Wednesday, 21 June 2023

Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Matthew Bach:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (11:21): Today we have got an opportunity to have a conversation about the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2023, which is a private members bill that has been introduced by the opposition. At the outset I would like to acknowledge the victims of these shocking, heinous crimes that were perpetrated by the individual that is referred to in the bill. Much focus has been on this murderer; the bill is named after this murderer. But the focus – my focus and many people’s focus – should be on those that were taken: Natalie Russell, Elizabeth Stevens and Debbie Fream.

It was an immense – I do not know what the right word is – honour, I think, to meet with Natalie’s family last week. I met with her parents Carmel and Brian, her sisters Janine and Lisa and her incredibly strong friend Karen. I asked them about Natalie. I asked what type of person she was. She was, by all accounts, amazing, beautiful inside and out, and they reflected on the story of the fact that even everyone at the hospital gathered around when this child was born because she was just so incredibly beautiful. They took her home, and she was an amazing part of their family until she was tragically taken at just 17 years of age. There are still photos of her. They still talk about her fondly, and they are still talking about, unfortunately, not just her but what happened to her, again and again. That is what we are discussing today. I do also want to acknowledge the broader family and friends and the community of Frankston. This is something that is almost as raw today as it was 30 years ago. Everyone in that community knows what happened, everyone talks about it and everybody is concerned about where we sit now and what happens next.

I want what the family want. I want what the friends want. I want what the community want. I want this individual to remain in prison and not harm anybody else. I certainly do not want anyone to be fearful that he is going to come out and do what he has done again. I think that is what everyone in the chamber wants. I want to make it clear that, if this bill goes to a vote today, people that vote against this bill are not not supportive of victims, they just think that we can do things differently. I want to outline a bit of that today.

The government does not believe that the Parliament should become judge, jury and executioner for individuals. We believe in the independence of the criminal justice system – we believe in it. That is why we have acted to strengthen the parole system in the past. We have introduced a two-tier decision-making process for serious violent offenders and serious sexual offenders. We have also made sure that community safety is the absolute paramount factor in any decision made by the independent Adult Parole Board of Victoria. It is important to note, when we are talking about parole, that reaching a date of eligibility does not form an automatic right to release. Many people of the calibre of the offender that we are talking about go through the processes knowing that they are not going to get approved, but they get to go through the process. That is one of the issues I want to talk about.

Parole is an absolute privilege. It has to be earned; it is not a right. Fundamentally and most importantly, parole is never granted in cases where there is a risk to the community. In this instance these principles have been applied and these principles have worked. This individual was denied parole. I do not think we should be establishing a precedent where we legislate every time a politician is not happy with a court outcome or decides that a tragedy can be used for political purposes. Unfortunately there are many, many high-profile offenders – I know their names; I will not mention them – that are in a similar category to this individual. We will be here again talking about those individuals, I have no doubt. I want to limit that possibility, I want to explore that opportunity and I have given a commitment to the family that I think we can do that.

It is incredibly difficult to look into the eyes of a victim who has been told, ‘There’s a piece of legislation that can apply to your situation and end your pain.’ It is very difficult to tell people that that is not the best way to go. I had to do that. I acknowledge that it is an easy message to sell, but sometimes as legislators you have got to do the right thing even when it is not the easy thing. I think we can do better here. I think we can get the same outcome from a different path and help more families and more victims than this whack-a-mole situation that we are trying to do through this bill today.

What I want to explore, what I have put on record publicly and to the family – and I have got to say it is incredibly difficult, because I gave a commitment to the family when I sat down and talked to them, and I have been asked questions by the media, ‘What did you say to them? What did they say to you?’ I am not doing that, but what I will reaffirm is that I have given them a commitment to see this through and respond to their pain, their experience. We can be better, and I know we can do better. The government has put on the table a proposal. It is high level; we still need to nut it all out. But I want to outline some of that today, which I think is a better approach than the bill that is before the chamber.

One of the most compelling parts of the story of the victims that I have met with is the uncertainty of being continually exposed to an individual exercising their rights. They want to know where their rights are: ‘Why does this person have all of these opportunities to get in front of the media, where they talk about what he’s going to do next, which application he’s going to make and what he’s going to do next through the justice system?’ I think the system that we can create can be much less likely to facilitate his ability to exercise his rights – less likely to start, for example, a lengthy appeal through the High Court process.

The government wants to advance laws, and we will advance laws irrespective of the vote today, to amend the Corrections Act 1986 as soon as practical to ensure the adult parole board can refuse to consider parole for up to a further set period following a failed application for parole. What does that mean? For somebody who applies for parole and is denied parole under the current system, there is the ability to reapply on a reasonably regular basis, to come back and say, ‘Hey, I’d like another chance,’ and that is a right. What we want to do is give the adult parole board the opportunity to say, ‘You don’t deserve that right. You’re not going to get it, so rather than waste everyone’s time and rather than put that family through further anguish, I’m going to set a period of time before you can even have the opportunity to put in an application to come back.’ What that does is it not only keeps a person in prison but gives comfort to the family that, ‘Well, we don’t have to think about that element of our pain for a particular period of time.’ Of course it does not take away the pain – I cannot do that; I wish I could – but it takes away that part of the pain.

We also intend to ensure that anyone serving a life sentence for murder – not just one individual; we want to see how many other people we can support and capture in these laws – who is denied parole on the basis that they have not sufficiently engaged with an appropriate rehabilitation program during their sentence will not be eligible to make further parole applications. It will be another barrier to people applying for parole.

The government intends to implement reforms that will ensure appropriate information sharing with victims and their families and ensure that support is available to assist them to navigate the various stages of the parole process. This is really important, because the political process, the justice process, the court process, the parole process – they are very foreign concepts to anybody that does not do this every day. I see that all the time. You sit down with victims, and usually the first problem they have is ‘We don’t understand what happened. We don’t understand why that happened. We don’t understand why there are time lines or why there are not – why someone gets another go.’

We did not do what we should have done for this family. We should have been much better in making sure they had the information that they needed so that they knew what was happening, because this is hard enough without being confused by it. There are issues with privacy provisions under the Corrections Act 1986, and we will need to deal with those. There are some barriers, but fundamentally we need to do better in ensuring that people who are subjected to the justice system as victims get as much information as possible so they are not worried about what is going on. You can complain about it, but you should actually understand what it is rather than be confused about what it is. That is a personal commitment I have given to this family and every family that I meet. When you find something that you have not done right, own it and fix it, and that is what we are going to do.

It is our view that this broader approach, the reforms, strike the right balance in keeping this particular individual – and the motivation is this case for me, I will honest, but I think it can be more broadly applied to others – and others in prison while also protecting other families and the rights of victims. This approach also, importantly, avoids the risk of a High Court challenge to so-called one-man legislation, which is effectively what this bill is proposing to be. I think this is important not just because of the risk of a successful challenge increasing. We do not know what the High Court will say. Of course people tell you there have been two before and they did not have a problem with them and you can do it again. We do not actually know the answer to that. All we do know is the playbook is already there. We know what this individual is going to do – they are going to appeal to the High Court. They are going to continue to be reported on what their actions are. They are going to get a day in court, and that will be sometime down the line. As I said, we continue to provide a playbook for every one of these murderers every time we try and do this. We know what happens. This does not silence them, these flaws, it just gives them an opportunity to go on and argue again and again. But as I said, I want to give the families certainty and a reprieve from ongoing applications, and I think that is what the proposal that I have outlined can do.

I do not think that this legislation should pass the Parliament today when we have got a credible alternative. I also do not think it is fair on the family members that we are rushing these laws through today. I acknowledge people say, ‘Well, you’ve known for 30 years that this case was coming up.’ I get that. Again, I do not want to go through every conversation that I have had with family members, but when you have been briefed on a bill and what it means on the same day that it is being debated in this Parliament, I think we can do better. I am happy to sit down with families as many times as it takes, and I think before you proceed with a bill like this you should probably do the same. As I said at the outset, I do not think there is anybody in this chamber who does not want what is best for the victims, for their families, for their friends and for the community. I just do not think this bill is the right way to go about it. And I get it, it is easy; you put a cross next to every member of Parliament that does not stand up to support these bills. I do not think that is a fair reflection on what we are here to do and what we want to achieve. I can only say that I do not think this bill is the right way to go.

I also do not think it is actually for me to say it is wrong. If you vote for the bill, I do not think that you are wrong; I just think that my approach is better. And I am not going to lobby the family either, saying, ‘I think that’s wrong, I think I’m right.’ As somebody who has a responsibility to the broader justice system, to the rule of law and to the separation of powers, I think this approach is better. I want to get, effectively, the same outcome as they do, the opposition. I just think I can do it a better way, and I do not think having a divisive debate about who is right and who is wrong is going to benefit those families. I actually think we all want the same thing, which is why I asked not to have the vote today, because it is not a true reflection of the intention of what we all want to achieve. I understand that that request has been denied by the opposition, and that is fine. But I want to put on record that anyone who does not stand up for this bill is not not on the side of victims. In fact my personal commitment is that I have inserted myself into this pretty personally. I have sat down at that kitchen table. I am invested. I want what is best for the family. I do not want to politicise their views. They are entitled to support a bill or not support a bill. I think that the bill will fail today, based on what I think the numbers are. We will see what happens. Irrespective, my commitment stands to the family about what the outcome is today. I keep going in conjunction with Minister Erdogan, and I am sure he wishes he was here today. We are both committed to doing better for this family, and we will get legislation into the Parliament very soon in that regard.

I want to thank the family members that have come today, and I want to thank the family members that are not here today, because I know that this is so hard for you guys – so hard. I find it hard, and it is not me that is dealing with the emotion that you guys are dealing with. We can get a good outcome here. I just do not think this is the way to deliver it.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:37): I rise to speak to the bill that we have introduced into the Parliament, and I do so because this is an important bill that we are debating this morning. There are people in this Parliament today sitting in the gallery in this chamber who have experienced immeasurable pain for the loss of loved ones – for three young women who had their lives viciously taken by a man who inflicted horrific crimes. No-one should have to experience what was experienced by the family and friends of these three young women whose lives were so viciously and horrifically taken by a man described by Justice Frank Vincent as ‘not one of us’. I have read his sentencing statement, and having had the pleasure of working closely with Justice Vincent, I have absolutely no doubt about his assessment of a man who is undoubtably one of the most notorious serial killers in Australia’s history.

I have just listened to the Attorney, and I will come back to that. She talked about the independence of our justice system. We all agree to that. But I make a point about what Justice Vincent said about this man. In December 1993 Paul Denyer was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment without parole for the sadistic murders of Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell. I cannot imagine how difficult it is for those people that are listening to this debate today who are here in the Parliament or for anyone who was affected. He was also jailed for attacking Roszsa Toth, who narrowly managed to escape with her life after he grabbed her from the street in similar circumstances to his other victims. Denyer had been stalking women in the Frankston area for years before he carried out these calculated attacks and was motivated by a desire to kill from the age of 14. These are the facts. At the time of sentencing Justice Vincent observed that Denyer’s crimes of hunting down women were ‘almost beyond comprehension’. The judge said he did not consider it appropriate to fix a non-parole period in Denyer’s case. On appeal in 1994 Denyer was granted a non-parole period of 30 years, and he remains eligible to make parole applications. We do not think that is right.

On two previous occasions the Victorian Parliament has passed legislation to ensure that specific individuals are never released from prison: for Hoddle Street killer Julian Knight and Russell Street bomber Craig Minogue. As has been reported, the Premier himself backed laws identical to this bill to keep Hoddle Street killer Julian Knight and Russell Street bomber Craig Minogue in prison – identical to this law – so why is the government now backtracking on something that is identical to what was done in relation to those two individuals who committed crimes against too many Victorians and in horrific circumstances? This individual has done the same. When Knight later lost a High Court bid to overturn a decision about his parole the Premier said, ‘This is a fantastic outcome for the safety of every single Victorian.’

The government, as outlined by the Attorney today, has given a commitment to strengthen parole reform, which the Liberals and Nationals support. We have not seen the details of that, but the government has had years to do this. The Attorney spoke about making that commitment and sitting down with the families. She sat down with the families less than a week ago. That is the problem with what we are debating here, because those families and friends that have been so intrinsically and enormously affected need the certainty that this man will never, ever be released from prison. I make the point again: the Attorney states that we are at a high level now. Why didn’t you start this in 2018 when the Minogue law came into place? That was years ago. No-one wants to, as she highlighted, politicise this issue. Mr Limbrick has been magnificent in his advocacy for a number of years. He sadly understands this case far too well, and he has been approaching the government, but nothing has been done. As members of Parliament we have a responsibility to bring a private members bill into this place that will make Victorians safer, that will improve the lives of Victorians, and that is exactly what the Liberals have done. I cannot help that you have not acted on this previously, that you have failed to act on this and that you are now sitting down and making these reforms. I am glad that you are doing that, but there is no excuse for the lack of action so far.

This bill does a number of things, as I have said. It amends the preconditions for Denyer’s eligibility for parole using identical provisions as for Julian Knight and Craig Minogue. It will provide certainty to ensure that Denyer is never released unless the parole board is satisfied that his death is imminent or he is seriously incapacitated to the extent that he lacks the capacity to harm another person. The families and friends of Denyer’s victims deserve to have assurance beyond doubt that he will remain in jail for the rest of his life. While nothing will end the enduring pain of the victims’ families and their friends, this bill will end the uncertainty of the possibility of his release into the community. We as a Parliament can end that uncertainty and ongoing speculation and discussion about this man’s right to be released into the community. This bill provides certainty about never giving him the opportunity to be eligible for parole. I urge the house to support the bill.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:45): I also rise to speak in support of the Liberal and Nationals Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2023, a private members bill to ensure that convicted serial killer Paul Denyer cannot make further applications for his release. This bill is important for the people who have lost loved ones to dangerous criminals and for those who have survived vicious, life-altering attacks. This bill will provide extra provisions in the Corrections Act 1986 which reflect the current provisions that exist for Craig Minogue and Julian Knight that prevent them both from ever making further applications for release.

In 1993 Denyer murdered Natalie Russell – and my deepest sympathies are extended to our respected colleague for his loss of a much-loved partner and to family and friends who grace this chamber today ‍– Elizabeth Stevens and Deborah Fream and also attempted to abduct Roszsa Toth in Frankston and Seaford. He was subsequently granted a non-parole period of 30 years in jail in July 1994. According to news reports, Denyer has never shown any remorse for his conduct, and as Supreme Court Justice Frank Vincent said at the time, the murder of three innocent young women was ‘almost beyond comprehension’. I do extend my deepest sympathies to the families and friends who are here or watching today for their very tragic loss.

Denyer is claiming he is now reformed. He has applied for parole, which he became eligible for last month, prompting many distraught family members of those who were his victims to call for this application to be blocked. The Liberal–Nationals bill will prevent Denyer from ever being released and will ensure that his victims’ families can feel some comfort in the knowledge that he will never hurt anyone in our community again.

Last month Denyer became eligible for parole after three decades and made a bid to be released. Seriously, we should never have even got to this moment. In May 2023 Denyer’s relatives were informed that the Adult Parole Board of Victoria had rejected Denyer’s application, but without this current legislation being passed, he can still technically reapply for parole in the future. This is a violation of all the victims’ families and the human rights of all Victorians. Interestingly Daniel Andrews is opposed to the bill, having been reported as saying that it would be highly unusual for Parliament to create laws that specifically target a single person, when in fact, as my colleague has said, this has been the case for Minogue and Knight. So if Labor does stop this bill being passed, it will not only be hugely disappointing but a significant indictment of our rights as law-abiding citizens and a callous approach to the families of the victims, particularly since there is precedence on this issue.

We all know that Labor has the majority in the Legislative Assembly, so the bill needs to appeal to the sanity of the crossbench to support its passing. All these women were young. One had a 12-month-old baby – that young woman innocently went out to get some milk. According to Channel 9 news reports, Denyer initially denied the vicious and callous murders he had committed, but after about 1500 questions by police he finally confessed. With this bill, we are looking to deliver the means to ensure that Denyer should never be released, except in very restrictive circumstances. This legislation mirrors preconditions contained in New South Wales legislation and means that Denyer will never be able to cause harm to another woman in our society or make a woman feel unsafe again. Victorians deserve to know that we as their political representatives are here to protect them where and when we can. And we can with this bill.

There have been too many delays by this government – too many opportunities to do something. In fact I have here a response from June 2018, when the Premier made comments about the Craig Minogue case. At the time, legislation was introduced concerning Minogue, a 23-year-old who was convicted of murdering policewoman Angela Rose Taylor at Easter 1986 by bombing the Russell Street police headquarters – we know the story. The Andrews government was attempting to remove Minogue’s parole eligibility with special legislation compelled by the state to tend that he will die in jail. So why not now? Why is there a distinction now? I have here some of the transcripts from what the Premier said in that moment and also what the Leader of the Opposition said at that time. The Premier was quoted as saying things like ‘Jail is where he should die’ and ‘He should spend the rest of his life without parole and die in jail for the terrible act that he perpetrated’. This was in regard to the Minogue case. And yet here we find that there is a continual fobbing off of the situation in a way that has actually caused harm and made family and friends feel unsafe. It is unsafe for others. Remember there is still a victim who is out there, and anyone could become a victim of this person if he is still able to offend, so we are all in danger.

I note that yesterday, on 20 June, Andrews apologised to the families of Denyer’s victims, and again we have had that apology today, admitting that they have not been adequately supported during Denyer’s bid for parole. But what is disappointing is that the government has not offered support for this bill, arguing that extra conditions of parole could be applied which would restrict parole for murderers for several years. But clearly the Premier decides cases based on his own determination. I call on all involved to use common sense, display empathy and ensure the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2023 is passed. This government has had decades to reform this system. It is now providing words and not action. We need follow-through. The opportunity is here. If the crossbench will support this bill, then the government will not have to consider other options. We urge the government to reconsider and to support the bill so that the friends and families of the victims, and any surviving victims who feel unsafe, will be cared for.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:52): I rise today to speak to this bill, which seeks to amend the Corrections Act 1986 in relation to parole arrangements for an individual prisoner. The case is undeniably a horrific one. In the 1990s the prisoner committed a series of brutal murders and attacks that shook our community to its core. The pain and ongoing grief experienced by the victims’ families and friends are immeasurable. All the victims who lost their lives – Elizabeth Stevens, Deborah Fream and Natalie Russell – and Roszsa Toth, who escaped, were young women at the start of their lives. It is crucial to acknowledge the gravity of these crimes and the impact that they have had on the lives of so many.

We also understand how difficult and painful the recent months have been while the Adult Parole Board of Victoria has considered the prisoner’s application, and we understand the relief felt by many in the community at the board’s decision to reject that application. We also note that the parole board has a two-tier system with a substantially higher bar for serious offenders, which is what was used for the prisoner. It is clear that the parole board made the correct decision to keep this person behind bars, and it is an example that we can have confidence in those independent institutions. We believe it is in the interests of justice for the parole board to be independent, and there are several reasons why it is generally a bad idea for parliaments to make laws specifically targeting individual criminal cases. If parliaments do so, it introduces a risk of having arbitrary or discriminatory legislation that undermines the principle of equal treatment before the law – an important principle.

While Parliament has the power to enact laws, it is generally preferable for laws to be drafted in a way that applies broadly and sets general principles, leaving the specific application of the law to the courts. This ensures a fair, independent and consistent approach. Our legal system relies on precedents set by previous cases to ensure consistency and predictability in the application of the law. When laws are tailored to specific cases, it creates uncertainty and unpredictability, as similar cases may be treated differently. Allowing parliaments to intervene in individual criminal cases can create a perception of political interference or favouritism, which can undermine public confidence in the legal system and erode trust in the fairness and impartiality of the courts.

We do note the government has flagged other measures in relation to parole to address situations like the one we are discussing today and which would provide an alternative approach to that taken in this bill. There is also merit to arguments that the parole board has acted as a bit of a black box, with little information available. How the parole board releases information to the public – what it can and cannot release – is currently determined by extremely strict legislation. We would encourage a review into how well that legislation serves the public interest and would welcome the opportunity to work with the government to consider changes to provide more information to people on the victims register.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.