 20-year manslaughter provision in that legislation. So here we are, just after that legislation has passed the Parliament, now seeing an amendment to that legislation, when the legislation has not even taken effect. The workplace manslaughter law has already been amended. It is not an administrative, technical amendment, but it has seen a significant change in the penalty under that act of Parliament, none of which was debated in this house when the legislation was being debated, and none of which was foreshadowed by the minister or any member of the government during the debate in either house of the Parliament, nor, I am told, was it ever foreshadowed with the working party. Industry members were only alerted to the fact that there was going to be a change in the law after I told them, and these were industry stakeholders who were directly involved in the process of the establishment of that law.

Now whilst we are not here to prosecute the merits of the workplace manslaughter law, the law is being changed under this bill. This bill changes that law. It changes a significant component of that law because when we debated that bill in this house we talked about the fact that there was going to be a 20-year maximum sentence meted out potentially for employers who were found guilty under that act. Before that act even takes effect, that provision is gone. The 20 years has been obliterated. It has been struck out and it is increasing now to 25 years. I would have thought that the government, during a 12-month consultation process, at some point would have taken the opportunity to at least foreshadow that there was separate legislation that was coming into the Parliament that was going to vary that provision of the act. I think that that was handled appallingly by the government. It did not show faith with the industry. If they are prepared to make those changes with that provision, what else will they change without consultation?

Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (17:37): I am delighted to make a contribution on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020. As those who have gone before me have advised the house, this builds on and honours an election commitment to introduce a new offence of homicide by firearm for cases of manslaughter committed by discharging a firearm. Before I turn to the substance of the bill I do want to reflect on the journey that we have come on as a society, as a party and as a movement.

Now I was very fortunate. I grew up in an environment where I was surrounded by very strong women—very strong women—who commanded respect and received respect and had a very clear idea and notion in their minds about how they should be treated and respected. I was fortunate that my father never ever spoke ill of my mother—not once; I never heard him say a bad word against her—and in my immediate family or my extended family I do not recall seeing any evidence of family violence, although I do recall seeing male members of my extended family at different times treat their wives disrespectfully. They would speak to them in a not-respectful way, and it was often talked about in the car on the way home.

I remember being at Monash University for an ALP state conference in the early 1990s. It was one of my early state conferences. It was when we as a party first introduced quotas around affirmative action. I remember at the time coming home from that conference thinking, ‘I’ve just been witness to something that is going to be quite profound and significant, something that will change our state, will change our party but will make our society richer and better for it’. It was not immediate at the time. It certainly was not immediate back in, say, 1993 or 1994 or known that we would find ourselves now in 2020 with a cabinet made up of 50 per cent women. But I knew then that it was something big, and I knew something big was going to happen.

Like you, Acting Speaker Suleyman, I have attended many state conferences of the Labor Party over, now I can say, decades. I remember being at the May 2014 conference when the now Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, spoke about his decision to introduce a Royal Commission into Family Violence if we were given the very great gift of forming government after the 2014 election. For me that speech was the finest speech I have heard a leader of our party ever give at a state conference ever. You could just feel it. In the room it was electric, this sense that enough is enough and that we are not going to put up with women being treated as if they are second-class citizens, as if they are the property of their husbands or their partners or their fathers.

So we have gone on this extraordinary journey. It has been an amazing experience to see the levels of change and to feel that we are bringing the full potential, the full capacity of the state to tackle gender inequality and to make significant steps to advance the cause of the rights of women. Notwithstanding these endeavours, notwithstanding these challenges, we are still confronted with some abhorrent actions by men. And let us be really clear about this: it is overwhelmingly men perpetrating this violence on women—their partners, their former partners or their children. It is about time that the statute books were used effectively to ensure this behaviour is no longer perpetuated.

Now we can have really important social change campaigns, and we must. And we can have quotas, and we must. And we can try and have really important offices like the office of women and some of the work around the broader suite of services around the prevention of family violence, but we also must have very targeted, very focused, very punitive measures to send a message to these appalling individuals that if they decide to go down this path—if they decide that they think that it is fair and reasonable that they assert their authority, that they assert their will, that they are violent and abusive to a woman—then they will feel the full consequences of the law.

We need to have a sustained position of advancing the rights of women, advancing the cause of women and making sure that women feel like they are an equal part of our society. But we also need to make sure that these laggards—and that would be the best way to describe them—these men who think that they can behave in this way and that it is fair and reasonable, basically have the full force of the law thrown at them. If they think that it is fair and reasonable to take a firearm around to their ex-partner’s house, to knock on the door and threaten her, to ‘Oh, accidentally’ discharge the weapon, and she is killed, then they should face the full force of the law and they should be locked up for 25 years. They no longer have the right to be with us. The consequence of their behaviour is that they deserve to be locked up. Maybe they might think, ‘Well, actually you know what? If I do this, they’re not going to believe me that it was an accident. If I do this, I don’t really want to spend 25 years locked up. Well then, maybe I won’t. Maybe I won’t’.

Now, I would like to believe that legislation like this will ensure that this never happens again—that these sorts of heinous crimes, this appalling behaviour, will not happen again. I fear that that will not be the case. But perhaps if we can save more women, if we can ensure that these crimes become less frequent, that they occur less often, that these men are removed from our society for a longer period of time, then perhaps things will be better, perhaps things will improve.

As I have told many people in this house, I am not in any way religious, but I feel in some ways it is fitting to end with a quote. The quote goes like this:

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop.

And I don’t mind.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

And so I’m happy, tonight.

I’m not worried about anything.

I’m not fearing any man!

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!

Now, that speech was given by Martin Luther King on 3 April 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee. He was shot and assassinated the next day. The point is that I do not know what the future will hold. I do not know what will be the immediate impact in terms of this legislation. But I do know that longer term we will create a society where there is gender equality—real and meaningful gender quality. The scumbags and the low-life that have behaved in an appalling way towards women will go where they deserve to be sent—they will spend 25 years locked up inside, because that is what they deserve. They have no right to live with us. They have no place to live with us. They have forfeited their right to be members of a gender-equal society. This bill is so vitally important. I commend it to the house.

Dr READ (Brunswick) (17:47): The Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020 seeks to make two changes to criminal law in Victoria by increasing the maximum sentence for manslaughter and related offences and also by introducing a new offence of homicide by firearm. The Greens are not going to oppose this bill, but I will also outline our reservations with certain aspects.

With regard to increasing the maximum sentence for manslaughter, child homicide and workplace homicide from 20 to 25 years, I agree with the Attorney-General’s description of manslaughter as an offence with a very wide range of circumstances and degrees of culpability. But I disagree with the Attorney-General’s assertion that increasing the maximum sentence will ensure that future penalties for manslaughter will better meet the expectations of the community. In fact it might have the opposite effect. Consider when the West Australian Liberal government increased the maximum sentence for manslaughter from 20 years to life imprisonment in 2011, presumably to send an even-tougher-on-crime message than this government is seeking to do. Labor’s then Shadow Attorney-General, now the Attorney-General of WA, John Quigley, reflected in Parliament five years later that he was correct in believing the changes were no more than a political distraction because, and I quote:

… no-one has ever got life or anything near it. Even under the new regime, no-one has ever got the full 20 years’ sentence. The Liberal government got its headline, but there was no result for the community, as evidenced by the alarming increase in the crime figures.

To illustrate this we could compare the experience in Queensland in the 10 years from 2005, when the actual custodial sentences delivered for manslaughter ranged from one and a half to 15 years with a median of eight years in prison. And if these figures sound familiar, I will point out that despite a maximum sentence for manslaughter of life, Queensland has basically the same sentences being handed down as are occurring in Victoria. The ex-Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls got it right when he said in this place:

The fact is that you can increase maximum sentences all you like, but judges who actually hear individual cases take into account the peculiarities and particularities of the specific matter before them …

… Increasing maximum penalties will not necessarily increase the penalties that are imposed.

It is hard to consider this, then, and not agree that increasing maximum sentences appears to be little more than a political distraction and expediency, but I am more concerned that by denying this reality the Attorney-General is essentially magnifying community confusion and laying the groundwork for further unfair criticism of our independent judiciary. As opposed to setting maximums that are high on political messaging and low on community benefit, the Attorney-General knows that actual changes to sentencing, including increasing the penalties, are best achieved via guideline judgements by the Court of Appeal. Indeed it was a Court of Appeal judgement that I believe precipitated the legislation regarding the introduction of the offence of child homicide in Victoria in 2008. This is the way the Greens want to see smarter, more consistent sentencing that is better understood and accepted by stakeholders and the public. But I fear that we will someday be back here wasting more time debating yet another law and order bill that will increase these maximum penalties to life imprisonment.

I turn now to the second proposed reform: the introduction of a new offence of homicide by firearm with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard sentence of 13 years imprisonment. I want to first recognise the tragic deaths of women who were shot and killed by their male partners, as referenced by the Attorney-General in her second reading and by most of the other speakers here today. To reiterate the words of Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence:

Family violence crimes are particularly insidious.

And:

Family violence–related deaths are the ultimate tragedy of family violence. They are not uncommon, and intimate partner homicide is the most common form.

And we are dealing again with the news of yet another act of unforgiveable violence by a man who brutally killed his estranged wife and children. Already nine women have been killed by family violence in Australia this year—61 women were murdered last year.

To again paraphrase the commission, we cannot appropriately convey the grief of the families who have lost their loved ones with words or statistics. What we can do in Parliament is recognise this issue and formulate a considered and effective response. Where there is a demonstrated gap or anomaly in our criminal law. the Greens support reform, and for this reason we long supported the industrial manslaughter offences that were introduced in Victoria last year.

Similarly, today we support the intention of a new offence of homicide by firearm as having the potential to create a more appropriate means of reflecting the type of serious offending involving killing with firearms. However, I also point out the real risks of introducing this new offence, particularly around the increasing complexity and fragmentation of criminal law with the potential for confusion leading to unjust outcomes. This, along with the lack of a solid evidence base, was identified during the royal commission and was a key reason why the royal commission did not support the creation of new family violence offences. Therefore we expect the new offence to be closely monitored and reviewed by the government as well as by expert bodies such as the Sentencing Advisory Council to ensure that it operates effectively and justly. This is consistent with the royal commission’s recommendations for more and better data, research and evaluation. We also retain our support of the royal commission’s recommendation that the Office of Public Prosecutions seeks a suitable guideline judgement from the Court of Appeal for a family violence case.

Finally, we must also recognise the limitations of sentencing. Sentencing is not a deterrent that actually prevents offending or saves lives, so we cannot pretend to achieve these things by creating new offences or tougher sentences. We need wideranging reforms and initiatives across government, institutions and society that can help women escape violence and stop men from perpetrating it. Some of this work has already begun. The Greens commended the government on commissioning the family violence royal commission, and we will support the government in implementing all of its recommendations.

But we know we cannot simply consider implementing the royal commission as the end of the problem. Both the state and federal governments need to treat the number of women being murdered as the national emergency that it is. This will require a degree of political courage not to simply ignore emerging issues such as the need to stem the re-emergence of guns in our community, which are used both as a tool for men killing their intimate partners but also perhaps more frequently as a hidden daily means of intimidation and threats terrorising women and families. It will also require courage to spend what is necessary on expensive assets and services such as public housing and free legal support so that no woman is turned away in a violent situation.

Finally, and perhaps most challenging, we have to address the underlying attitudes of masculinity, superiority and entitlement that pervade our male psyche and lead to aggression and violence. We can no longer pretend that these attitudes are not found in all age groups and generations or that some of our most prestigious organisations, industries and professions are somehow immune. Changing attitudes must be achieved through policy and laws but also through men’s introspection and assessment of their own behaviour and example. I accept that these are easy words for me to deliver today, but I still urge us all to make, and act on, this commitment.

Mr TAK (Clarinda) (17:56): I am delighted to rise today to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020. This is a very important bill. It has three important objectives. The first of those objectives is to increase the maximum penalty for manslaughter and related offences of child homicide and workplace manslaughter from 20 to 25 years imprisonment. Last year I was proud to join the debate on the Workplace Safety Legislation Amendment (Workplace Manslaughter and Other Matters) Bill 2019. I was also very proud to see that bill pass the house and deliver on the government’s election commitment to introduce new workplace manslaughter laws into the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. I was very humbled to sit on the steps of Parliament House here last year amongst the boots of many of the 136 workers killed at workplaces across Victoria over the last five years. That was a very emotional moment.

The debate around that bill was all about making sure that penalties are proportionate to offences—namely, that if you negligently cause a workplace death you go to jail. Prior to the workplace safety legislation amendment bill the average penalty imposed for the death of a worker was $350 000 to $400 000—simply not good enough. That was merely a cost of doing business for some employers, and we needed stronger penalties and stronger deterrents, because you cannot put a price on the life of a worker. Clearly the penalties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 did not act as a significant deterrent for unsafe work practices. So we are here again today with this bill, the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020, the first objective of which also contemplates the proportional penalties for manslaughter offences.

Just to put it into context, the highest sentence ever imposed for manslaughter in Victoria is 15 years. The government is concerned that the current maximum penalty for manslaughter, which is 20 years, does not provide enough guidance and scope to ensure appropriate sentences for the most serious manslaughter. Again to put this into context, the current maximum sentence of 20 years for manslaughter is the lowest in Australia.

To be clear, we are not talking about murder here, we are talking about manslaughter. For murder to have been committed, the offender must have intended either to kill or to cause really serious injury to the victim or have known that their actions would probably cause death or really serious injury and acted recklessly despite knowledge of that probable outcome. If that intent, or reckless disregard for the probable outcome, cannot be proven, then an offender, even if originally charged with murder, may be convicted of manslaughter instead, as we have heard from previous speakers.

However, it is important to recognise that not all manslaughters resemble murder that cannot be proved. Manslaughter also covers deaths that were clearly unintentional and closely resemble accidents. A person may commit manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act which causes death if there is an appreciable risk of causing serious injury. Manslaughter may also be committed by criminal negligence where a person commits an act of gross negligence causing death.

So there is concern that the current penalty, which is the lowest in Australia, is not sufficient. As we have heard, the current maximum sentence for manslaughter in Victoria is 20 years. In South Australia the maximum is life in prison, a fine or both. In the ACT it is 20 years, and up to 28 years if aggravated—for example, against a pregnant woman. In Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland the maximum is life in prison. In Tasmania it is 21 years, a fine or both, and in New South Wales the maximum is 25 years in prison. So we can see that an increase will better align Victoria’s maximum penalty for manslaughter with penalties in other Australian jurisdictions, particularly our neighbouring New South Wales.

It is important to emphasise that these are maximum sentences. The maximum penalty is only being imposed for the worst cases of offending, taking into account the offender’s circumstances. A maximum sentence is very rare, and that becomes very evident when we look at the average sentences for manslaughter in Victoria. So what is the average sentence for manslaughter? As we have heard in previous contributions, between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2018, 68 of the 69 people sentenced for manslaughter received a sentence with an immediate custodial sentence. One offender received a wholly suspended sentence. The largest number of offenders—16 out of 69—received a sentence of between eight and nine years imprisonment for manslaughter. Therefore the average term of imprisonment for manslaughter in the 2017–18 financial year was nine years, which was higher than the 2016–17 financial year average of eight years and six months and, if you look back one year before that, the 2015–16 average of seven years and one month. An increase in the maximum penalty is a signal to a court about how serious the government and the community consider a particular offence to be. By increasing the maximum penalty for manslaughter the courts will be able to impose higher sentences for more serious offending.

There has been comprehensive consultation with the Supreme Court, the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Legal Aid, Victoria Police, the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Institute of Victoria and the families of victims regarding these changes.

Moving on, the bill will also introduce a new offence of homicide by firearm. This was another election commitment of the government. The new offence will have a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard sentence of 13 years imprisonment.

I remember that about this time last year there was a terrible fatal shooting on Springvale Road in my electorate. A 19-year-old was arrested and charged in that case. It was a terrible shock to the community. It was just across the road from my old practice, and many of the shop owners and business owners in Springvale and the broader community were shocked. I know that the community in my electorate support tougher penalties on gun violence and manslaughter, so they will be pleased to see this bill here today.

The new offence addresses concerns about sentences imposed in firearm-related manslaughter. In recent years there have been several shooting cases where offenders were convicted of manslaughter after claiming they did not intend for the firearm to discharge. Sentences for these crimes have fallen within the range of five to 11 years imprisonment. Lastly, the bill will clarify the relationship between child homicide, homicide by firearm and manslaughter.

I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering on community safety. We have delivered on workplace manslaughter, and we are delivering on the new offence of homicide by firearm here today. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (18:05): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020 and to follow my good friend and colleague the member for Clarinda, who gave a good summary of some of the challenges in this space, and I will carry on that theme as well.

There are a couple of narratives that I will focus on. One is I guess the absolute, key part of this bill: the offences of homicide by firearm, workplace manslaughter and child homicide. I will talk a little bit about those themes, but also I would like to take the opportunity to put on the record that those who are victims of crime have experienced such trauma, as have their families and communities, in interacting with the legal system as well, and I commend the work done by the victims of crime commissioner, Fiona McCormack, who was appointed last year, in 2019; the Attorney-General; and the Minister for Crime Prevention and Minister for Corrections and the like for the work that they have done in this space as well. We have an obligation to anyone that interacts with our justice system to try to make sure, one, that justice is done and, two, that we always support them in that interaction. It is with huge trauma and significant grief that people find themselves interacting with these types of offences.

I want to reflect firstly on the workplace manslaughter laws, which have been a game changer for our state and indeed should be taken up by every territory and state jurisdiction and indeed nationally. This is game-changing legislation. This makes sure that we send a clear message that if a worker passes away in the workplace and there is negligence there and there is the requisite offence level that would meet workplace manslaughter, those responsible feel the force of the law. That is not widely supported, but it needs to be done. The change of the penalty for this offence to make sure that it is consistent, that it will be a 25-year offence at its maximum level—and obviously the sentencing standards through this bill will set a term of 13 years imprisonment as standard—is really important, because it is about protecting people to make sure they come home safely. To see that bill come through the Parliament, with its implementation on 1 July this year, is a game changer for our state. That is a key part of this work in streamlining the consistency in that offence prism.

We lose 30 people on average—and that is what is in the stats—per year. That is 30 families that will be irrevocably changed for a lifetime, and that has a ripple effect. There are also those who are not counted in those stats, those people who do not feature in them. One of the most harrowing experiences I had was trundling down the road to the Trades Hall Council and seeing the footwear—the shoes or boots or work attire—of each and every one of those individuals. It made it so raw; it made it so real. Each and every one had a story, they had pathways to walk, they had families and friends that mourned them and their loss. Where an offence category of workplace manslaughter is met, that is the standard that we set, and we must implement that across state and territory jurisdictions. That is a must. It has to be implemented, and it should be part of a COAG discussion going forward.

The work of protecting and supporting victims of crime is such a critical space. We need to make sure of that for everyone in that interaction, including affected family members, particularly in the prevention of family violence space, and we heard the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence lead off the government’s speeches in this space. It is really critical and so important.

With this offence category of homicide by firearm as well it is truly harrowing reading of some of the experiences, evidence and case notes of the horrific trauma that people suffer and of the over-representation of the family violence offence in this space. This is part of a huge range of reforms in this space to ensure that women and children—indeed everyone—are protected in the family home.

So with that kind of offence we have seen the media reports about some of those offences and how harrowing they are and how devastating those losses have been, and it starts upstream. You can treat the symptoms. You can keep up on law and order and prison, but it does not deal with the causes—the ingrained and generational challenges that we face and that we must address. It is what underpins this government’s work around the 227 recommendations from the family violence royal commission that this government is implementing year on year, just like previous royal commissions, with a yearly audit to make sure that every government in every Parliament is accountable in each and every frame. You cannot abrogate your responsibilities to acquit your obligations to those people who for so long have been voiceless, for so long have been frustrated by the bureaucracy and by the system. They will have an ability now to feel safer and have that outcome realised in the years to come.

That is some incredible leading work when you see the investment in this space. When you contrast that to other states and territories and indeed the commonwealth, we are leading the nation in making sure that families are protected—women and children in particular, who are an over-represented category in that space—and that those cultural and social changes occur and attitudes towards women and indeed children change to allow better outcomes for those families in years and decades to come.

We have seen a lot of community interest in sentencing over a long period of time. What an unenviable task to come forward to try to land a particular outcome of the judiciary in terms of how complicated various offences are, the evidence that you hear, the trauma and the vicarious trauma that I am sure our magistrates and our judges feel in committal hearings and all the way through to trials in hearing that evidence as well. It is a hard space to be in. It is generally a task that leaves big scars on the people who interact with our judicial system each and every day. But justice in that sense needs to meet community expectations, and this bill sends a clear message to Victorians, indeed the wider sector and the wider community as well, of what the Parliament is setting down in the expectations that it puts forward into the future in terms of sentencing. So lifting the maximum penalty from 20 up to 25 years is a key element of that, and then I guess the middle range sentencing of 13 years is so very critical.

So it is a part of a number of legislative reforms that this government has implemented coming into its second term. It was an election commitment that we took forward as well that will be implemented going forward. It will make a difference in those levels of offences, but we must also acknowledge and also be mindful that for a person lost in this circumstance, through the offence of manslaughter, no sentence, no element, will bring that person back. Where we see some of the trauma in the family violence space, those offences have ripple and generational impacts and are deeply harrowing across the sector—from our emergency services to victims of crime advocates and to the people who are in our judiciary as well.

We acknowledge as well through this bill, and ongoing, the suffering that happens and the commitment that our parliaments have—indeed this government as well—to doing all they can to reduce offences, to reduce the number of people lost through this offence prism and to send a clear message that homicide by firearm in this category, with the over-representation of family violence offences in this space, is deeply unacceptable and is at the same level, in its maximum penalty of life imprisonment, as the category offences of murder that we see across the jurisdictions.

So this is a really important legislative reform as part of a range of things that this government is doing to make sure that we meet community expectations and that we keep people safe but also, upstream, that we deal with those causes of crime, that we deal with some of those things that happen from the cradle all the way through to when people commit offences and that we change attitudes in terms of violence generally in our community and in interaction that we see in our education system. But long-running generational change has to occur to make sure that women and children are safe and that we reduce offences in the future. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (18:15): It is indeed a pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020. From the outset can I acknowledge the Attorney-General at the bench right now, her team, the department and everyone else involved, including stakeholders, who were able to draft this bill—this commonsense bill. It reflects the expectations of our community, and I can say definitely, being the member for Frankston, that it does reflect the expectations of my community. As we have heard from many other people through some very high quality contributions this afternoon, the bill strengthens Victoria’s homicide laws to ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes receive sentences of imprisonment that better reflect their culpability for causing the death of another, and in particular the bill delivers on a government election commitment to introduce a new offence of homicide by firearm for cases of manslaughter committed by discharging a firearm. It will also introduce tougher penalties for manslaughter and child homicide to better reflect the seriousness of these crimes.

Just going back, as the chair of the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee, what are we talking about when we are talking about manslaughter cases that might have been affected by this new legislation if it had been in place when these incidents occurred? We are talking about an accused killer and a deceased who were playing a game of Russian roulette. We are talking about an accused who claimed they did not know the firearm was loaded, which I think is a very poor excuse and a very poor position to put yourself in—and I am sure the people who represent the different stakeholder bodies on the consultative committee would actually agree with that; cases of the accused playing around with a firearm and accidentally pulling the trigger and people shooting others accidentally while hunting as well; and confrontations where the accused shot a firearm in the victim’s direction and was trying to scare the victim but instead shot the victim and caused a fatality as well.

Now, if you are anywhere near Frankston or live in Frankston, you will know of an incident that happened in 2009. It is very vivid in my memory. Driving to work I came across a road blocked by police and could not get through—on 23 October 2009 in Burns Street, Frankston—so I had to go another way to get to the fire station for day shift. I then heard on the news that a woman, Tracey Greenbury—who had two children, eight and 14 years old—had been threatened by a former partner or a partner with a gun and ran for help. She knocked on the door of a neighbour and was shot by the man pursuing her as she was at the front door. If that was not enough to anger people, if the statistics that we have heard about family violence—losing more than one woman statistically a week due to violence—were not enough, it angered me to look into that a little bit more. Currently Leigh Robinson, the person who shot Tracey Greenbury, is serving life without parole, but Leigh Robinson has a history of violent acts and murder. In 1968 he was sentenced to death for murdering his teenage girlfriend at the time. So he was sentenced to death. That sentence was commuted to 30 years, and he served 15 years. Under this current legislation he would immediately serve 25 years, I am sure of that.

That rocked Frankston. It rocked Victoria. But there is a story like this for every single community in Victoria, every single community in our nation. As the member for Mordialloc previously said, it would be nice to see some other states—in fact COAG and the federal government—get in lockstep with the Victorian government and actually set the bar higher and set what is acceptable behaviour in our community and what is unacceptable behaviour.

I was a bit stunned to hear some fairly recalcitrant commentary from the Greens in this house that this legislation was—I might be misquoting, but I think the statement was—‘high on political benefit but low on community benefit’. I think I would invite that person to come down to Burns Street and doorknock some of the neighbours with me, as I have, and hear the tales of what went on in this case and what goes on behind closed doors and in the open everywhere in our nation, sadly.

As I said, we have had some really high quality contributions from everyone in this chamber today and we have heard some fairly horrific stories. What has come out of it is that there is confusion and anger that has been expressed today from victims’ loved ones, from families and from communities about the sentences that people are getting—and understandably, because it is really, really difficult accepting that outcomes such as some of the outcomes we see are just. Someone might take someone else’s life away, destroy a family and destroy an extended family and community, and they get off rather lightly in some people’s minds—and my mind as well. This hurt is also amplified when the offender, who might demonstrate a high degree of culpability, is then sentenced according to established sentencing practice for manslaughter and thus receives a term of imprisonment that falls far short of our community expectations. Today we are ensuring we meet those community expectations.

Currently the maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years imprisonment, and that is the lowest maximum penalty for this offence in Australia. Data from the Sentencing Advisory Council shows that between July 2013 and June 2018 the highest sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence of manslaughter was 12 years—just 12 years—and the median sentence was eight years. More recently two offenders have received sentences of 13 years imprisonment, and the highest sentence ever imposed for manslaughter in Victoria was 15 years imprisonment.

It is important that our available penalties for manslaughter provide enough scope for courts to actually impose sentences which can appropriately reflect the broad range of culpability, not just at the lower end but definitely at the top end—and that is what this bill brings to the table. We are talking about some of the very worst crimes we have heard about in our court system, and these people deserve, when found guilty, to be sentenced appropriately. I do not think the community has been satisfied with existing maximum penalties. I certainly have not, and this bill shows that the government has not been as well.

This bill will also increase the maximum penalty for manslaughter to 25 years imprisonment, and this is the highest maximum penalty in Victoria short of life imprisonment, which is reserved for the most heinous of crimes—for example, murder. For consistency, as we have heard, the bill will also increase the maximum penalty for the related offences of child homicide and workplace manslaughter from 20 to 25 years imprisonment. These offences are all forms of manslaughter, and it is important that our laws reflect that objectively. No form of manslaughter is necessarily inherently more serious than another.

This bill acquits a government election commitment to produce a new offence of homicide by firearm with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard sentence of 13 years imprisonment. The new offence addresses concerns that have been aired frequently over the years about certain firearm-related manslaughters. In recent years there have been several shooting cases where the offender who has been sentenced for manslaughter, for example, has claimed they did not intend to shoot a firearm or that it was an accidental discharge. The court of law is not a pub test, but certainly for most of us that read about some of these incidents in the newspaper, if we are talking about a legally licensed firearm owner and a registered gun, there are education programs you have to go through to get your licence, and the first thing you are always taught is always treat the firearm as if it is loaded, and never, ever—regardless of whether you think it is loaded or not—point a firearm at anyone. I think the excuse that we have been hearing, especially with regard to some cases where women have been shot, is a load of rubbish. People know the consequences of an accidental discharge, and most of the time I do not think that is the case that is actually happening.

The women I am talking about who have been killed in these cases certainly did no wrong. These include Karen Belej, who was shot and killed by her partner in 2016; Tamara Turner, shot and killed by her partner in 2016; Rekiah O’Donnell, shot and killed by her partner in 2013; and Kara Doyle, who was shot and killed by her partner in 2013. While it is great to stand here and say our thoughts and prayers and hearts and minds and this, that and the other are with these people and their families, it is even better to be standing here today as a member of a progressive Andrews Labor government actually taking stakeholders’ opinions on board, reflecting what our community is feeding back to us through our offices and making sure that while we cannot bring people back to life, we are protecting people in the future. We know that we have a huge, huge task on our hands getting the family violence issues in our community Australia-wide under control, and this is part of that. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (18:25): It is with great pride that I rise to make a contribution today on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020. It is always great to follow the member for Frankston, who always provides insightful commentary and debate on the bills which are before this house.

This bill is another example of this government responding to community need and implementing all Victorians’ wishes in a considered and a very methodical way. It is also good to see that the opposition is lending its support to this bill and, further, is not proposing any amendment to it. Many have voiced their concerns with regard to prison sentencing in our community more generally, as they have also voiced their frustration at the perceived vagaries associated with what constitutes the crimes of manslaughter or murder. This bill responds to that. It creates consistency in terms of sentencing with categories of manslaughter. It also responds and seeks to redress those manslaughter crimes which increasingly are the outcome of or the result of family violence.

This bill will strengthen the state’s manslaughter laws, ensuring that those who commit some of the most serious crimes receive sentences that are better reflective of their culpability for causing death. With the various matrixes of circumstances that might surround serious crimes of this nature, intent is often very hard to establish, especially if there are no witnesses. Manslaughter is the lesser charge to murder that the perpetrator of the crime will often be found guilty of instead.

There are various ways in which manslaughter can be committed in Victoria. A person might commit manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act which causes death if there was an appreciable risk of causing serious injury. That has been deemed by the courts as being serious. Manslaughter may also be committed by criminal negligence, where a person commits an act causing death in circumstances of gross negligence. This has been deemed by courts as being less serious.

The issue is that the sentencing regime does not have enough scope within it for judges to deal with sentences for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous acts compared to manslaughter in the circumstances of gross negligence. So it is important therefore that the available penalties for manslaughter provide enough scope for the courts to impose sentences which can appropriately reflect the very broad range of culpability, not just at the lower end but at the top end as well. The government is not satisfied that the existing maximum penalties do that. Indeed the community has told us in various forms and through various mechanisms that the maximum penalty needs to increase, particularly given the penalty that goes to a verdict of murder. While murder in this state has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, manslaughter currently has a maximum of 20 years.

So what the government is proposing is to raise the maximum penalty for manslaughter to 25 years, which is the longest finite sentence currently available under Victorian criminal law, so that it will hopefully lead to a modest uplift in average sentences overall. But more importantly it will allow for a significant uplift in the small number of manslaughter cases that fall at the upper end of seriousness each year, which is said to be around two or three cases out of the 11 or 12 manslaughters committed on average each year. It will also bring Victoria more into line with other Australian jurisdictions, the majority of which have longer manslaughter penalties available for the worst offences. I note that New South Wales also has a maximum penalty of 25 years.

Importantly the bill also delivers on a government election commitment to introduce a new offence of homicide by firearm for cases of manslaughter committed by discharging a firearm. Again, this is reflective of community concern where the seriousness of the possible end result of a discharged firearm is recognised in law. Homicide by firearm will carry a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard sentence of 13 years imprisonment. I will talk about standard sentences a bit later.

This new offence addresses concerns about sentences imposed in certain firearm-related manslaughters. In recent years—and unfortunately on the rise—there have been several shooting cases where offenders were sentenced for manslaughter after claiming they did not intend for the firearm to discharge. These cases have often arisen from circumstances where the perpetrator has shot and killed the victim in an isolated or private place with no witnesses. While in their cases before the courts they might originally have been charged with murder and there may have been a history of relationship violence, murder has not been able to be proved. The O’Donnell case is but one such recent case. Rekiah O’Donnell was just 22 years old in 2013 when she was shot dead by her boyfriend in his home. He had threatened to kill her in the months before he eventually did kill her, but the perpetrator of the crime, Nelson Lai, was found not guilty of murder. Mr Lai was able to argue to the court that Ms O’Donnell’s death was a tragic accident. He said that he would never have pulled the trigger on the gun that he had borrowed if he had known that the gun was loaded. He was sentenced to only nine years and five months in prison with a non-parole period of six years and 11 months. There would not be too many amongst us who would not at least be disappointed by the outcome of this case, as justice has not been served.

As aforementioned, homicide by firearm offences will carry a standard sentence. A standard sentence is where sentences should fall in the middle of the range of seriousness for that type of offence. It does not limit what other matters a judge can take into account but is a fair mechanism to assist in the determination of a sentence. Like the maximum penalty, it is a legislative guide to provide guidance on offence seriousness. In other words, the worst homicide by firearm offences would be expected to receive sentences longer than 13 years while those that are shown to involve very low levels of culpability may receive shorter sentences.

Whether it was Rekiah O’Donnell; Karen Belej, shot and killed by her partner in 2016; Tamara Turner, also shot and killed by her partner in 2016; or Kara Doyle, who was shot and killed by her partner in 2013, they are all tragic and unnecessary deaths sadly in similar circumstances where the male partner of these women—the offender—was in all cases able to argue a lower manslaughter charge and thereby a lower prison sentence. But in the terms of this bill their deaths have not been in vain. Under this bill offenders who use firearms dangerously and cause another person’s death should receive tougher sentences whether the death was intended or not. The sentencing guideposts for homicide by firearm—that is, the maximum penalty of 25 years and the standard sentence of 13 years—indicate just how seriously the government considers this type of crime.

This bill is a vitally important one. Its passing in both houses will ensure fairer outcomes and that justice is not only served but seen to be served as well. I commend the work that has gone into the bill, the broad range of consultation and the work of the Attorney-General and the department to get it to this stage. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms HALL (Footscray) (18:35): I rise to support the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020 and would like to begin by noting the contributions of my colleagues the member for Frankston and the member for Narre Warren South, but also the member for Brunswick, who all spoke about the connection to family violence and about how family violence is of course the worst crime that we have to address in Victoria and indeed in Australia. The Minister for Prevention of Family Violence spoke very powerfully about the work that this government is doing in responding to family violence, because of course we are committed as a government to preventing family violence and some of the attitudes that lead to family violence, supporting victims and holding perpetrators to account. So I am very proud to be part of a government that is implementing all 227 recommendations and investing, as the minister pointed out, more than every jurisdiction combined, including the commonwealth, in tackling this very serious issue.

This bill will achieve several important legal reforms. It will increase the maximum penalty for manslaughter, child homicide and workplace manslaughter to 25 years imprisonment. It will introduce a new offence of homicide by firearm and it will clarify the relationship between child homicide, homicide by firearm and manslaughter. An important element of manslaughter, especially in the context of this debate, is that there does not need to have been any intention to cause death or serious injury for manslaughter to occur; however, actions still have consequences, and this bill will help to give the public cognisance of this simple fact. In a previous role I was very proud to work for Victoria Police in their media unit. I was based in the crime department, and a good portion of my role involved working with victims of crime on appeals for information and supporting detectives and police in managing media queries about crimes. There were some truly terrible crimes that have stayed with me ever since, including a homicide where the victim was a toddler.

In the years following my time with Victoria Police I often watched with interest the sentences imposed as the different cases proceeded to court, and having sometimes visited the scene of a crime or having met the victim’s family I felt very acutely how they might have been feeling as the case went to court. I watched in close quarters how dedicated the police were in supporting victims and in their pursuit of finding answers for those victims. I also watched with dismay sometimes how inadequate some of the sentences were, particularly in the circumstance of homicide by firearm, and the member for Frankston provided us with a pretty shocking list of victims in these cases.

The child homicide offence was introduced in 2008 in response to concerns about the sentences imposed in cases involving the manslaughter of very young children by people charged with their care. As a society we recognise the gravity of this offending. This separate offence enabled courts to establish a new sentencing practice, and this bill will allow them to further pursue justice and ensure consistency with the maximum penalty for child homicide and workplace manslaughter. Both forms of manslaughter will increase from 20 years to 25 years imprisonment.

Homicide by firearm is a new offence introduced by this bill, and it will have a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard sentence of 13 years. It will apply when a person discharges a firearm causing the death of another person in circumstances that constitute manslaughter. Another important feature of this bill is that it clarifies the relationship between homicide by firearm and child homicide, and this is crucial to allowing prosecutors discretion so that offenders may be appropriately charged.

The Andrews Labor government has consulted widely on these reforms, including with the Supreme Court, the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Legal Aid, Victoria Police, the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Institute of Victoria and the families of homicide by firearm victims. These reforms are not expected to put pressure on the correctional system. Fifteen people were sentenced for manslaughter in the 2017–18 financial year and 13 people in 2016–17, so for the corrections system these numbers are insignificant. However, for the victims’ families they are absolutely earth-shattering and they mean everything.

The increase to maximum penalties for manslaughter is necessary for a number of reasons. It will better align Victoria’s maximum penalty to other Australian jurisdictions, including New South Wales; however, it will not equal the life imprisonment maximum as in other jurisdictions, including South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. This is to reflect the Victorian community perspective, which is that intentional infliction of harm as in murder should carry a higher penalty. Accordingly, manslaughter should carry a lower maximum penalty, but it reflects community expectations that sentences for manslaughter should be higher than the typical current practice, particularly in cases with a high moral culpability. These increases will still have a lower maximum penalty than murder, reflecting the difference in intention and avoiding the blurring of the lines between murder and manslaughter. Intentional offences are the most serious type, and our laws should and will continue to reflect this.

As is the case now, judges will still have the discretion to consider a guilty plea as a factor resulting in a lower sentence. Judicial discretion will be retained, allowing judges to tailor sentencing based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Recent judicial decisions have indicated that family violence is one circumstance that may be considered aggravating and thus more severe, and as I have mentioned before, family violence is a blight on our society. We are proud to be a government that stands with victim-survivors and speaks on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.

In researching this bill I learnt a lot about the case of Karen Belej of Mildura. Karen was killed in 2016 by her partner with a handgun. He told police he did not intend to shoot Karen, despite pointing a gun at her head and pulling the trigger. She died instantly. The police could not disprove her killer’s account, and he was charged with and found guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to just nine years and two months in prison with a minimum sentence of six years.

The new homicide by firearm offence delivers on a commitment made by the former Attorney-General to the families of victims who were shot and killed by their former partners. Homicide by firearm will respond to cases where offenders are convicted of manslaughter after claiming they did not intend to discharge the firearm. ‘I didn’t know the gun was loaded’ will no longer be an acceptable excuse in cases where people have died. This offence sends a message to the community that firearms are not toys and handling firearms dangerously can have serious consequences.

The Director of Public Prosecutions will have the discretion regarding whether it is more appropriate to charge an individual with manslaughter or homicide by firearm depending on the circumstances. Other previous manslaughter cases where the accused could have been charged with homicide by firearm include where perhaps hunters mistook their victims for deer or when an accused shot in the victim’s direction intending to scare but not shoot them. Homicide by firearm will have a standard sentence of 13 years, and this means that mid to high culpability should result in sentences of 13 years imprisonment or above and lower culpability should result in sentences of less than 13 years.

The type of offending that makes up a homicide by firearm offence has previously been charged as manslaughter, and very few people have received a sentence longer than 10 years. As I mentioned before, in Karen Belej’s case her killer was given a minimum non-parole period of six years. Setting a standard sentence gives the courts guidance about community expectations for sentencing, and without a standard sentence, if the first case tried was one of low culpability, the sentencing would accordingly be low and could set a precedent of a limited number of years imprisonment.

Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (18:45): I rise very gladly to speak but am very sad that we are here to make these changes in the current state of our culture—a changing culture around our attitudes to women and our attitudes towards what is family violence. We have still got a long way to go, so I do rise with some sadness to speak about the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020. Can I thank the minister for her work—no doubt countless hours listening to and dealing with victims—and other stakeholders who have done the exact same thing in terms of the work that has gone into this bill and her staff as well. I also acknowledge the contributions of other members in this place.

I note the good member for Footscray talked about her experience of working for Victoria Police, and I too can, I guess, elaborate on and understand that experience. She worked as an unsworn and I worked as a sworn officer, but you do really still follow the sentences. You remember speaking to members of the community and people within the organisation and talking about what the expectations of certain sentences were—certainly at the higher end, where we are talking about some of the most heinous and grotesque offending that we see when it comes to manslaughter and murder in Victoria. I acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Frankston in this place as well, which was very much in a similar vein to that.

We understand here today that this bill will strengthen Victoria’s manslaughter laws to ensure that those who commit some of, as I have said, the most serious crimes receive sentences that better reflect their culpability of causing death, and I will come to that point and better reflect on it a little bit later. It also delivers on a government election commitment to introduce a new offence of homicide by firearm for cases of manslaughter committed by discharging a firearm.

When we talk about the increase to the penalty of manslaughter, this bill will essentially be raising the maximum penalty for manslaughter to 25 years, which is the longest finite sentence we have in the jurisdiction of Victoria other than life imprisonment, save for the most serious and heinous of offences. Also, importantly, it will allow for a significant uplift for the small number of manslaughter cases that fall at the upper end of seriousness each year. As has been discussed in this place, that is around two or three cases out of the 11 or 12 manslaughters committed on average each year. It will also bring Victoria into line with other jurisdictions across the country, and when we talk about other jurisdictions, it is very similar in particular to New South Wales, which also has a maximum penalty of 25 years.

When we talk about better reflecting, part of that is reflecting community expectations. As legislators in this place, this legislation in particular is about reflecting community expectations and in particular punishing people who we know and understand have committed some of the most serious and heinous offences that you can possibly imagine. Many people have spoken in relation to the second and probably most significant part of this legislation. When we talk about community expectations, the sentiment across the community is that some of the sentences handed out for manslaughter have certainly not met the expectations of the community. I remember from my time at Victoria Police, dealing indirectly and at times directly with cases to do with manslaughter, the real toll it takes on victims—a significant toll—and those in the workplace. I know this will not solve past cases, but it will certainly help to allay the concerns of people who have had to deal with that. Of course, Victoria Police are at the first line as well when it comes to this, and I know that I have former colleagues who are still dealing with cases similar to this, so this will be a significant piece of reform for Victoria Police.

When we talk about the increase to the maximum penalty for manslaughter, it is important to remember that not all manslaughters are necessarily in this category. Manslaughter may cover deaths that occur in a very wide range of circumstances, including situations where an offender genuinely did not foresee the potentially fatal consequences of an action that was nevertheless negligent or dangerous and illegal and where the fatal outcome may have relied on a significant element of bad luck. What we are aiming to do here in this legislation is to capture the upper echelon of offending, and it is important to make sure that we signal to the community that we are taking a tough stance on this offending.

The second part of this legislation that is being discussed here today is the new offence created of homicide by firearm. This is a significant piece of reform. It is an election commitment that we made to the electorate in 2018, and I am very proud to be acquitting this and hope it passes both houses of Parliament, because this is a continuation of this Andrews government in its second term not only supporting victims but matching the community’s expectations of where we should be headed in terms of this significant reform.

When we talk about increasing the penalty for manslaughter, when we acquit this election reform, we also cannot go past the work we have done to strengthen community safety when it comes to bail laws. As a former police prosecutor I can tell you now that this state has some of the strongest bail laws in this country, and we make no apologies for that. People need to be held to account, and it is not just holding people to account. When we talk about some of the most heinous offences, it is important to acknowledge the work we have done around bail, which is no doubt keeping this state safer and keeping people, where appropriate to do so, incarcerated until such time as they can prove they are eligible for bail. Our reforms to parole have been significant; the work of the review and obviously those reforms make the state a safer place.

This reform goes to supporting Victoria Police. As I have said, they are on the front line, and we are continuing to back them in with an extra 3135 police officers. I know the massive difference that is making not just across Victoria but in particular in the east, at Boronia police station, at Knox police station, at Croydon and at Mooroolbark, and my community are certainly happy with that. This goes to that commitment to make sure we make Victoria a safe place to live, as it has always been.

When we talk about homicide by firearm, we talk about the new offence that is being created and we talk about community expectations, it is quite sad that we have seen the recent cases that have been discussed here today, such as the killings of Karen Belej, Rekiah O’Donnell and others, with firearms. In these cases the men who killed these women had accepted that they had killed them but denied that they had intended to, and the murder charges, as we know, were either dropped for lack of evidence or were unable to be proved in court, and the offenders were convicted of manslaughter instead. Even though some of these cases were considered serious cases of manslaughter, the maximum available penalty of 20 years meant that the sentences fell short of victim and community expectations, and a big part of our job in this place when we legislate is absolutely to take into account community expectations. This bill does exactly that.

More importantly, this bill goes a significant way to continuing to build on the work of this Andrews government, of which I am proud, in terms of making sure that we hold perpetrators of family violence to account, because this new offence targets intimate partners and in particular male partners who are killing their intimate or former intimate partners. This is another step in the right direction to changing societal and cultural attitudes. As we know, we are implementing every single one of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Family Violence—all 227 of them. I know, having been a victim of family violence in my younger years and having worked on the front line alongside stakeholders and groups who do significant work in that space and with my brothers and sisters in Victoria Police, that we must continue to do the hard work of changing societal and cultural attitudes towards women. This new offence will capture heinous offending, and it will be a message to the community that this is simply not good enough. We cannot let the men who are perpetrating these offences by and large get away with, unfortunately, as we have seen, some manifestly inadequate sentences based on what the community has signalled to us as legislators. One of the proudest moments of my life was sitting in my living room and seeing us commit to a family violence royal commission what seems like now a lifetime ago, and now we are implementing every single one of those recommendations.

This commitment was made in October 2018. The former Attorney-General made a commitment to the family of Karen, who was fatally shot by her partner in 2016, to introduce a new homicide by firearm offence. This bill delivers on that commitment. It also, as we know, introduces a standard sentence. This standard sentence, as we have discussed, does not limit the discretion which a judge has in a case but signals to the judicial system that the community’s expectations are that where a serious offence—a homicide by firearm—has been committed there will be a more serious penalty than what is being handed out now of between five and 11 years for some of the worst cases we have seen in Victoria. I am very proud to stand up and support this bill. I hope it has cross-party support— (Time expired)

Mr HALSE (Ringwood) (18:55): I want to reflect the opening comments of the member for Bayswater, who mentioned that it is not a delight to speak on this bill; it is something that is necessary to bring our sentencing laws into line with those in other jurisdictions.

I did want to also start by just referencing some comments, as the last speaker on this bill today, of colleagues in this chamber. The member for Footscray had a rather important comment. She mentioned that firearms are not toys, with respect to the new homicide by firearm law, and she noted that in regard to those individuals who claim that they do not know that the gun is loaded, well, it is about time we got over that response to serious crimes. I also note that the member for Bayswater has had significant lived experience in this context. As someone who is a former sworn officer of Victoria Police, he has intersected with these scenarios on so many occasions.

What does this bill do? As has been canvassed by others, it increases the maximum penalty for manslaughter and other related offences of child homicide and workplace manslaughter from 20 to 25 years imprisonment. It introduces a new offence of homicide by firearm and clarifies the relationship between a child homicide, homicide by firearm and manslaughter.

Just to note, while we think this bill is necessary, and it has been canvassed by others, it is about reflecting community expectations and standards. Some of the stories that we have heard in the chamber from the member for Frankston, from the member for Footscray and the member for Narre Warren South have demonstrated really clearly some of the horrific incidents that are still enveloping and occurring within our community, and we need a set of punishments that are reflective of the seriousness of those crimes.

I did want to focus just for a minute on one of the aspects of this piece of legislation and how it will relate, and that is workplace manslaughter. It was a focus of this Parliament last year with the passage of the workplace manslaughter laws. Even this morning we had workers representatives come to Parliament to congratulate this government on the passage of that important piece of legislation. Even in that space, for too long we have had employers, with that rise of corporate culpability and greed, get away with negligence that leads to workplace deaths. We need appropriate sentences that can reflect the value of life in the workplace. That is, again, what this piece of legislation does. It provides us, as the member for Bayswater suggested, a clear signal about our intentions to make sure that community standards are met. We know that with the epidemic of workplace manslaughter and workplace injury but also the scourge of family violence within our community we need a strong set of signals that our judiciary can point to when they are imposing sentences upon individuals within our community.

This is a great piece of legislation. It is a bill that brings us into line with other jurisdictions. It is one that reflects the values that we have as a government, that we brought to the 2018 state election. We said that we would be tougher on this—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required under sessional orders to interrupt business now. The member may continue his speech when the matter is next before the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.