Wednesday, 6 March 2024

Bills

Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Evan Mulholland:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:28): I rise this morning to talk to a bill put to us by those opposite, the Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024. As we saw in the chamber yesterday, this is a topic which has already been discussed by this chamber in the last six months, as those opposite had to concede when we informed them of that. When the Attorney-General informed them of that yesterday, they had to come back to the house rather sheepishly and admit that, yes, this is actually something that was discussed and voted on five months ago. It is disappointing, sloppy work once again, as we have seen and as have come to expect on a Wednesday in particular – sloppy, shoddy work.

Criminal justice reforms are often the most difficult to land and the most difficult to land properly, striking the best balance between ensuring just outcomes for those accused of crimes whilst also ensuring that all steps are taken to preserve community safety. Getting that balance right is something that you do not just do in a flash of a brainwave before a sitting week because you are trying to fill out your agenda. It is something that takes time and takes effort, as we saw from the considerable work that was put into the bail reforms that we extensively discussed and ultimately put through this chamber just last year, just five months ago. Developing laws that can come as close as possible to striking this balance takes work, takes time and takes significant consultation. The one thing that these reforms cannot be, above almost any other policy area, is half-baked – they cannot be rushed. This is why the government will not be supporting the opposition’s sloppy private members bill today, which inexplicably relies on a long-tried, unsuccessful and misaligned method of disincentivising further offending whilst on bail.

Let me be clear. Our government entirely recognises that when it comes to bail, all reasonable and effective efforts should be taken to ensure both compliance with bail conditions and a reduction in further offending not only whilst on bail but on an ongoing, sustained, long-term basis. This approach underwrote that significant work that was undertaken by this government, led by the Attorney-General, with the reforms to Victoria’s bail laws that passed the Parliament last year. I note that Attorney-General Symes said:

We … have a responsibility to Victorians to protect the community from serious offending. Our reforms maintain the tough approach to those who pose a serious risk to people’s safety that Victorians expect.

The member for Malvern in the other place, in raising this issue, stated in seeking to introduce this bill there that it:

… reflects a simple principle: if you abuse the privilege of bail by committing further offences, you should face a tougher test to get bail again.

But that is not what this bill does. I appreciate that this may not have been clear to the opposition when they crafted this bill. We have come to see so many times the sloppy and shoddy work that they put into drafting these bills. We saw this with the ambulance motion just a few weeks ago. Did they forget? Did they just not think they had to talk to the crossbench? Did they not realise that they have 14 members in a 40-member chamber? Again, sloppy, shoddy work that is not fully baked. When it comes to a general business motion attacking the government, that may not be very consequential and if they do not want to take it seriously, that is up to them. But when you are crafting legislation that is going to affect people’s lives in a real and meaningful way, that is when that sloppy and shoddy work becomes unacceptable, and it is unacceptable for anyone coming into this place and putting themselves up to be the alternative government. If you want to show people that you are serious, then put the serious work in. Engage, do the work properly, do not just come into this place with half-baked bills.

As I say, it is one thing to do just enough to do a motion, it is quite another to come into this place with significant bail reforms that will make real changes to people’s lives, potentially in some very unintended and significant ways. When you have the risk of impacting people’s lives like that, above all times that is when you take it seriously, and as we have seen again from those opposite, they just will not. They will not rise to the occasion. They will not engage with that work properly. They never take it seriously.

The same question rule, which is a well-established part of the procedures of this chamber, is another example of that. Members opposite know full well that once a question has been decided upon by the house, it cannot be brought back for six months. It is for good reason. It is to prevent the frivolous and repetitive nature of things that have already been reasonably decided upon, but again those opposite seem to be all too willing to embrace the frivolous and the unserious and embrace an approach to legislation as haphazard as it is ill conceived.

I appreciate that whilst this bill absolutely does not do what it intends to do – it does not do what it says on the packet – that is not necessarily what the opposition intended when they crafted the bill. I am not saying that they deliberately sought to make bail worse, but that is what happens when you try and amend complex legislation on the fly, and it is what we see right here today. It is the perfect embodiment of that unseriousness in this bill. But that is not how this government crafts our laws, and it is not how any serious government crafts our laws. We know how important it is to ensure that our criminal justice system is prepared with a clear and comprehensive view of what the consequences for Victoria will be, rather than to simply be seen to be doing something, to grab that headline on the front of the Herald Sun or on 3AW or on Facebook or on TikTok or wherever it is that you seek to promote it. It is not just about putting that headline forward, it is about serious work that has serious implications for everyday Victorians. So the opposition’s private members bill does not propose anything new. All it seeks to do is to effectively repeal the changes that were passed by this Parliament five months ago, changes that I note the opposition did not oppose at the time. But those changes that we voted on around five months ago have not come into effect yet. They come into effect on 25 March. So for them to say ‘This is an issue; we’re fixing it’ completely flies in the face of all logic and reality.

This bill does not propose to reinstate uplift of bail tests for indictable offences committed by those whilst on bail or any changes to the consideration that bail decision makers need to take into account if a bail applicant has committed an offence whilst on bail. This bill only really does two things. Firstly, it proposes that our police continue to rely on tacking on a summary offence, with a maximum sentence of three months, where a person commits an indictable offence whilst on bail. This does nothing, frankly, to disincentivise further offending or make bail tests more stringent; despite what they say, it has no impact. I am honestly concerned that a party that was once in government and has previously made reforms to bail laws cannot even seem to comprehend this. Of course presumably those opposite want to be in government again, but as I say, from seeing legislation like this coming into the chamber the only realistic conclusion one can draw is that they are not serious and they have no desire, no plan, to come into government. We see that frequently – every week in this place in fact – with their antics, and we are seeing it with this bill today as well. This is not a serious bill.

The second thing that this bill does is undermine the work and the input of the justice stakeholders, who have long called for bail law reform, who clearly identified the harmful impact that the coalition’s 2013 bail offences changes have had on people being unnecessarily remanded. Calls for the abolition of these offences have been made by many justice stakeholders, including but not limited to the Victorian Bar Council, Victoria Legal Aid and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service. The coroners inquest into the death of Veronica Nelson – a proud Gunditjmara, Dja Dja Wurrung, Wurundjeri and Yorta Yorta woman – whose death while on remand in 2020 caused immeasurable pain to her loved ones and community, also called on the government to remove this offence.

We cannot ignore the real impact of misaligned bail laws on people’s lives and relying on a perception that a system that is tough on crime is the best way to secure just outcomes. We need to listen. We need to listen to our justice stakeholders, as this government has done. We need to ensure that the system balances the considerations of the right to the presumption of innocence and maintaining one’s liberty whilst also ensuring that all effective steps are taken to protect community safety – effective steps, not hyperbolic ones, not ones that get you a short-lived sugar hit of a headline in a daily newspaper.

Achieving this balance is exactly what the government’s Bail Amendment Bill 2023 sought to do by introducing reforms – passed, as I say, in this house not five months ago – to introduce sensible, proportionate and necessary changes to the bail laws of the state of Victoria. They were introduced with the clear purpose of addressing the most urgent changes needed to Victoria’s bail system. This included critical changes that would reduce unnecessary remand for people accused of low-level offending whilst maintaining a strict approach for serious offenders. We know that most repeat low-level offending does not pose a safety risk and that there was a clear need to ensure that our bail laws would no longer be unnecessarily remanding people who do not pose that risk to community safety. It also involved refining the definition of ‘unacceptable risk’ to make it clearer that a potential risk of minor offending would not be enough in and of itself to refuse bail – it would not be that sufficient reason – whilst that risk to someone else’s safety or welfare would meet that test. The Attorney-General was clear that this should include property-based offending that impacts welfare, such as repeated theft from the same small shop.

The reform central to today’s discussion involves the removal of two Bail Act offences, including the offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. This operates in this manner: if someone commits an offence whilst on bail, they can face charges not only for the crime itself but also for these additional bail offences. These are standalone offences that apply on top of the consequences connected to the actual conduct. These offences were introduced in 2013, and they have clearly been shown to disproportionately affect women, children and Indigenous people. But they have also, more importantly, provided no clear deterrent benefit, no evidence of them actually working. You have put these people, often vulnerable Victorians – women, children and Aboriginal people – at greater risk of harm without showing any benefit to society as a whole. That is unacceptable.

What is critical to understand here is that removing this offence does not mean that those who commit indictable offences whilst on bail will no longer face the consequences of those crimes. It simply means that the conduct is being addressed without adding an additional offence. For example, if someone were to be on bail after committing an aggravated burglary and go on to commit another aggravated burglary whilst out on bail, that person would not only be charged with that aggravated burglary and face up to 25 years in prison but also have that bail revoked, have the conditions of bail tightened or simply be remanded for the further offending itself if it was determined that that person posed an unacceptable risk to the community. That is the system working as it should.

The claims made by the opposition that removing the offence in question makes it easier to reoffend or risks community safety are blatantly false, because the justice system and the courts already have tools at their disposal to address such issues. If there is reoffending whilst on bail, it is up to the court to make that decision about, as I say, tightening those restrictions or placing the accused into remand to remove them from the community if that is what is needed. Those are powers which are already there and which will remain there after 25 March. Again, to say that this has any real or significant impact on improving community safety just goes to show it is just another typical Liberal stunt. It is all about the gloss and the glamour and getting that nice sugar-hit headline: let us say that we are doing something. Well, the actual effect of what you are doing will not achieve any improvement in community safety. All you are achieving is putting vulnerable people at risk. That is exactly why we put through the Bail Amendment Act 2023 last year. I will acknowledge the support of those from across the chamber, including those opposite, for that legislation. That is why those new sensible bail reforms are now coming into place.

Courts will continue to have at their disposal the exact same rights to impose whatever conditions are necessary to improve community safety. They will have that power, as they do now. But what we are not doing is adding an offence that has been shown from coronial inquests, from across the legal fraternity and from submissions from a wide range of views to disproportionately harm women, disproportionately harm children, and disproportionately harm Indigenous people. That is not a fair system; the government’s reforms are.

The Attorney-General went through painstaking work, consultation and revision to land these reforms so that they would strike the critical balance of ensuring our system of bail was fair but also would not undermine the protections of community safety. Whilst this process is of course harder and it takes longer, it is what is fundamentally needed to deliver the best criminal law reform possible. And I also note that as a still relatively new member I like to think but as a much newer member at the time when these bills were being put through this place, I do recall being struck by the committee of the whole stage where it was Mr Mulholland and I believe Ms Copsey, but I could be mistaken, from the Greens who engaged so vigorously and productively with the Attorney-General, and as a result we saw a robust bill that could be supported by all that strikes that balance.

As I say, the considerable amount of work that the Attorney-General had already put into that bill was extremely significant, and to see this chamber working at its best just five months ago was a really good thing as a relatively new member of this place to be able to witness. But it also highlights the ridiculousness that we had such a good process, we had members from across the chamber engaging in good faith, only for those opposite to come back five months later and say, ‘No, no, no, we’re going to put the same question in complete defiance of the standing orders. We are going to revisit this, and even though we agreed to it five months ago, suddenly we don’t like it so we’re going to put this new bill up.’ And that is exactly what this bill is today – it is a bill in search of a media headline with as much substance as a headline.

That is why, as I say, those opposite cannot be taken seriously. We have seen it on so many issues in this place, whether it is the ambulance service they tried to talk about or whether it is youth justice, staffing and resourcing our police and our emergency services, transport, infrastructure, the Big Build, education or rebuilding our schools – in all these areas they have proven themselves time and time again not to be serious and not to be ready or prepared to rise to that responsibility, because it is a responsibility and a gift of the Victorian people to form a government in this state, and it is one that those on this side of the house take very seriously. It is something that is to be taken as a great responsibility and with a great sense of responsibility towards the people of Victoria, because what we do in this place has a real and tangible effect on their lives. That is exactly what led to the Bail Amendment Act of last year, which had people like Veronica Nelson in mind and which sought to make the system better and fairer and safer for the whole community. That is what I believe that bill and now act achieves, and what we see here from the Liberal Party is a desperate attempt to get some attention for a quick stunt to get that headline and to inadvertently, as it may be, put more Victorians at risk and put more vulnerable Victorians at risk.

Of course we will always be prepared to take on board genuine concerns about all of our laws, and I note the Attorney-General’s commitment and openness to all members of this place and the other place in having those conversations, in being prepared to have those discussions and in listening to people to make sure that we do have those best possible laws, and where reform needs to happen because of change or other circumstance, those discussions will happen. On this side of the house we are always open to better approaches. What we are less open to is jumping on board with this false and frankly dangerous rhetoric of tough on crime being the best approach when it actually leads to worse outcomes for many Victorians whilst showing no demonstrable benefit for community safety.

Cutting corners on criminal justice reform might be the easy approach – evidently it is the opposition’s approach – but it is not this government’s approach, and it is not the approach of any sensible government. We know it does not work, and frankly it is dangerous. This government knows that addressing increases in offending is absolutely critical, and we are working hard to identify the best solutions across the justice and community sector to address this. It will not be addressed through the hollow and vacuous stance and the hollow and vacuous legislation that is put through this place.

It is, as I say, one thing quite enough to come into this place with a half-baked motion on ambulance services, not even talk to the crossbench and use it as a platform for 90 minutes to vent your spleen at the government and to your 30 people that watch the video on Instagram, but it is not acceptable when it comes to legislating, not on any legislation frankly but especially when it comes to something that has the potential to have such a profound impact on vulnerable Victorians’ lives – literally life and death in some cases. If you are serious about making reasonable reforms to our criminal justice system that will make Victoria safer and protect vulnerable people, that door is always open, as it was in the committee-of-the-whole stage when this topic was last discussed in the house not five months ago. If you are serious, that door is always open. But this bill is not serious in any way, and that is why I will not be supporting it.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (10:51): I rise to contribute in relation to this bill today, the Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024. It is important to mention that when addressing community safety we should always try to better ensure that we meet community expectations. The concept of bail started in the 13th century. Bail is a fundamental principle in a free and democratic society. It is enshrined in the English bill of rights and the eighth amendment to the US constitution. Those documents form the cornerstone of the system of rule of law in the Western world. In a democratic society we must respect that the greatest purpose of the rule of law is to keep our society safe and prevent dangerous criminals from doing us harm. I understand no system in the world is perfect, but as legislators in this chamber we must strive for perfection. Victorians need a bail system that is fit for the 21st century, a demanding and increasingly complex world. Trust and goodwill in our system takes decades to build and days to break away. I know this personally from 28 years of policing in my career before this place, building rapport with the community and trust in the justice system.

In a multicultural society like ours in Australia and Victoria where many migrants who now call Australia home have had many bad experiences with the justice system in their past countries and hold very little faith in the legal system, we cannot afford to weaken the Victorian bail laws. We cannot forget why those laws were put in place. The tightening of our bail system was designed with the sole purpose of protecting the community from violent repeat offenders. Victorians need to be kept safe from individuals both in the pre- and post-sentencing stages, whether they are on parole or what we are talking about today, bail. The justice system needs to be firm but fair in both stages of sentencing.

I just want to make comment in relation to the bail changes from stage to stage throughout the years. After the tragic death of Jill Meagher in September 2012, who was brutally raped and murdered in a Melbourne laneway when she was walking home, I remember during those days after her disappearance thousands of Victorians gathered and demanded respect and safety for women in public places. Like many Victorians, and as a serving policeman at the time, I felt enraged that the perpetrator was allowed to roam the streets and strike fear into the hearts of young women and Victorians.

The then Andrews government, now Allan government, has fallen short in keeping Victorians safe. I will give an example in relation to how they have failed to do this in one aspect in relation to sentencing criminals and the bail laws. The budget itself revealed alarming trends. For the 2022–23 financial year $290.9 million was allocated to the community-based offender supervision program, a crucial initiative aimed at reducing reoffending rates. However, shockingly, the funding plummeted the following year – a staggering decrease of 9.76 per cent, which amounts to $28.4 million of funding deductions in the program. The government cuts show a lack of commitment in the rehabilitation program, which is essential in maintaining public safety. This funding and the support services aim to address the root causes of reoffending and offending crime, like substance abuse and mental health issues. Case management provides tailored support to offenders to reduce the risk of reoffending and aid community reintegration. Compliance measures in those programs include regular reporting, consequences for noncompliance and ensuring adherence to supervision requirements. These are the things that help to reduce the reoffending.

Labor again and again want to make bail easier but rehab harder. The government cannot be trusted to keep Australians safe; that is what I meant in relation to bail relating to community safety. Furthermore, the elimination of a robust pre-sentencing measure, such as section 30B of the Bail Act 1977, which we mentioned today, would weaken our dedication to community safety and accountability. It is essential to preserve both pre- and post-sentencing approaches to protect Victorians and maintain the integrity of the justice system. Without successful rehab efforts, we face the risk of an ongoing cycle of crime. Despite accumulating hundreds of billions in debt, the Labor government continue to fail in this area.

The proposed amendment ensures that section 30B of the Bail Act 1977, which addresses the offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail, is not replaced. I cannot stress this more clearly, as we have seen a merry-go-round cycle of arresting, giving evidence, observing bail being granted and then processing the same offender again on various days. The merry-go-round of the legal system without section 30B – it is a crucial component of Victorian bail law as a safeguard in preventing this type of cycle from happening and to support community safety. Repealing this provision would pose a substantial risk, making it easier for repeat offenders to secure bail and endanger Victorians.

We must ask ourselves about the origin and impact of section 30B that we speak so highly of today, and why it is necessary to have it in the Bail Act. It was introduced in 2014 under the initiative of the Liberal and Nationals government. It served a dual purpose: by criminalising offences committed while on bail and elevating the bail test for subsequent offences, it ensured stricter consequences if you are a repeat offender. What does this really mean? Can you imagine the impact of changes in the bail test for an individual charged for indictable offences? If a person commits an offence while on bail, he is required to demonstrate why he should be released on bail and give a reason why he should have an opportunity to be granted bail again after committing a very similar offence.

The amendment before us is a crucial opportunity for the Labor government to address its previous oversight by strengthening the bail law to safeguard Victorians. In the realm of criminal justice reform, the paramount consideration must always be community safety. Thus endorsing this bill is imperative in mitigating the potential risks associated with the proposed repeal of this section. Balancing the principles of justice, safety and the presumption of innocence is of utmost importance. While acknowledging the rights of the individual, we must also prioritise the safety of the community when we are facing this.

Section 30B plays a critical role in ensuring that those who abuse the privilege while on bail by committing further offences face a tougher requirement for why they should be released again. That is all this bail section 30B is asking. If you commit an offence and you have an opportunity to go out and you commit another offence, you must face stricter conditions to be released again into the community. Maintaining the community’s trust and ensuring accountability are vital components of effective governance. Upholding the rule of law not only serves to protect the integrity of our legal system but also fosters trust within our communities, and that is what we need to strive for – the trust of our communities that we are protecting them. When individuals on bail violate their conditions by committing serious offences, it erodes public trust in our institutions. Therefore such breaches must be met with appropriate consequences.

The Minister for Police bears a significant responsibility not only to oversight law enforcement operations but also to shape public perception. It is widely recognised that the level of crime in society is directly influenced by the tolerance shown towards criminal behaviour. Granting accused individuals unrestricted freedom while on bail can lead to illegal activities and undermine community safety. Thus it is crucial to enact and uphold laws that prioritise public safety and protect communities from potential harm.

Section 30B embodies a simple yet sensible principle aimed at curbing criminal behaviour – I will say again, curbing criminal behaviour – by enhancing accountability and the monitoring of individuals granted bail. Its preservation is essential for any government to uphold. Failure to support this bill would not only weaken the effectiveness of bail laws but also compromise the safety and security of our community that we want to uphold. In advocating for the passage of this bill lawmakers must demonstrate their unwavering commitment to justice and the wellbeing of all citizens. This collective effort is essential in maintaining public confidence in our justice system and reaffirming the principle that the rule of law applies equally to everyone, irrespective of their background or circumstances. The Liberal and National parties strongly recognised section 30B and its importance in maintaining public safety, but again this government sought to ignore our pleas.

Now, I want to quickly share with you another story about the bail law and the consequences of a weak bail system. The Luke Batty case shook the community to its core, unveiling a heartbreaking tragedy that reverberated far beyond the small town of Tyabb in Victoria. Luke, a bright young 11-‍year-old boy with a contagious smile, was tragically taken away by his father while his father was on bail.

I return to this bail amendment bill. The bail system is an integral part of our democratic foundation, but it is showing signs of fracture due to contemporary issues like drug abuse, family breakdown and escalating public violence, often accompanied by a blatant disregard for our legal system. In Victoria there is a concerning imbalance where the scales seem to heavily favour the accused, sidelining crucial aspects of community safety and victim protection.

I urge those of you in this chamber to please support this bill. Let us strive for perfection in the legal system and start to curb criminal behaviour by enhancing the accountability of individuals granted bail. I thank you for your time and hope for your support.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:04): The Greens will not be supporting this bill. While the government missed a number of opportunities for necessary reforms with the Bail Amendment Bill 2023 – for example, not removing the unfair and discriminatory presumption against bail, reverse onus, and retaining child bail provisions – which this chamber had the opportunity to process during the last year, one of the positive reforms that this chamber did achieve together was repealing the offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail.

This bill presented today by the Liberals is a retrograde step back into the punitive and ineffective politics of fear. We need to remember that the reason that the offence was removed was to reduce the disproportionately large numbers of people on remand in Victoria that have blown out prison population numbers since 2018. As the Yoorrook Justice Commission and the coronial inquest into the death of Veronica Nelson have so clearly outlined, the discriminatory and disproportionate harms caused by those bail laws were particularly felt by First Nations women and other marginalised people.

The overuse of remand in Victoria is harming people, and it is undermining the aims of our justice system. Even a short period in prison is long enough to disconnect people from community in damaging ways, and it is not long enough for you to receive meaningful rehabilitation or reintegration support. This disrupts people’s lives, their employment, their housing and their relationships with family and friends, which are vital to people living healthy and fulfilling lives. The knock-on effects from unnecessary use of remand can have significant implications and last a very long time.

The Greens join with First Nations communities and legal and human rights experts in calling for unfinished bail reform. The best way to achieve that – to achieve the change that Veronica Nelson’s family and the community united behind them are still calling for – is to fully implement Poccum’s Law and ensure that the child bail laws are reformed.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:07): The Nationals entirely support this very sensible Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024. It was attempted to be introduced into the lower house by Mr Michael O’Brien, and today it is being debated in the upper house. On 25 March, so in only a few weeks, through legislation, Labor will be abolishing section 30B of the Bail Act 1977. This section makes it a crime to commit an indictable offence whilst on bail. Abolishing this offence will make it easier for those repeat offenders to do their work – to get out on bail.

This is a serious issue, and I want to drill down shortly into a case that is very close to the hearts of many people in the Latrobe Valley. We do not want to see weakened bail laws. The removal of this section passed through this house with other amendments. There were some very useful parts to them, but we certainly felt most uncomfortable about passing this particular part. The idea that we should be making it easier for repeat offenders to gain bail yet again is something that I believe the majority of Victorians do not support, yet that is what is happening in the act.

There is a balance in life, and this is what legislation seeks to do all the time – to balance the rights of offenders who have allegedly committed a crime and are waiting and their right to say, ‘Well, I’ll do the right thing. Put me out on bail so that I don’t clog up the system but also so I have the right to be in line to have those assessments in the courts.’ But what we are seeing in this state now is that the rights of those individuals seem to be becoming more and more paramount compared to the rights of victims.

We see, very scarily, that there have been just under 25,000 aggravated burglaries in the past 12 months – that is across the state – almost 70 aggravated burglaries a day. It is not ‘I’ll just slip in. The door’s open, and I’ll go and pinch whatever it is off the kitchen table’ but aggravated burglaries. With the opportunity to have security systems and CCTV, we are seeing some of these people at night bashing down doors and breaking windows with balaclavas on and the like, and it absolutely would send terror through the hearts of people. I know even our colleague here Ms Crozier had an aggravated burglary attempt at her home. She was clearly very, very visibly shocked and distressed. These are decent law-abiding people who do not deserve to have their home being attacked.

If we look at recent statistics and Victoria Police data, we see that in Victoria – largely in Melbourne – there are these young offenders who are committing the majority of serious crimes, including, as I have said, aggravated burglary and theft. There are almost 300 of them. These 80 offenders have already been arrested repeatedly, so there is a rinse and repeat position on this. You know, ‘tough on crime’ is a nice little catchphrase, but we need legislation that supports not only the rights of people who are allegedly out on bail but also the rights of those Victorians who deserve to feel safe in their own homes.

I attended one of the saddest funerals that I have ever attended last month, and that was the funeral of Ashley Gordon, a 33-year-old doctor who grew up in the Latrobe Valley. It is a parent’s worst nightmare to have to think that you are going to bury your child. And sisters, nephews, grandfathers, grandmothers, the whole community – there were 700 people in that auditorium in Kernot Hall. It was the most moving funeral I have seen because it was so unjust. That person’s life – Ashley’s life – was taken away from them. I have asked Glen and Catherine for permission to make these comments today, and I do not want to be inflammatory, but I want to put on record that that tragic, tragic death came about because there was an aggravated burglary. Dr Gordon woke, and he realised they would have had some of his equipment – he was a doctor, so there was some equipment and confidential information – and he chased them to get that back for the safety and security of his patients. Then the most horrible and unspeakable thing happened.

If we continue here to send a message out into this state to weaken bail laws, then I believe young offenders – and these people were young offenders – will think that they can continue to act with impunity. We cannot send that message. Yes, it is a complex issue, and I do not pretend to be a lawyer or have that in-depth knowledge, but I do understand human emotion. When you have a loving family and friends and community bereft because of these issues, then weakening this by enabling people to go through that churn – the idea that we should be making it easier for those repeat offenders to get out on bail is something that I believe the majority of Victorians do not support.

I also, with my colleague Mr Martin Cameron, will be sitting down with the family of Ashley Gordon in the coming weeks. It is not to say that we have a magic wand for these issues but to understand the human impacts of these crimes, these heinous crimes, on families and understand their perspective about how the system and we as legislators must do better and can do better. I am sure all in this house, including all sides, will join with me in passing on our condolences to the Gordon family, and I am sure that when I come back to this place the Attorney-General will be mindful of the comments that I have learned from the Gordon family and the principles that they want to see and the changes that they want to see. I hope we are collective in our empathy and understanding of the need.

This bill, finally, seeks to reflect a simple principle: that if you abuse the privilege whilst on bail, then you should face a tougher test to have that opportunity to go out on bail. I will not speak in depth about the particular case because I know it is before the courts and there is an issue of sub judice, and I do not want to be seen to be conflating whatever. I just want to put on record that we need to get the balance right between victims – devastated victims – and those who think that they can just with abandon abuse our laws and abuse human rights. With that, I ask the house to support this private members bill.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (11:16): I rise to make a brief contribution on the Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024 introduced by Mr Mulholland. I will say from the outset that Legalise Cannabis Victoria (LCV) will not be supporting this bill.

The focus of Victoria’s bail and remand system should be on the unacceptable risk that an offender may pose to the community. All too often we are seeing the system overcriminalise vulnerable groups, including First Nations Victorians, children and young people, and set them up for a lifetime of unnecessary contact with the criminal justice system. LCV supported the Bail Amendment Bill 2023, recognising that the existing system of bail was not working as it should. The Bail Amendment Act 2023, due to commence soon, removes the higher test to obtain bail for a person who commits an indictable offence while on bail.

The opposition are now seeking to reinstate section 30B, stating that its removal will threaten public safety, invoking all manner of frightening scenarios, such as aggravated burglaries committed by the most hardened, violent recidivist offenders, and I will come back to this question shortly. But we already know that a presumption against bail is retained for serious offenders and that remand is available for serious offences. Indeed, as the Attorney-General noted recently, the offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail attracts a maximum penalty of three months. It is not really going to deter a hardened recidivist from committing aggravated burglary, because they might risk an additional three months on top of the maximum 25 years they could face for that offence. Three months in remand for a young person, however, will have material and disastrous consequences for the rest of their lives.

I was privileged recently to meet with members of the youth crime prevention and early intervention project, a partnership between Westjustice, Victoria Police and Victoria Legal Aid currently operating in the cities of Brimbank and Wyndham. It is a remarkable program, and it is seeing some incredible results in diverting young people away from the criminal justice system and into services and programs that support them to get jobs and to lead productive lives. They have seen many young people overcriminalised as a result of bail laws, particularly the application of section 30B, and they cited a common scenario. A young person might be charged for, let us say, possession of drugs. They are out on bail but they have to wait 12 to 18 months for their day in court. This is a very common scenario. Along that road, in that 12- to 18-month period, they might steal a bag of chips from a shop or they might get nicked doing some graffiti – minor offences but technically indictable offences. Now that young person has committed an indictable offence whilst on bail for another indictable offence, and they will get remanded. Best case, a young person will often be remanded over a weekend or at least overnight while awaiting court, which starts that process of normalising custody and sets that young person up on an undesirable trajectory through the criminal justice system. It is a vicious cycle, and it is one that we see all the time – all too often.

Let us look at Mr Mulholland’s proposal. In his second-reading speech he stated that section 30B:

… reflects a simple principle: if you abuse the privilege of bail by committing further offences, you should face a tougher test to get bail again.

This suggests that bail should work as a deterrent. Hardened recidivists aside, it may work as a deterrent for mature adults, but certainly the same cannot be said for children and young people. Opposition members may baulk at the science, but brain development research in adolescents shows that they cannot attach consequences or project into the future in the same way that an adult can. It is the same reason why incarcerating young people has never really worked as a deterrent to offending. Section 30B completely undermines the principle that jail should be an absolute last resort for children.

Mr Mulholland also cited a 33 per cent increase in residential aggravated burglaries over the last 12 months, and we just heard Ms Bath summon up this vista, this image, of 25,000 balaclava-clad criminals committing aggravated burglaries across the state. I hate to interrupt such splendid visions from the opposition, but the legal reality, the truth of the matter, is that this offence, the offence of aggravated burglary, is a schedule 2 offence. There is a presumption against bail, and offenders need to show compelling reasons why they would get bail. Beyond this, the court will also consider whether the offender poses an unacceptable risk to the community, including whether they pose an unacceptable risk of offending while on bail. So the idea that the removal of section 30B is a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for serious offenders is laughable. In the case of aggravated burglaries it is just a furphy. You are beating a drum that scares the community but is not tethered in the law or truth.

The Bail Amendment Bill 2023 dealt with two conflicting principles in our justice system: the presumption of innocence and the need to ensure community safety and the protection of Victorians. We believe that bill provided a much-improved balance for adults between those two principles and still provided protection for the community in serious cases. I reiterate that Legalise Cannabis Victoria will not be supporting this unnecessary and regressive amendment.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (11:24): I speak today on this private members bill, the Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024. Bail always tries to navigate that tension between the presumption of innocence and greater community protection. The Allan Labor government understands how important it is to have the right balance for bail, and it is really tricky to get right.

I want to inform the chamber that I will be referring to an Aboriginal person who has died; I want to be respectful there. We know that in the past there have been cases that have led to tragedy. As Mr Galea said, five months ago we debated our own bill on this, which was a carefully researched, well-consulted and very well drafted piece of work, unlike what we see from some other parts of this chamber. We know that in the past there have been cases that have ended in tragedy, and hindsight allows us to see that some accused people should not have been bailed, for numerous reasons. A stark example of that was the Bourke Street scenario in 2017, where we lost six people. The perpetrator was on bail at the time, provided by a bail justice despite strenuous opposition from Victoria Police.

The changes put forward in this bill today do nothing really to address recidivism and encourage compliance with bail conditions or assist with the safety of Victorians, quite frankly. This is why we do not support this. The Allan Labor government amended the Bail Act 1977 in 2023 to ensure that Victoria’s most vulnerable people are not unfairly targeted by stringent tests. These amendments were made after recommendations from the coroner following the tragic death of Veronica Nelson. Veronica Nelson was a strong, proud Gunditjmara, Dja Dja Wurrung, Wurundjeri and Yorta Yorta woman. She was refused bail for shoplifting, was at court without representation by a lawyer and, tragically, died in the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, a place she should not have been at for low-level offending. This tragedy highlighted why changes were needed to the Bail Act, to remove the over-representation of First Nations people in prison or on remand.

The changes proposed in this bill would reverse that good work done last year in this chamber. The amendments were also needed last year to address the significant impact that the stringent tests had on women, who were disadvantaged. The changes in this bill would perhaps have captured Veronica Nelson and future Veronica Nelsons in the remand system, which is very concerning. The Allan Labor government acknowledges that the Bail Act was not working to bring about a balanced approach to offending. Instead of ensuring serious offenders were remanded, it had inadvertently caught up low-level and vulnerable offenders stuck in the justice system cycle, adding further difficulties for them to break out of the loop.

Regardless of the human rights impact and regardless of the unfairness and disproportionate treatment, this kind of inappropriate capturing also costs the state money. The Sentencing Advisory Council found that before the amendments there was an increase from 5 per cent to 20 per cent of people on remand being given time-served sentences. This created more issues for vulnerable people who did not have the ability or resources to re-enter the community as easily as others. The changes made to the Bail Act have ensured a balanced and fairer categorisation of offences to specifically target those accused of serious offending. I did quote Nerita Waight five months ago, the CEO of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, a Yorta Yorta and Ngarrindjeri woman. She explained that putting people in prison because of alleged offending related to poverty, disability or mental health issues is not making communities safer – it is putting people on a path to being in a cycle of incarceration for their whole life so that we continue to spend more money on prisons and less on essential services to lift communities up. I think that is absolutely the point I am trying to make.

So much damage was caused by imbalanced tests within the Bail Act. The tests were doing nothing to address community safety and instead hitting hardest at our most vulnerable people. This proposal here today is really a clue to what we would get in the future if they were ever to form government – returning to the laws that have racist impacts on vulnerable communities, especially Aboriginal people. Before we fixed the Bail Act we saw low-level nonviolent offenders placed on remand due to the tougher tests that were designed to address serious offenders. Bail decision makers were unable to make decisions appropriately where these low-level offenders were not an unacceptable risk to the community’s safety but because of their repeated low-level offending were required to be remanded. The Allan Labor government listened and consulted with the community, as I said before, with stakeholders and other entities and other independent bodies that investigated and reviewed these circumstances and listened to the recommendations and advice received. Those recommendations included the removal of the two Bail Act offences that were seeing a disproportionate number of vulnerable people, like women and Aboriginal people and people experiencing disadvantage, placed on remand unnecessarily. This Liberal bill is definitely back to the future.

Under the changes the bail tests still apply. Serious offenders are still held to account under the new changes we put in place five months ago, and the courts may still refuse bail. It strikes the right balance between considerations of vulnerability, offending and risk to the community. The offence of committing an offence whilst on bail on a brief of evidence does not add any emphasis or sentencing considerations as opposed to an offender being charged directly with a specific indictable offence. These offences add nothing to the deterrence of offending. You are simply adding an extra slice of cheese on a hamburger with the lot, with no overall difference except that it is very unhealthy.

The Allan Labor government is serious about law reform and community safety. That is why we introduced our Bail Act amendments in 2023, only five months ago, and why we have been unafraid to be tough on parole. Let us talk about parole for just a moment. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the strength and courage of the families and loved ones of the victims of those offenders I am about to speak about. The Allan Labor government toughened parole laws to ensure that the likes of Paul Denyer cannot continue to make a mockery of the legal system, causing repeated angst, stress and trauma to the families of victims by continually applying for parole. This government has ensured that Denyer will not walk free. The likes of Julian Knight and Adrian Bayley will face years before they can ever face the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. The strengthening of parole ensures that serious offenders cannot apply for parole within a significant period of time. This government is about ensuring communities remain safe. Victims and their families can have confidence that offenders will see justice but also that our most vulnerable Victorians are not locked away in the system due to inappropriate tests that were not designed for low-level offenders. This government will not support that happening. That is exactly the opposite of what we did five months ago.

In conclusion, what the Allan Labor government has done with the Bail Act strikes the right balance between vulnerability, offending and community safety. I am not saying that it is going to come out perfectly every time, because life is diverse. Scenarios and situations are always different. It can never be perfect, but striving to strike the right balance is what I believe the Allan Labor government have done. What is being proposed by those opposite adds nothing to community safety, does nothing to address recidivism and would simply strike once again at our most vulnerable Victorians. It would simply add more and more vulnerable people to the cycle of incarceration without addressing underlying causes. We must ensure that law reforms are about offenders answering for their criminality and upholding community safety and that they do not create an imbalance between justice and the over-representation of vulnerable people in the justice system. Finally, we must ensure that we do not see an escalation of vulnerable people being caught up in the perpetual revolving door of our justice system without any justification.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:36): I also rise to speak on the Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024. I will start by saying I accept Mr Mulholland’s intent and his passion about reducing crime in this state, a passion that I also share. However, I disagree with Mr Mulholland on the outcome of this particular bill. What we are doing here is adding back the double uplift provision which was removed only a matter of months ago by a bill put forward by the government. At the time there was an amendment by the opposition to effectively put this double uplift provision back in. I opposed that amendment at the time. Removing this particular provision was a recommendation of the coroner in the Veronica Nelson case, and I am not convinced that this double uplift provision does anything to act as a deterrent to crime. In fact I am sceptical as to whether people who commit these crimes are even aware of such provisions, which makes their deterrence element questionable at best.

I do question though both the government and the opposition. We do have a crime problem in this state, both a normal petty crime problem and an organised crime problem. As I stated in a speech yesterday, it is quite shocking to hear reporting of teenagers being recruited by organised crime to steal cars. This is something that everyone would be aware of, these arson attacks all over the state that have been happening due to tobacco and vaping prohibition. When they commit these attacks, in order to not get caught by the police they use stolen cars, and it has been reported that they are recruiting teenagers to steal cars. With modern cars, you cannot hot-wire them easily, so what they do is they break into the person’s house, steal the keys, take the car to commit an arson attack and then burn the car. That is usually what they end up doing.

The idea that we cannot attack many of these issues around crime, both organised crime and petty crime, is just wrong. We know that we can solve issues around petty crime around heroin use, for example, by getting people into pharmacotherapy and undermining the organised crime market. We know that we can undermine this explosion in the tobacco and vaping market by regulating vaping for adults and doing something about the crazy federal excise taxes. I do not lay the blame for that on the state government – they are not responsible for federal excise tax – but we must be at least screaming at the federal government about what they are doing to this state in causing this explosion in organised crime. It is absolutely unacceptable what is happening. Think about this for a moment: that money that these criminals are collecting through these black market networks, where is that money going? How are they laundering this money, and where does it end up? We know that a lot of this tobacco is going to the Middle East and some other Asian countries. Only God knows where that money is going and what sort of nefarious activities it is funding.

We have to stop what is happening in this state. What the federal government has announced, this crackdown, will not work. It will be just as successful as cannabis prohibition. In other words, it will not work at all. We must do better in this state. We have to come up with new ways of fighting crime. Simply changing bail, changing parole and getting more police is not going to fix it. We have to fix the fundamental incentives. We can fight crime in this state using the power of economics whilst respecting the individual choices of citizens of this state. The current system is not working. It is broken; it will remain broken. It does not matter how many police you throw at it; it will remain broken and crime will continue to flourish until we change our approach.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:40): I rise to speak today, and I would like to pay tribute to Veronica Nelson, a proud Gunditjmara, Dja Dja Wurrung, Wurundjeri and Yorta Yorta woman, a beloved daughter and partner, who tragically passed away on remand. I acknowledge the tireless efforts of her mother Aunty Donna, her partner Uncle Percy and all of her loved ones in keeping her legacy alive and in calling for reforms to Victoria’s bail laws – laws which those opposite sit here trying, in part, to reverse. Their bill seeks to undo one of the changes made under the Bail Amendment Bill 2023, a change that was specifically called for by the coroner of our state following Veronica’s tragic death and that has been supported by countless justice stakeholders, including the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, which under the guidance and leadership of Nerita Waight has been one of the powerful advocacy bodies for law reform in Victoria and that operates within my region of the Northern Metropolitan Region.

Can I also pay tribute to the Aboriginal Justice Caucus for their many years of efforts as a key partner in the Aboriginal Justice Agreement. Aboriginal community controlled legal services are vital for First Peoples equality both here in Victoria and across the nation, and it is the tireless advocacy of such organisations that is helping us build a legal and justice system that works for all. I want to extend my thanks to all members of the Aboriginal legal and grassroots community who have campaigned and called for truth and justice for years. Thank you for your fight, your dedication and your insights throughout all of our work.

Of course we would not be here today if not for the enormous efforts of the Attorney-General and leader of this house Jaclyn Symes, whose compassion and expertise has led to the implementation of the very laws those opposite aim to strip away from Victorians. The Attorney-General along with the Department of Justice and Community Safety has been instrumental in ensuring that Victoria has nuanced and appropriate laws around bail and remand, and the last thing we need is a rushed attack on Victoria’s chances of breaking the cycle of reoffending. The government considered the recommendations made by the coroner in great depth. We consulted, we tested and we drafted a series of reforms, and we did so with a clear view to ensuring we had a system that would be fairer and that would always ensure community safety was a critical consideration. In doing so we landed a suite of reforms to Victoria’s bail laws which sought to ensure that Victoria’s system of bail, one which has long been recognised as being one of the toughest in the country, was much more nuanced.

Specifically our reforms sought to ensure that bail tests would better distinguish low-level, nonviolent offending which would not pose a risk to community safety. This was highlighted not only in the coronial inquest into Veronica’s death but also in the parliamentary inquiry into Victoria’s criminal justice system. I was a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee at the time, here in the Legislative Council, that put forward that report, and I recall that both the coronial inquest and the parliamentary inquiry called for reforms to make our bail laws fairer and more flexible. Can I just take a moment to acknowledge the fellow members of the committee in the previous Parliament, who participated in what was a very significant parliamentary inquiry.

It is the job of good governments to acknowledge when the balance just has not been achieved. With the changes made last year we were recognising that there was a problem, and most importantly, we acted upon it. That is why these reforms started us on the path of righting some of those wrongs, and I do acknowledge that work. Bail laws should be used to keep Victorians safe, not to further disadvantage the most underprivileged members of our community. The Allan Labor government is doing what needs to be done in relation to criminal justice reform for Aboriginal communities, for people with disabilities, for women and children and for all those in this state who are vulnerable or disadvantaged.

This bill reflects that those opposite lack a commitment to making Victoria a safer place for all. It does not promote any kind of positive behaviour or overall community safety. The changes they want to reverse with this bill before us require decision-makers to recognise the cultural considerations and obligations of Aboriginal people; the need for accessible Indigenous bail support services, and that is one that we certainly heard a lot about in the inquiry; and the importance of connecting to country, culture and community, one that I know has been especially championed by the Aboriginal caucus and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, because these factors we know play a very vital role in successful rehabilitation.

Data suggests that the decision to introduce two bail offences in 2013 has contributed to a significant increase in the remand population of our state, with a particular impact on women. More and more women have been remanded since the introduction of these offences. The 2019 Crime Statistics Agency Characteristics and Offending of Women in Prison in Victoria report findings show that the number of women entering remand charged with a Bail Act offence increased from 20.7 per cent to 66.2 per cent in the period from 2012 to 2018. This increased incarceration was mainly attributed to these two bail offences being introduced, meaning the offence did little to discourage bail breaches and ongoing offending. I am given pause to consider that right before International Women’s Day, do we really want to be instituting policies and reforms from those opposite that have a really significant and disproportionate impact on Victorian women? We should be caring for and rehabilitating Victorian women, not trying to lock them up over and over again. That is not the way to break the cycle of reoffending.

The decision to repeal this offence was intended to address the disproportionate impact of Bail Act offences on women, Aboriginal people and people experiencing disadvantage. During consultations on this bill only last year stakeholders consistently advocated for repeal of these offences. Again we need to be really clear on this: removing this offence does not make it easier for serious offenders to be granted bail. People who commit indictable offences whilst on bail are still held to account for the crimes they commit while on bail, and their offending while on bail still makes it harder for them to get bail again. That is a really critical point that I recall many members on this side of the chamber making during our contributions on this bill last year that this bill is now seeking to reverse. If a person commits an offence while on bail or breaches a condition of bail, the police are able to apply for bail to be revoked, meaning the person ends up on remand, same as if they were never granted bail. This is not changing under our bail reforms, and bail decision-makers must consider any offending while on bail when making a further bail determination. This is also not changing under our bail reforms.

I think it is worth noting that the opposition has been quick to call this a weakening of bail laws, and they could not be more wrong. Removing this offence does not make it easier for serious violent offenders to get bail. A person who commits an indictable offence on bail is already facing a more serious charge, an actual indictable offence. Adding an additional charge to a rap sheet does not solve the issue of preventing further offending in the long term or even in fact in the short term.

I am asking myself a number of questions as I examine their bill, as I first did as a member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. I must confess that the questions when reading this did come through thick and fast because the memory of our very fulsome debate here in this place only last year was still quite fresh in the memory. These are the things I asked myself: did they not hear the debate in our chamber only five months ago, and how is it, given that, did it ever get through the party room? Then I began to think about the people that would be most impacted by that, and I asked myself: do they know what this will mean for vulnerable Victorians? Do they understand the concerns shared by members of the legal community, including those that have advocated for so very long for the reforms that we debated only last year? Then when it all got a little bit too much, I asked myself this question: will I ever understand the motivations of those opposite? And I must confess on this occasion the answer is no.

So with that in mind, I just stopped making a list of questions and reaffirmed in my mind why I am a member of the Allan Labor government. It truly is a government that listens – that listened to the coroner and acted appropriately and that brought forth legislation only five months ago, a bill that I had the good fortune of speaking on. In those remarks then I reaffirmed, like today, my many thanks to the Aboriginal legal and grassroots community for their efforts, who have campaigned and called for truth and justice for years. I thank you for your fight, thank you for sticking at it, thank you for your dedication and sharing your insights and sharing your stories through such incredible pain and heartache. It is not easy to get up and tell the story of family hardship as so many of you have done throughout the many, many, many years. So to you, I say thank you.

We know that more needs to be done in relation to criminal justice reform for Aboriginal communities, and as a former member of the Aboriginal caucus and a very active participant in the Aboriginal justice agreement, I must confess that I too join with you in saying that there is more that we can do for criminal justice reform for Aboriginal communities. But I am also thinking about the statistics for people with a disability, broadly for people of colour, for women and for children and for all those in the state who are vulnerable, disadvantaged or somehow just ended up doing the wrong thing once or twice. Bills like the one before us tell us what we know to be true, and that is that we must fight for all the gains just as hard as we fight to keep them. So whilst your eyes are firmly facing forward to the next fight for justice and self-determination for Aboriginal people and for our mob, I am happy to stand with you today as always and fight to retain the wins, the precious, hard-fought-for and always fragile, fragile wins.

Just like the views of those opposite on treaty, we know that minds can change, and memories of the recent past and recent wins slip too quickly from our collective memories. When we get comfortable just for a moment, when we think that this effort is over with and we can move on, well, those opposite do what they always mean to do and present us with a bill like this. I cannot support this bill before us.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (11:54): Thank you to all of my colleagues for your valuable contributions to this debate. I heard a lot of contributions, particularly from Mr Luu and Ms Bath, who gave some reasonable contributions. I just want to pick up on something that Mr Galea said. Obviously the Veronica Nelson case was a very tragic case, but he said very specifically that section 30B would have meant that she would have stayed in jail. The other changes to the Bail Act 1977 that operate to prevent situations such as the one that led to the tragic death of Veronica Nelson from happening again are, for example, among the changes that come into effect on 25 March that we are not taking out. A bail decision maker must consider whether the applicant for bail would be likely to be sentenced to prison for an offence if proven. As offences such as shop stealing would be unlikely to attract bail, a bail decision maker would not remand a person in Victoria in the position of Veronica Nelson under the changes. There are also a large number of offences for which bail can be denied.

Our bill will simply retain section 30B in the Bail Act or reinsert it if the change has already occurred. We know from what is going on in our communities that now is not the time to weaken bail laws. The practical effect of section 30B is to provide that a person on bail who commits an indictable offence will face a higher test to obtain bail again than if they were not already on bail. We are seeing examples from around our state where people have been granted bail over and over and over again. We have seen some pretty frightening examples in my community as well, where people have been subject to aggravated burglaries by people on bail. As I said, it is quite simple: it is to retain section 30B in the Bail Act or reinsert it if the change has already occurred. Now is not the time to weaken bail laws.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (12): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, David Ettershank, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion negatived.

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, as we begin question time I would like to follow up on the ruling that you made yesterday when I raised a point of order about the Minister for Housing reflecting on me personally during question time yesterday and my request for her to withdraw those comments. You mentioned that you would follow this up when the minister was in the chamber, and I believe the minister is in the chamber now.

The PRESIDENT: Yesterday was a very long day. I do not know if the minister has already done that, but I will call the minister.

Harriet Shing: I wish to apologise, Dr Ratnam, for the inference around a comment directed to you. It was in fact directed to the Victorian Greens, so on that basis I do withdraw. It was about all of you.

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, previously in reference to these points of order I have heard you mention that the sincerity of the retraction or apology needs to be considered. I actually do not believe that was a sincere withdrawal, and I do not believe the comments have been withdrawn, which was what my request was.

Nick McGowan: Further to the point of order, President, Member Batchelor made that same point yesterday when he demanded that I unreservedly apologise, and I was required to do so. I would ask you to hold the member to the same level of account.

The PRESIDENT: Even though I was not here, I actually watched that, and I think you are correct. I think he did ask you to withdraw unreservedly with no commentary. Dr Ratnam, I think that the minister went over the top and actually apologised and withdrew. Minister, just say you withdraw.

Harriet Shing: In relation to you, Dr Ratnam, absolutely. I withdraw in relation to you, yes.

David Davis: On the point of order, President, the principles are quite clear. I understand she wants to annotate the discussion, but actually the task for her is just to withdraw, not to annotate.

The PRESIDENT: There have been many rulings along the way, so I will ask the minister to assist me by standing up and saying ‘I withdraw.’

Harriet Shing: Dr Ratnam, I withdraw.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.