Thursday, 2 May 2019
Committees
Legal and Social Issues Committee
Committees
Legal and Social Issues Committee
Reference
That:
(1) pursuant to standing order 23.02 and sessional order 22, this house requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report, no later than Tuesday, 27 August 2019, on the need for and potential impact of laws in Victoria to govern the disclosure of criminal history records, otherwise known as a legislated spent convictions scheme;
(2) the committee should consider the design of such a scheme that would be appropriate for Victoria, including, but not limited to:
(a) the types of criminal records that should be capable of becoming spent;
(b) the mechanism by which convictions become spent;
(c) any ‘crime-free period’ that should apply before a conviction may be spent including whether this should vary according to the age of the offender and type of conviction;
(d) the effect of subsequent convictions during the crime-free period;
(e) the consequences of a conviction becoming spent;
(f) any offences and penalties that should apply for non-compliance with the scheme, including for disclosing or taking into account a spent conviction where this is not permitted;
(g) interaction between a Victorian scheme and other jurisdictions;
(h) appropriate exceptions, such as for particular offence categories or specific regulatory schemes; and
(i) the interaction between any proposed ‘scheme’ and other legislation, such as the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 and the Working with Children Act 2005;
(3) in considering the need for and design of a legislated spent convictions scheme, the committee should have regard to the experience of groups in our community who suffer particular disadvantage due to past convictions, such as young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; and
(4) the committee should be guided by the public interest in ensuring that the disclosure of criminal history records in Victoria operates in a fair and transparent manner and balances the interests of offender rehabilitation and reintegration with community safety, including the safety of vulnerable Victorians and the safety and wellbeing of victims.
Mr O’Donohue: On a point of order, President, the issue of a spent conviction scheme is one of significant public importance as a change to the way our justice system operates. I note there has been a private members bill on the notice paper in relation to this, I think since the first sitting week of this Parliament. It is the view of the opposition that the issue of family violence homicide and reforms to our homicide system are equally important and more urgent. I have given notice of motion 70 standing in my name, and I seek through this point of order that, given Mr Jennings’s motion, which requires leave for it to proceed, it be considered concurrently with my notice of motion 70, which is about a very important and urgent reform—or consideration of reform—that is needed for change to the justice system, particularly in light of some recent high-profile developments. We wish to work cooperatively with the government in relation to the consideration of a spent conviction scheme, but we also think it is urgent that my notice of motion 70 be debated concurrently and be considered by the chamber as quickly as possible.
The PRESIDENT: I am not too sure if it is a point of order, Mr O’Donohue, but I think you have got your point across. Are you seeking leave? I am trying to get the leave right. I have asked if leave is granted for the Leader of the Government’s motion. You have not denied leave at this point, but you are seeking leave for your motion, which is not necessarily a very similar topic. The similarity is that your motion is seeking to put a reference to a committee, similar to—
Mr O’Donohue: Thank you, President, for that explanation. The way you have summarised it is accurate. I consider these two issues to be relevant to be debated or considered concurrently because they both consider important possible reforms to the way our justice system in Victoria operates. As I said, the opposition welcomes consideration of a spent convictions scheme, but we would also seek the chamber’s urgent consideration and debate of my notice of motion 70, particularly in light of the fact that the government has axed the previous joint house committee to consider these types of important law reform considerations. So I seek leave that we debate notice of motion 70 forthwith.
The PRESIDENT: I might be going about this a reverse way, but I think it might be helpful for the chamber to see if leave is granted to Mr O’Donohue to debate his motion concurrently with the motion Mr Jennings has just read out.
Mr JENNINGS: On the point of order, President, given Mr O’Donohue actually has compromised the procedures of the house, I am not—
Mr O’Donohue interjected.
Mr JENNINGS: Of course you have, because in fact you are seeking leave for something outside of what the current agenda is.
Mr O’Donohue interjected.
Mr JENNINGS: Mr O’Donohue, I was actually rising to my feet to be helpful to you. Your motion that you want to seek leave to actually put at this moment in time does not have a reporting date. I was going to draw to your attention that your motion that you want leave to move today is deficient in its current drafting in relation to the reference that you want to create. Your motion is deficient, so what I am indicating to you and to the chamber is that the government is prepared to consider the appropriate dual tracking of references to this committee. We are happy to facilitate it at the earliest opportunity. This is not the earliest opportunity for you to clarify the reporting date requirement of your reference. The government is prepared to address it either the next sitting day, or the government will actually support it if it is an own-motion resolution that comes from the committee itself. So do not tell me how to run the government’s agenda or the Parliament’s agenda. You are trying to confuse the status of this item before the President, and you are not going to succeed.
Mr Davis interjected.
The PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, can you give me 1 minute? I was just checking with the boffins if we have gone into a procedural debate, but we have not. I am happy to hear Mr Davis’s point of order, given that.
Mr Davis: On the point of order, President, as Mr O’Donohue points out, notice of motion 70 seeks to establish a joint house committee and in doing so is in no way deficient, and the leader is being disingenuous in suggesting that. This is a very reasonable proposal that has been put forward by Mr O’Donohue—that both matters be considered concurrently—and that would lead to a better outcome for justice in this state.
The PRESIDENT: I apologise for the clunkiness; it is a new realm. I will go back and ask the chamber if leave is granted for Mr Jennings’s motion.
Leave granted.
Mr JENNINGS: I speak on the motion to the extent that it is most unfortunate that we have got to a stage that looks as if there is conflict in the chamber where no conflict needs to exist. I think that is the unfortunate circumstance. The government is happy to support the intent of Mr O’Donohue’s notice of motion and the reference. We are happy for that to occur. We are happy for the committee to self-reference to make that occur. We are happy for the Parliament to actually undertake that consideration at the same time. The only matter that has actually caused a degree of contention is in fact trying to create a contrivance in the way in which the chamber does its business and then being ultra defensive and aggressive about it in relation to this matter. There is no great policy divide within the chamber at this moment. The government is happy to facilitate a second reference and for it to occur in a timely and appropriate fashion.
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (09:51): As I said in the point of order I took earlier, Ms Patten has had a private members bill in relation to spent convictions on the notice paper since the first sitting week of the Parliament. The issue of spent convictions is an extremely important one. For someone who has committed a crime at a younger age but has lived a life predominantly free of crime, it can have a significant impact on their ability to obtain employment and their ability to live their life without intrusion and other obstacles, which can have an impact on their ability to remain crime free. As has been said previously, Victoria is the only jurisdiction that does not have a spent convictions scheme.
The challenge of course for all of us, and one of the issues I have with Ms Patten’s bill or one of the questions I think we need to consider, is: where is that appropriate line to be considered? That is going to be a matter of judgement, taking into consideration the views of a range of stakeholders. I sought feedback from the Police Association Victoria, for example, who have some concerns about Ms Patten’s bill as it is drafted. Others, such as the Law Institute of Victoria, think it is broadly consistent with other jurisdictions and should be supported. These are very important questions because we must make sure we get that balance right. It is important that in striking that balance the full range of stakeholder views is considered, ventilated and analysed, and the referral to this committee will enable that to occur.
Given that Ms Patten’s bill has been on the notice paper since December, it is a pity that we, now in May, are only just taking this step forward, but doing that belatedly is better than not doing that at all. As I say, I will perhaps prosecute this more fulsomely in a subsequent point of order or by seeking leave. Whilst this matter is extremely important and we support the consideration of this by a committee, we think the issue of family violence homicide is extremely urgent and needs to be considered, and I look forward to discussing that further shortly.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (09:54): Just for the benefit of the house, the motion put by Mr Jennings is about sending a reference to the Legal and Social Issues Committee which has been established by this Parliament, and we have members of this chamber that are on that committee. It is not uncommon to have a private members bill directed by virtue of its being a piece of legislation or the issue itself to go to a committee to resolve. That is perfectly appropriate. Where I am a bit confused, Mr O’Donohue, is that you are asserting that the topic of your motion should have precedence over the motion that Mr Jennings has put, but your motion on the notice paper is not proposing to send a reference to the Legal and Social Issues Committee, which is open for you to do. Your motion does not suggest anything other than we should note that there is no longer a standing committee that you would like to have look at—
Mr O’Donohue interjected.
Ms SYMES: Your motion says that we should note the recent abolition of—
Mr O’Donohue interjected.
Ms SYMES: It calls for the establishment of a new committee. I do not understand. You are talking about the order of references and issues that should be dealt with. It would make more sense to me if you were proposing to send your reference to the Legal and Social Issues Committee and the Legal and Social Issues Committee can decide the precedence of spent convictions versus the family violence sentencing that you are proposing. I think that would be a much clearer way for the house to resolve this issue.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (09:56): I obviously support this motion. Given that I certainly did put up a bill and I have spoken to the Police Association Victoria, the Law Institute of Victoria and various other organisations that have an interest in this issue, I agree that it could be canvassed with those organisations through a short inquiry. I am supportive of this inquiry that would be quite separate from any review of my bill.
Motion agreed to.