Thursday, 2 May 2019

Motions

Sentencing reform

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (09:57): I move, by leave:

That this house notes the recent abolition of the law reform, road safety and community safety joint house standing committee and calls for the immediate establishment of a law reform, sentencing and community safety joint house standing committee, with the immediate objective to inquire into and report on the adequacy of Victoria’s homicide, sentencing and parole laws, including:

(1) the adequacy of current sentencing law and practice in matters of family violence homicide, including the adequacy of sentencing and parole consequences available where an accused fails to disclose what they know about the circumstances surrounding the death of the victim/s;

(2) whether the current legal framework meets community expectations and appropriately considers the impact on the community following a homicide;

(3) whether there should be greater penalties for perpetrators who fail to assist police, the courts and other authorities regarding the cause and circumstances surrounding the death of the victim;

(4) what type of legislative and other changes may be required to ensure the rights of victims are adequately considered;

and otherwise review the current legal framework in both Victorian and other key jurisdictions.

I thank the chamber for the opportunity to discuss the very important issue of family violence homicide and our homicide laws more broadly on the one hand and also to visit the issue of the joint house standing committees. The joint house standing committees have a long and proud history in this Parliament of delivering bipartisan, cross-party important public policy reform. One of the first acts of the Andrews government was to abolish those joint house committees, including the Law Reform, Road and Community Safety Committee. As members are well aware, the Law Reform, Road and Community Safety Committee and its predecessors have been instrumental in delivering critical public policy reform in Victoria. As members are aware, the most often cited reform recommended was that of the introduction of the compulsory wearing of seatbelts. The introduction of compulsory seatbelts, which are now seen as very much part of road safety initiatives, back at the time was quite revolutionary.

But it had the support of the community and it had the support of the Parliament because it came out of a joint house committee with cross-party support. And, yes, we have committees in the chamber that represent different parties, but as we know the two chambers operate quite independently and quite separately. Frankly, often what we do in this chamber is not known to the other chamber. To have the true buy-in of the Parliament for contentious or important public policy initiatives we in the opposition believe in the model that existed up until it was abolished by this government, as one of its first acts after being re-elected, of having cross-party committees that draw their members from the Assembly and the Council.

Given the success, given the reputation of law reform initiatives that have taken place in the past my motion today is calling for the establishment of a new joint—

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Can the Council come to order, please.

Mr O’DONOHUE: It is calling for the immediate establishment of a law reform, sentencing and community safety joint house standing committee so that these very important issues can be considered; these issues that can be very contentious and indeed difficult for government and opposition. As Ms Crozier—

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr Davis. I understand there is a new dynamic in the chamber, and in recent weeks I have actually been going to bring up this sort of impromptu meeting room that happens down there.

Dr Cumming interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Well, I am on my feet Dr Cumming, but I heard that. Maybe we can accommodate something in the future. Maybe we can talk about it in the future. But Mr O’Donohue has the call, and I think he deserves the chamber’s attention.

Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you, President. So I was saying, it is about having the buy-in of the Parliament itself and having committees that operate across chambers to deal with very contentious and difficult issues. I mention the seatbelt inquiry. I also mention a more contemporary example: the Betrayal of Trust inquiry and the work it did in a way that was initially criticised by many members of the Labor Party—

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr O’Donohue, can you take your seat again, please. Mr Davis, it really is an issue. I do not think it is a good thing—and this is not reflecting on the crossbenchers because people come to them—that that pocket of this chamber from time to time becomes this impromptu meeting room—

Dr Cumming interjected.

The PRESIDENT: I am on my feet, Dr Cumming. You could be the first winner of this session. Where I find it a little bit frustrating is that members of the coalition did not appreciate that going on while Mr O’Donohue was trying to put across his point on his motion and then his leader came across and started a meeting again. So let us have another crack at it.

Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you, President. Yes, the Betrayal of Trust inquiry, which was chaired by Ms Crozier and deputy chaired by Mr McGuire from the other place, really opened up this issue of institutional child sex abuse that led to the royal commission that led to such enormous reform, introspection and so many stories coming forward of abuse—and enormous legislative change, not just in Victoria but right across the country, and it all started with the creation of that committee and that reference. I do not doubt that the Legal and Social Issues Committee or the other committees of this chamber can do important work, but I think the buy-in of the Parliament in total is best done by a committee that works across both houses.

I think it was a retrograde step of the government to abolish the joint house Law Reform, Road and Community Safety Committee, and my motion in this chamber is calling for the immediate establishment of a law reform, sentencing and community safety joint house standing committee.

My motion then goes on to express that the immediate objective of that committee should be to inquire into and report on the adequacy of Victoria’s homicide, sentencing and parole laws. This government has said countless times that family violence is the top law and order priority of the government. We agree that family violence is a generational project that requires enormous focus from government. I was pleased that the Napthine government, under then Minister Wooldridge’s leadership and others, committed enormous funds to grow programs and to do work in relation to family violence. The royal commission that the current government commissioned has built on and expanded that work, and a whole range of initiatives have been undertaken.

We in the opposition believe that an area of important public policy reform that has not been given consideration or could be given further consideration is the sentencing regime around homicide in general and around family violence homicide in particular. It is a particularly evil crime to kill a partner, but as we know it happens far too much, far too frequently, and it continues to happen.

We absolutely need behavioural change, we need cultural change and we need community-based programs and initiatives. Funding for some of those initiatives has been provided by government, and I congratulate government for that. The federal government has done much in that space is well. As many of the opposition members have said, these sorts of matters should be bipartisan. But one area that I think needs further analysis is the sentencing regime when it comes to family violence homicide, and homicide more generally, and how we deal with situations where someone refuses to cooperate with police and the courts but has information that is material to them that could have an impact on their investigation. These are very serious issues.

The easiest political thing to do would be to come up with a solution and advocate for it, but this requires more detailed analysis. It requires more fundamental examination by Parliament and examination, we believe, by a committee made up of members from both chambers so that it has the sort of gravity that came from the Betrayal of Trust inquiry and the sort of gravity that came from the seatbelt inquiry that has led to such enormous legislative change as well as—with community buy-in and the operation of a joint house committee—cultural change. We can change laws, and that is important, but we have to drive the cultural change. We believe that is best done by a joint house committee. I say that on the basis of 30 years of evidence. These upper house committees have operated in fits and starts since the reforms that occurred between 2002 and 2006, and their evolution is an ongoing matter.

Many of us will recall Ms Pennicuik advocating for a Senate-style model. I think the committees we have established in previous Parliaments and in this Parliament are a creature of this house, taking in influences from other chambers and other places. We have more than 30 years of evidence that joint house committees deliver significant public policy reform. The time to do that is now, frankly, early on in the term of the new Parliament, when the Parliament and its members have more time than they do in the lead-up to an election to consider these critical issues.

My motion was deliberately drafted to seek the support of the house for the establishment of a joint house committee. I want the buy-in of the house. We can figure out immediately after the house passes this motion—which I hope it does—the composition of the committee and all the details about the organisation of the committee. What this motion seeks to do is to get the house’s support for the re-establishment of a joint house committee.

It takes a government that is prepared to listen to others to admit it was wrong. I think this is a moment where I would credit the government if it said, ‘We made a mistake in abolishing those successful joint house standing committees that have done so much public policy reform and so much good in the past, and here is an opportunity on the back of a burning issue in the community at the moment to re-establish one of those committees to consider the critical issue of Victoria’s homicide, sentencing and parole laws, including the issue of family violence homicide that is so important in the community right now today’.

I thank the chamber for granting leave to debate this matter forthwith. It is a very important issue. It goes to operation of the Parliament and its ability to drive important public policy reform across the chambers. It goes to this issue that is very live in the community and very important in the community at the moment and will continue to be so in the future. It is critical, as Mr Jennings himself said on Tuesday and as other members of the government have said, that the community has faith in the sentencing regime in Victoria. We are the elected representatives of the people of Victoria, and we are best placed to consider those community sentiments and reflect them in the legislation that the courts apply.

I call on the members of this house to support my motion, which was deliberately drafted to call for the support of the house. With the support of this house, and hopefully with an identical motion supported in the other place, we can get on with the job of considering important reforms to our homicide, sentencing and parole laws in Victoria.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (10:13): How disingenuous can you get? We have structures in this Parliament that we have agreed to, and we have committees that have been established. To talk down the upper house committees for a political pointscoring activity is ridiculous. To suggest that upper house committees are not as competent as joint house committees is highly offensive to the members of this chamber.

For some reason you think the Legal and Social Issues Committee had a little bit more oomph when you were the Chair, perhaps, Mr O’Donohue. I quite enjoyed working with you on the end-of-life choices inquiry, which arguably produced the most comprehensive piece of legislation that this Parliament dealt with in the last term. To suggest that the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the upper house is not able to deal with the important issues that you have raised today is completely outrageous. The members of the Legal and Social Issues Committee are listed on the back of the notice paper. Who is on it? Let us have a look: Ms Garrett, Dr Kieu, Ms Lovell, Ms Maxwell, Mr Ondarchie, Ms Patten and Ms Vaghela, and the participating members are Ms Bath, Ms Crozier and Mr O’Donohue. I reckon that group of people can probably do a pretty significant piece of work, aided by the very, very competent staff that are provided to our committees.

I understand the importance of this issue, Mr O’Donohue, and I understand that you want it dealt with, but if you were really serious about this you would amend your motion and have it referred to the Legal and Social Issues Committee. We will not be supporting this stunt of a motion that you are proposing today. Actually, just to clarify, you are asking the house to call for something. We cannot establish the committee. This just goes to the absolute stunt of an activity that you are trying to pull today. I would urge everyone in the chamber to vote against this. Anybody has got the right to put up a motion to the Legal and Social Issues Committee.

I would urge anybody who wants to support the intention of Mr O’Donohue’s motion to bear in mind that voting against it is not voting against an inquiry into this matter; in fact it is actually doing the opposite. It would prompt a proper way of getting this topic put to a committee for due consideration.

Dr Ratnam: On a point of clarification, President, around process, we have had two motions by leave that essentially have been sprung on the members of the crossbench, because we had no prior notice of the motions being put—the standing orders motion and the motion for the referral of the spent convictions matter to the Legal and Social Issues Committee. We had no notice of them prior to this morning, when we heard them being read.

I just want to say that one of the reasons I think we are getting this informal meeting room often springing up is because we are given inadequate notice, and we are then being courted for votes and support on the floor of this Parliament. I think it is a process improvement that we need to think about. We do need notice, particularly when motions by leave are being put forward by the government, so that we have adequate time to prepare for them.

In light of that, the motion that has been put forward now by the opposition is quite a significant and substantial motion and involves the setting up of a new committee. I do not believe we have an adequate—

Members interjecting.

Dr Ratnam: You are arguing against it because you are saying it is substantive. I am just saying that we do not have enough time to consider it. I would appeal to everyone involved that this be deferred to another time so we have time to consider it appropriately. It should have been the same case for the motion by leave that was presented by the government this morning. Just in terms of an overall process improvement, I ask that we please be given notice prior to things being brought onto the floor, because that is what leads to this kind of informal debate on the floor and courting of support.

On this matter before us, I do not believe that we have had enough time to consider it. It is substantial, and it does deserve due consideration. I would appeal to all those involved that this be deferred to another time so we have adequate time to consider it. Is there a procedural way that we could be afforded that time?

The PRESIDENT: I call Minister Pulford, further to the point of order.

Ms Pulford: That was a contribution on the question, was it not?

The PRESIDENT: I hate points of clarification, so I am going to turn it around. I think I will rule on it as a point of order. Do you want to speak further to the point of order?

Ms Pulford: I know, President, that you do not like points of order that are not points of order, so could I very briefly speak on the motion in response to Dr Ratnam?

The PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (10:18): Thank you. On speaking to the question before the house, which is whether or not the house agrees to Mr O’Donohue’s motion, in addition obviously to the position of the government that was put by Ms Symes a moment ago, I take the opportunity to quickly respond to a couple of points that Dr Ratnam made in her contribution. One was around the surprise element of the motion that was brought to the house by leave earlier today arising from the Procedure Committee meeting. I would just make the point that there was a meeting of the Procedure Committee yesterday. The crossbench are represented by two people on that committee. I think it is incumbent upon all members that are representing in some form or another other members in this place to let their mates know what is happening. Our Procedure Committee people made sure that government members were aware that this was coming, and to the best of my knowledge I think opposition members on the Procedure Committee did so too. I know the current configuration of the house is very different—we have many new members—and I am not being critical, but I would just make the point that that should not be a surprise to anyone. It should not be a surprise to Dr Ratnam.

The second point that I would make in response to Dr Ratnam is that—just correcting the record there—Dr Ratnam suggested that the effect of Mr O’Donohue’s motion 70 is to create a new committee. That is just simply not the case, and I think it is important that all members understand what it is they are voting on. What we are being asked to vote on is a motion about Mr O’Donohue’s feelings about the current committee configuration, to which the house has already agreed. Mr O’Donohue has made some important points about things like family violence and about things like road safety, which are some of the most important issues affecting the Victorian community, but this motion does nothing to advance anyone’s work or any committee’s work on any of those important things.

The PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, when you stood up earlier you said you wanted a point of clarification. There is no such thing, so I have just taken it as a point of order. Gleaning from what you said, I am happy to give you a contribution after Mr Davis, who has got the call, as far as making a contribution to this debate is concerned. Also trying to glean from what you said, at that point I would suggest to you that you have the right to move that debate on this motion be adjourned until later this day or another day.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:21): President, I will be succinct on this. This has been an unedifying process today. I accept the criticism of the crossbench that the government, the opposition and indeed other Procedure Committee members ought to have advised the crossbench of the small tidy-up motion, and I think we should all take that on the chin and say we will do better to make sure that that is conveyed. I can assure Dr Ratnam that there is no trickery or anything in it. I think it is just a simple tidy-up, so I will put that on the record as point number one.

Number two, Mr O’Donohue was advised at 9.00 a.m. about the government’s intention to move this particular reference. As Mr O’Donohue and indeed Ms Patten and others know, the opposition supports a spent convictions regime and has for some time. Mr O’Donohue is on the record widely on this, and it is right that such a regime is established. We did not agree with the way that this came to the chamber today, and I put on the record my concern about that. However, on this occasion we did give leave because it is an important issue and we did not want to deny leave on that important issue. So I pay tribute to Mr O’Donohue’s work on spent convictions and also Ms Patten’s work, and I note the existence of a bill that can be dealt with perfectly legitimately by the committee.

On the matter of this exact motion that we are dealing with now, I welcome the chance to talk about this motion. It is an article of faith for the opposition. It is something we believe very strongly in: that there should be—

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr DAVIS: I am speaking sensibly and calmly and making my points bit by bit. We strongly believe that there ought to be a structure, however constructed—preferably a joint standing committee, but if not that structure some other structure—across the chambers that can look at law reform matters and look at road safety matters across the state and across the chambers.

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr DAVIS: That is what this motion calls for. It is not a matter of losing or winning. This is actually about good governance for the state of Victoria. It is about having a proper law reform process in the state that actually brings both chambers together in a way that enables proper collaboration.

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr DAVIS: It is not a matter of losing that debate. It is about getting better outcomes into the future. The road safety component is one that particularly concerns the opposition. Without that joint approach across the chambers, we get a lesser response, and indeed I think that—

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr DAVIS: Just settle down, will you? Ms Symes is a bit worked up.

Members interjecting.

Mr DAVIS: I make the point that we are trying to speak very calmly and sensibly about an important matter of public policy into the future. It is important that there is a structure across the chambers of the—

Ms Symes: You lost that debate.

Mr DAVIS: It is not a matter of losing the debate; it is a matter of winning the debate for the community and actually getting a better outcome for the community. You seem to be unconcerned about the community outcomes, Ms Symes, and I think that is what this is about. It is about getting the best outcome for the community—actually getting the best road safety outcomes, the best law reform outcomes—and that is what Mr O’Donohue’s motion is about today.

In the sense that the government brought forward this earlier motion, that is why Mr O’Donohue brought this forward at the time. We think some of these matters are better considered by a joint committee arrangement, and we certainly will continue to advocate for that in whatever format and in whatever forum we can, because this is actually about the community’s long-term interests and about actually getting better road safety and better community outcomes with law reform. That is what this is about, and it is a commendable motion. It is a motion that we need to put and we need to deal with.

I accept the issue that the crossbench and others in the chamber have not had as much time as we would like, but that is the way this has developed today. We are conscious of that point.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (10:26): I move:

That debate on this matter be adjourned until the next day of business.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (10:26): I appreciate Mr O’Donohue’s motion. I oppose the abolishment of those joint house committees, and I think that they do significant work. But I support Mr Hayes’s motion to adjourn because this is a significant motion and we should be given the appropriate time to prepare for this motion—to get our thoughts in order and to canvass the issue with our members and peak organisations. So I support Mr Hayes’s motion.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (10:27): The opposition will be opposing Mr Hayes’s motion. I thank Mr Davis for his comments in relation to the timing of this motion, and I note the point of clarification or point of order that Dr Ratnam took earlier. As Mr Davis said, I accept those points. This motion is seeking the support of the house to re-establish a joint house committee with a view that the first reference be examining our current sentencing laws. The house can deal with the machinery of how that is to be established if and when this motion passes, but I think it is important today for the house to make a statement about the importance of these joint house committees and the urgency of dealing with the issue of sentencing reform.

Unfortunately, because the government has changed the sitting timetable for the Parliament, we are sitting less this year than in any non-election year this century, so the opportunities to ventilate and debate these issues are actually few and far between. We will not sit now for I think it is another three weeks. The timetable has been changed because the government did not want to hand down its budget this week before the federal election. So whilst I accept the points made by the crossbench about notice and the like, I do not think that is a reason not to come to a conclusion about this motion today—because we will not be sitting again for several weeks, because this issue is urgent and because if the house supports my motion there is then the opportunity to sit down collaboratively for discussion on the mechanism of how this committee that I am proposing is established and how that reference that the opposition is proposing is set.

This is not about ambushing anyone. It is about the house coming together and expressing a view about an issue of enormous public importance and how that issue of enormous public importance should be ventilated and considered, and I believe that we have the opportunity to make that statement today and we should. Therefore the opposition will be opposing Mr Hayes’s adjournment motion.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (10:30): Just a few words in support of Mr Hayes’s adjournment motion. This is an outrageous use of the Parliament’s time, using victims of family violence to reprosecute an argument that this chamber has already resolved, and that is the establishment of the committees. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. We will support Mr Hayes’s motion.

House divided on Mr Hayes’s motion:

Motion agreed to.

Debate adjourned until next day of meeting.