Wednesday, 4 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 DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (18:35): I feel it is important to speak on this bill. Criminal law is hard. Criminal law is very hard. It is a difficult public policy area, but it really is emblematic of the true functions of the role of the state and the true functions of the role of state governments within the federation in the way in which it stops people from committing family violence offences not just through public policy but through police entering people’s homes, corrections officers rehabilitating offenders or courts applying laws established by the Parliament.

Many of us in this chamber will have had conversations with friends or family who ask, ‘What does state government do?’. And you say, ‘Well, a whole bunch of areas intersect with your service delivery for most Australians’, but then when you get to, ‘Effectively the state government establishes the entire criminal justice system’, that is when people take a bit of notice. That is a fundamental role of the state in our federation and the state generally. The power of courts to sentence members of the community is a true marker of that role, as is getting the balance right between individual freedoms and serving justice and serving the victims and their families and the people who love them.

What this bill does, as speakers prior to me have said, is principally two things. It does a range of other things as a consequence, but it does two principal things. It seeks to lengthen the sentence available to judges for manslaughter offences to reflect the community’s and the government’s expectation that serious crimes like manslaughter will attract sentences that are appropriate for the gravity of the offences and the consequences and impacts that they have on the victims and their families.

The second thing it does is it seeks to create a new offence of homicide by firearm to enact a key election commitment of this government and make sure that when people use a deadly weapon that is factored into the gravity of the offence and therefore the gravity of the penalty.

Apart from acquitting an election commitment, if you look at the suite of acts and investments that this government has made over five years in community safety, in victim support and in empowering the police through both, as the Premier often says, giving them the powers and the laws that they need but also the resources they need, this is very consistent with the suite of initiatives this government has made, including the enormous changes we have made to bail and parole. They are the tightest parole and bail systems in the country and have been independently reviewed by experts in the law and in the judiciary. We have taken those recommendations and accepted all of them in earnest. Many of us on this side of the chamber have spoken on those bills in the last five years in this place. This is very consistent with those endeavours.

I worked in the courts, and I saw how difficult court work is. I was never, clearly, a judge, but I worked behind the scenes in corporate services, running a whole range of functions in the courts from payroll to asset management to IT, including transcription services for the courts. I fact I worked during the time of Robert Clark, the then Attorney-General. In many respects he was a good Attorney, but in others he was not so good, and I have expressed those views in front of him in this chamber.

The point is that judges need discretion. They absolutely require discretion in judgement because the circumstances of the case can never be predicted by lawmakers like us. What we are doing here is providing not just the principles but some granulated detail around expectations. We are saying we expect that we should afford judges more room to move at the higher end of the offence hierarchy for the particular offences that this bill is considering, allowing for 25 years rather than 20. That is important because it gives the court, again at their discretion, greater ambit and greater opportunity to invoke those greater penalties. But also it does send them a message from the Parliament, which is the representation of the community, about its expectations.

While judges need discretion, I also strongly believe that judges and the courts absolutely need to take notice of community and Parliament’s expectations. I am not one to go and pick out individual judgements and sit here in a very privileged position in the Parliament of Victoria, under privilege, to criticise judgements in relation to cases that I know very little about other than to make those two points I made about discretion, community expectations and Parliament’s expectations. That is what this bill seeks to do along with all the other bills in relation to creating a better criminal justice regime—a better regime to protect victims and their families.

On victims and their families, as other speakers and the minister have said, we have invested over $48 million in additional support for victims and have increased spending on victims of crime by 79 per cent from when we came to office. We have committed, for example, $3.2 million in this year’s budget to establish a team to design a new financial assistance scheme stemming from our review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal. The number of victims of crime being supported by the victims assistance program has increased by 162 per cent from 2009 to 2018—in nine years. We are getting on with delivering on the 100 recommendations made by the Victorian Law Reform Commission to fundamentally reform the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal and financial assistance for victims.

We have done a lot of that work. As well as that, we are the first government to have a minister that is dedicated to victim support in their title. This is the first government to have that position in the cabinet. But there is also the Minister for Victim Support’s work in relation to effectively rehabilitating offenders, and more important than that even is providing a point at which people can removed from being within the ambit of the criminal justice system—not just young offenders but offenders of all ages. The minute you intersect with the criminal justice system it becomes harder to extricate yourself, it becomes more expensive for the taxpayer and the outcomes are worse. So we have made a fair commitment in the budget to those endeavours. For example, in this year’s budget we provided $93.2 million for programs and services focused on keeping high-risk people out of the justice system, including young people. This investment includes $20 million to reduce the incarceration of women, including for programs targeted at women in prison with mental illness, intellectual disability or cognitive impairment, which is a big part of the cohort of the prison population.

I have to make a comment. I know the opposition is not opposing this bill—and good on them—although I think the member for Caulfield, the lead speaker, did take a swipe at our wanting to, in this bill, increase the upper end of the range of penalties for workplace manslaughter, something they opposed. But they are not opposing this bill, which is good. I have to say in the description that I have given, but more importantly in the description the minister and the Attorney-General have given, our regime for protecting victims and for instituting a much more effective criminal justice regime but also for rehabilitating people and prisoners, is a well-rounded regime that you expect from an effective but humane government.

I remember during the whole ‘African gang crisis’ that the one standard response of the opposition was, ‘Lock them up. Throw away the key’. They would parade victims in the gallery here and just say, ‘What are you going to do to address their concerns?’, as if they were the only opposition ever to find victims. Every opposition can capitalise on the misery of others, and that is an appalling way to conduct yourself in public office. But they had a one-track mind. It was ‘Lock them up. Give them hard penalties’. We have done that. We have increased penalties across the board on a range of serious offences. We have made it more difficult to get bail and parole. We have done all that, but we have a well-rounded strategy where we do the other things we have described here. That is how you build a civilised society, one that keeps people safe and keeps the crime rate down. That is why Victoria is now nation-leading in that regard.

Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham) (18:45): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020. This bill does three key, important things. It strengthens existing manslaughter laws to ensure people who commit the most serious crimes receive more appropriate sentences. It delivers on the election commitment to introduce the new offence of homicide by firearm. I am sick of reading and hearing of women that are being murdered around Australia at the hands of their partner or former partner. This legislation is quite significant in its practice and application in helping to stop that and to deter it, but also to deliver justice to the families where it may have occurred. It also changes the maximum penalties in relation to child homicide, homicide by firearm and manslaughter.

It is important that we have a look at the definition of manslaughter. A person can commit manslaughter in several circumstances: firstly, through criminal negligence, when an action of gross negligence causes death; secondly, through an unlawful and dangerous act where there is quite a high risk of causing injury; and thirdly, when intent to kill cannot be proven. Increasing the maximum penalty for manslaughter from 20 years to 25 years provides more appropriate guidance and scope to ensure the most serious manslaughters have appropriate sentences. The current maximum of 20 years is the lowest in Australia. Besides life imprisonment the sentence of 25 years imprisonment is the highest maximum penalty in Victoria, and this does send a message. The maximum penalty is a signal to a court about how serious the government and the community consider a particular offence to be. The maximum penalty will only be imposed for the worst cases of offending, taking into account the offender’s circumstances.

Data that was released 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 years. Courts will retain the option of discretion to impose lower sentences in appropriate cases but, importantly, we will see an increase in the penalties for the offences not only in relation to firearms but also child homicide and workplace manslaughter, with both of those increasing to 25 years as well.

We know that by increasing maximum penalties for manslaughter we are sending a message as a government, a clear message that past sentences for the most serious offending have been inadequate. With a higher maximum penalty the government expects that future sentencing practices will better reflect the seriousness of these offences. In cases of high moral culpability the courts can impose more severe sentences while retaining discretion to impose lower sentences where it is appropriate.

On 1 July this year the workplace manslaughter offences are scheduled to commence, and this bill will also commence on that day. The maximum penalty for workplace manslaughter should be consistent with the maximum penalty for general manslaughter. This reflects that both offences are equally serious. The seriousness of preventing negligent behaviour resulting in a death at a workplace is amplified by the increased sentencing available for the offence of workplace manslaughter. I take the opportunity to thank the families of Victoria that have come forward who have lost loved ones in workplace deaths and accidents, who have been such amazing voices in a public realm for the legislation that we brought before this Parliament not too long ago.

This bill delivers on the government’s election commitment as well to introduce the new offence of homicide by firearm. Recently there have been several cases where an offender was convicted of manslaughter after their partner was killed in a shooting and the offender has claimed that it was unintentional discharge of a firearm. In many of these cases a history of relationship violence was also present. Sentences given for these crimes ranged between five and 22 years of imprisonment.

The label of homicide for this offence sends a really clear message that handling firearms in a dangerous manner will not be tolerated. If a person is handling these dangerous weapons, they will have the responsibility to act with serious care. Offenders charged with shooting and murdering their partners often do so in private and isolated circumstances, and these circumstances often present huge barriers in proving such horrendous acts were intentional and would constitute a conviction of murder.

In instances where a victim has been killed from the discharge of a firearm but pleaded it was accidental, the outcomes cause confusion, anger and frustration for the victim’s family and friends as well as the wider community. Many understandably have difficulty understanding how such an outcome can be just. Amplifying the hurt in this, sentencing is given in line with existing sentencing practice for manslaughter, which often falls far short of expectation. The grief of parents and families who are coming to terms with the fact that their daughter has been shot by her violent partner is compounded by the fact that their child’s killer was sentenced to only a few years in prison.

Across Australia at least one woman per week is killed by her partner. Most if not all of the victims of firearm-related manslaughters are women. In 2016 Karen Belej was shot and killed by her partner. In the same year Tamara Turner was also shot and killed by her partner. In 2013 Rekiah O’Donnell was shot and killed by her partner, and Kara Doyle was also shot and killed by her partner in 2013.

It is not enough to send condolences. It is not enough to just say we send our prayers to the families of Karen, Tamara, Rekiah and Kara. We have to act, and this legislation gives us the key to giving that justice to families. I commend the current Attorney-General for her leadership in introducing this bill and bringing this to light, and the previous Attorney-General, the member for Keysborough, for making this an election commitment for our government. We cannot address the pain of the families who have lost loved ones, but we do hope that these reforms will bring some measure of comfort—knowing that future offenders will receive more appropriate sentences.

A little bit more on Karen’s situation: Karen Belej was a 31-year-old woman from Mildura who was tragically shot and killed by her partner at close range. This tragic case of domestic violence was coupled with her offender’s high consumption of alcohol, possession of a handgun and relationships with multiple other women. Karen worked at the Mildura council and was an advocate for the White Ribbon program, aimed at preventing men’s violence against women. Karen died instantly when her partner held a gun to her head and pulled the trigger. Murder charges were either dropped for lack of evidence or were unable to be proven in court, and the offender was convicted of manslaughter instead. During the proceedings Justice Keogh said the offender’s actions were:

…extremely reckless and dangerous, and profoundly stupid.

He also said that:

Placing the loaded handgun against Ms Belej’s forehead, cocking it and pulling the trigger were acts of violence.

The perpetrator, under existing manslaughter legislation before these changes come into effect, was sentenced to only nine years and two months in prison. The family and friends of Karen were shocked and disappointed at the outcome. Karen’s brother Chris felt let down, saying it had been a pretty tough day and on the whole it had been pretty tough since Karen was taken away from their family for no reason.

We have to deliver justice to these families. We have to stop these sorts of murders from happening or perpetrators from thinking that they can get away with it. It is important that we have this legislation in place to send a message to the broader community that manslaughter will now have a penalty of 25 years. The bill adds to the work of the Andrews Labor government in taking domestic violence seriously and making the policy, legislative and community change that is needed to prevent violence against women. There is no excuse for taking a loaded gun and pointing it at the head of your partner and pulling the trigger, accidentally or not. The bill ensures manslaughter of all kinds is punishable with an increased amount of imprisonment, and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms SPENCE (Yuroke) (18:54): I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020, and like many of those before me I do so with mixed emotions. I am glad that this bill creates a new offence of homicide by firearm, but I am really sad that there have been multiple instances where such offending has occurred. My thoughts are with the families of those women who have lost their lives to such violence, and I thank the families of those women for their ongoing advocacy for these changes.

What we have seen in recent years has been several shooting cases where offenders were sentenced for manslaughter after claiming that they did not intend for the firearm to discharge. These cases have often arisen from circumstances where the offender has shot and killed their victim, often their female partner, in an isolated or private place, often the family home, where there had been no witnesses as the victim was now deceased. There may even have been a history of relationship violence; however, murder has not been able to be proven. Karen Belej, Tamara Turner, Rekiah O’Donnell and Kara Doyle were all shot and killed by their partners, who were later convicted of manslaughter.

Under the current sentencing regime the sentences imposed have tended to fall well short of community expectations and the expectations of their grieving families, but this bill includes a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. By creating this separate homicide by firearm offence the government is making it clear that criminals who use firearms dangerously and cause another person’s death should receive tougher sentences, whether the death was intended or not. The label of homicide will also send a clear message that the dangerous handling of firearms will not be tolerated by the law and that those who handle these dangerous weapons have a responsibility to act with care.

I also want to note that I am particularly supportive of this bill as the local member for Yuroke. In my electorate we have a couple of disturbing trends: one, we have an unfortunately high level of firearm offences, and secondly, we have a terribly high level of family violence offences. These are both unfortunately trending up. I want to see those trends turn around, and I want to see them trend down. I want to see them both decline, and what I do not want is to see them both combine.

I also want to reiterate my comments from a few moments ago that this bill sends a strong message. It makes it very clear to those who want to play with guns: you carry a very high responsibility. Excuses will not be tolerated. If you take the life of another, whether you intend it or not, a tough sentence awaits. This 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.

I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill to the Parliament. It is an important bill that honours our commitment to introduce a homicide by firearms offence. It makes it clear what our expectations are in regard to the sentencing of those who take the life of another, and it provides the tools to enable the courts to impose sentences that reflect community expectations. I truly hope that it serves as a deterrent to protect further Victorians from the firearm violence that has taken the lives of far too many in recent years. It is an important bill, and it strengthens our homicide laws to ensure those that commit the most serious crimes receive sentences of imprisonment that better reflect their culpability. I commend the bill to the house.

I am happy to keep going, because my clock is different to the clock that the Deputy Speaker is looking at. Sorry about that!

The minister has done an absolutely outstanding job. In the minister’s second-reading speech she also noted that she had met with the families of the victims, and I expect absolutely nothing less from this minister. She is an outstanding Attorney-General, and I am quite sure that when she met with those families she would have taken great note of the distress that they have been through. These victims’ families have been through enormous grief that has not been recognised by the courts because they do not have the tools to be able to provide sentences that meet community expectations. What they now have is the tools under this bill. The level of imprisonment that this bill provides, the 25 years maximum, will enable the courts to provide sentences that adequately reflect the seriousness of this crime. Carrying around guns and using guns as a weapon in relationships is not appropriate. We have seen far too many of these offences taking place. It is certainly not acceptable. I do not want to see—

Business interrupted under sessional orders.

Ms Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise the matter of adjournment matter 1129, which is on the serious matter of women in my electorate who are urgently seeking access to surgery for endometriosis, a crippling concern for women, which I raised on 10 September last year—six months ago. This is 177 days, and in fact I have raised points of order five times. This will be the sixth time that I have raised a point of order to get a response from the Minister for Health for women in my community who urgently need access to this care.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s point of order will be referred to the Speaker for a written response.