Thursday, 31 July 2025

Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (14:49): I rise today to make a contribution on the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This bill amends three acts – namely, the Serious Offenders Act 2018, the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and the Corrections Act 1986, with some miscellaneous provisions dealing largely with some changes to the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. This bill seeks to bring about reform to ensure that the safety risks from serious offenders are managed properly and denounce and deter assaults on our hardworking custodial workers. Lately, assaults, which are becoming far too frequent, demand these new laws which we are debating today. It is also in place to make minor amendments to parole and other provisions that are not operating as originally intended.

From the outset, this bill presents some opportunities for reform to make our prisons safer. That is a good thing – a very good thing. Having worked in custodial management at the Melbourne Custody Centre and in 24-hour police stations with holding cells, this bill is a good start for those working in those areas, but it has some shortfalls and some shortcomings in addressing all the elements that make the prison workplace a safe one for all staff and those employed to work in the prisons.

Thus the government must hear and listen to all the issues that are raised by the prison staff and those employed or engaged to work in the prison and their representative, being the Community and Public Sector Union, the CPSU, noting that the prison system under the current Labor government is unsafe in its current form; the running of prisons is jeopardised by the increase of violent assaults against staff, which I will speak on in more detail shortly, and as a result of the increase of lockdowns that management must initiate; and Victorians have witnessed that 94 per cent of correctional staff have voted in favour of a no-confidence motion against the leadership of Corrections Victoria.

Prisons and remand centres need to be safe working environments, with headlines in the news conveying a significant number of serious assaults on our prison guards. I will give you some examples that relate to what I am referring to. Barwon Prison, from the news on 26 September 2023, ‘Killer admits to vicious prison officer bashing’, on an unprovoked attack on male and female guards:

The female guard was knocked out and suffered serious injuries including a broken leg, while her colleague received cuts and bruises.

The inmate is serving a 22-year sentence for stabbing a 48-year-old person to death.

On 9 September 2023 an officer was attacked at Barwon Prison again. A superior at maximum security was attacked and spat on. In Port Phillip Prison on 19 March 2025 we have the headline ‘Comanchero accused of severely beating prison guards allegedly lashed out in anger over brother’s deportation’. A guard was:

… felled with sickening blows and repeatedly stomped to the head, before a colleague rushed to their aid.

On 16 March 2025 we had ‘Prison guards seriously assaulted by enraged bikie gang members’, while in the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre on 2 May 2025 there was the headline ‘Crippling staff shortages force Dame Phyllis Frost Centre into lockdown’. These go on and on, example after example, and these were just a few.

These convicted criminals have no interest in treating corrections workers with respect. What would make those opposite think they would treat cleaners, healthcare workers and other staff employed to work in the prison with respect? The fact is there have been 442 assaults on staff in one year alone; that is in the past year. This is not acceptable in any workplace. The 442 assault incidents include 10 sexual assaults, six incidents so horrific that prison guards required hospitalisation. We can see why the CPSU are screaming out that our prisons are an unsafe workplace and that 94 per cent of corrections staff voted no confidence in the corrections commissioner and her leadership team. I would be disgusted if this happened under my watch as a supervisor managing prisons, and with such figures Victorian prisons cannot be described as being a safe workplace.

I would like to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Trung LUU: I would debate that these be agreed to by the government. As I stated, our prisons are not a safe workplace for prison staff or for any other person employed or engaged by and working in a prison. That is why we need to strengthen the legislation before us. Reports of assault are becoming far too common, and the perception in the community is that not enough has been done to protect our staff at their workplaces.

Retention in any challenging work environment is hard enough, but when it is coupled with the feeling of being unsafe and not being protected, you would not want to work. You would leave. Why would anyone in the right mindset continue to put their safety in jeopardy? We have observed across many sectors under this government things of a similar nature. I will give you an example: there are over a thousand vacant positions in the Victorian police force at the moment. Right now we have hundreds of members on stress leave or WorkCover. It is no coincidence that in such a demanding work environment as a prison this is also a driving factor of prison staff leaving the system in droves. The government are even offering a financial incentive by way of an $8000 sign-on bonus in their recruiting drive. That is how bad the situation is at the moment in relation to prison guards at that workplace. It is obvious that there is concern in the corrections community about the risks involved in working in a prison. We need to be doing more than just offering financial incentives to bring in recruits. We have got to make sure that they are safe when they are clocked in and that when they clock out they have not sustained any assaults or any injuries and go home to their families in one piece. We need to ensure that prison workplaces are as safe as possible for all staff, contractors, visitors and inmates.

I just want the chamber to understand the important role our prison staff play. They are not there to make life hard for inmates. They are there to look after and care for those people who the court has sentenced to time away from the community. The current system is failing, and the wider community is witnessing that failure. Without our hardworking, dedicated Corrections Victoria staff, our prisons would not operate. It is as simple as that. Without them, the prions would not be operating. I will talk more about this later on and why we are so serious about making further provisions to toughen up this law to protect our staff working in the prison system.

We need to stress that an attack on any worker, including those working in our prisons, is not okay and that there will be consequences for such actions. The amendment proposes to change this bill so that if you assault a prison guard or a person working in a prison and cause serious injury, you will face additional penalties on top of your sentence. When an inmate assaults and causes serious injuries to a prison staff member, there will be consequences. It is simply not acceptable to assault others who are giving you care. While this bill goes further with consequences for prisoners who assault staff, the staff this bill covers fall into the ‘officer’ category. Concerningly the bill fails and falls short in providing adequate coverage for others working in the prison system. We believe that the amendment will allow the further consideration that is needed. The amendment reclassifies the term ‘officers’ to cover all persons engaged or employed to work in a prison. This is an important and crucial addition. All staff who are interacting with inmates in the prison system should receive the same level of legalised protections, the same rights, as they enter the workplace. We need to widen the net to include other workers who are onsite at a prison to ensure that they too are protected under this law, such as health and education workers, who are actually frequently attending our prisons to provide various programs and services to the inmates. These supporting staff provide training programs and education services, while nurses provide medical support and so on, and these people deserve the same protections as prison guards.

I know that the CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union, has been active in this space, leading the debate for this bill to cover all workers in the prison system, not just custodial staff. And we on this side support the union 100 per cent in their endeavour to have the law extend to everyone who works in the prison system. They should be protected and have the same rights. I want to put on record my thanks to outgoing secretary of the union Karen Batt for her strong representation on this matter. I also want to make note of the extensive work of my colleague David Southwick, member for Caulfield and Shadow Minister for Police and Corrections, who advocates for this area, ensuring that prison staff voices are heard in Parliament and that prison staff and all the employees who are employed to work in prisons have a safe workplace when carrying out their very important community duties. The union has also been calling on the government to offer more consistency in its application of the loss of privilege for prisoners who assault any staff member and that any assault of a staff member should result in the application of restraint of movement around the prison. Consequences for actions and deterrence is a must, even in prison. I will talk more about this shortly.

In regard to the classification of custodial officers, I am alarmed to read that the rationale for not broadening the definition of the workers covered is that non-guard personal assault is very rare and therefore there is no need to implement the same level of protection as other workers onsite. Just because it is rare, does not mean it will not happen. You have got to understand you are dealing with people here. It does not automatically happen like clockwork. People have different minds, different attitudes and it varies from time to time whether you are dealing with people on the street or in prison. The probability of being assaulted in any given interaction in the same work location at the same time, no matter what your job title is, whether you are a prison guard or you are person providing a health service or an education service – you face the same probability of assault if the inmate decides to assault someone at that location. Just because it is rare does not mean that staff do not deserve the same rights or suffer less pain from assault and injuries. You do not take away a person’s right because it is rare. Whether an assault happens once, 10 times or 100 times, you deserve to be protected and to be safe in your work environment with the same rights and protections as anybody else. It is absurd that we are not using the opportunity to ensure that all cracks are fixed. Widen the scope and broaden the definition to address this, regardless of whether it is rare or not. This is an opportunity today to send a strong message to the community that an attack or an assault on any staff working and providing services in a prison system is not acceptable.

The coalition supports the application of strong restraint management, such as handcuffs, when deemed necessary, which is absent in this bill. These amendments address this. Again, we want to reinforce the broader message to the community that safety in prison is important. We firmly believe that a system of stronger restraint management will enhance that message. Any prisoner found to have assaulted a staff member should have all movement throughout the prison subject to being handcuffed for a minimum of three months to protect our staff and prevent further assaults. I want you to picture what this means.

For those that have not visited any prisons, I will paint a picture in relation to what a prison cell looks like. Inmates are designated to a prison cell. Depending on whether you are in maximum security, whether you are in mainstream or you are in management security, depending on what level you are, the outside of your cell is a communal area. During the day you have access to the communal area. This means you require restraint to open a door and walk into the communal area. This is when you are moving across the prison system from one location to another in a different area. This is where the restraint management comes in. It is not when you just leave your cell and go to community area and there is no need for an escort. It is under escort when we restrain. I want to classify clearly what this means in this area. Not only is it protection for the staff when restraint management occurs, it is also protection for the inmate themselves and other inmates in the vicinity. Injuries occur when assault happens. When assault happens, it is not limited to one person if there is another person in the vicinity.

Secondly, in relation to the assault management amendment proposed in this bill, it is proposed to be rolled out consistently across the board. Restraint management is in the system at the moment, and it depends on the situation whether the government decides to do it or not. What this does is give consistency across all corrections centres and all prisons, where it is important that inmates’ routines are not regularly interrupted. If he or she knows there are consequences for their actions and as a result restraint management is applied for those three months after being convicted or being found guilty of assault or serious injury to a prison guard or a worker, then he or she knows there are consequences and their mindset is prepared.

This is not a random thing which we will apply straightaway. If it is not applied as we are suggesting today, across the board, then each professional and each corrections centre or prison will manage it according to what is necessary. That is when it can come in, that is when irregularity applies and that is when the smoothness of the management of the system might be interrupted. What the amendments propose is consistency across all prisons and the consistent enforcement of measures that are needed now more than ever to protect our prison staff, whatever their duties are.

For those who are not aware of the prison system, you must understand that incarceration rules and guidelines provide regularity, and that is what inmates need. It is human nature; whether you are in prison or not, you do not like people changing your daily routine. Once you are interrupted your mood changes, and this is the same in prison. I know from past experience that if inmates have the same routine, then they will expect it. It has a smoother system, and that is what an ideal prison system is. Prison guards are not there to enforce punishment. Prison guards are there to make sure it is run to care for inmates and to ensure the smooth running of the system in the prison.

In place of consistency across the corrections system, it does not only cause inconsistency and cause disruption, it will take part in disturbance. By providing these rules now in this amendment, it will provide consistency and rules in guidelines. It is not a random propagation but rather a structured guideline with consequences for actions. Prisoners need to know the consequences of their actions. We must send a strong message across the wider community and in the prison system community. Restraint measures are already a tool, as I stated. It is important to have this policy blanket across the whole system. It is an important lesson so that the inmates know what is in front of them. All inmates, if you are not aware, once arrested will be assessed, and where they go is determined by their medical history, their past history and how they interact with other inmates. This is part of the assessment and where they are placed. It is not just that you get locked up, sentenced and sent straight to prison. The remand centre will actually look through all this. When they go into the prison system, the inmates are provided with an introduction with guidelines on what is expected of them. There is uniform and consistent messaging across the board. A policy that applies to all always protects staff but also protects other prisoners. This is not only to protect prison guards and staff visiting or working in prison centres but also to be mindful of other inmates, ensuring movement is restricted for those inmates who are violent. That also means it limits the chance of them assaulting other inmates who happen to be in the vicinity, as I stated earlier. This is an ongoing issue, and this is just another reason why this policy must be mandatory.

The only deterrent that will work for these criminals in prison is a loss of privilege. They have already been sentenced, so we need to have some sort of loss of privilege when they commit these other assaults causing serious injury of prison guards. Strong restraints management is a part of it, such as handcuffs when moving throughout the prison under escort. Let me restate – under escort. If they are going from their cell to the community centre outside, that is not under escort, so they are not required to wear restraints. So you can understand what we are talking about – it is not constraining the inmate every single time they walk out of the cell. This is a loss of privilege, and it makes a tangible difference while protecting the staff.

I want to go through another notable element of this bill, the alteration of the reporting period under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 for serious sex offenders. This provision deals with serious offenders on the sex offender register and protects the community once they are released. Given the danger they may still pose to society, many victims and their families have rightfully been concerned about this release and what will happen and how their safety is at risk. I want to emphasise, in speaking about this concern, that it is concern for the victims and their families, not the public at large. This provision helps ensure that victims and families are supported by way of monitoring where the offender lives once they are out. The requirement does place a supervision order to report to police. Keeping the register up to date and sharing information is crucial. This provision also covers elements such as wearing a monitoring bracelet, who the offender is living with and whether they are living with people who have committed similar offences. It is also about how we can better prevent reoffending.

Other areas include clarifying Post Sentence Authority directions. This means giving direction around who a person on a supervision order can live with, which helps manage the person’s risk to the community. We know certain co-residents can influence and increase an individual’s risk of reoffending if these residents display antisocial behaviour. We want to discourage that behaviour, and therefore the provision tightens the powers given to the authority to determine where and with whom these people reside once they are out of the prison system. We also know this provision is important if the person on the supervision order may have a history of family violence. It is also understandable that given the additional work that will occur in this space, the government has increased the staffing of Post Sentence Authority members from 10 to 13, which includes an Indigenous member.

I also want to mention something of interest about this bill – that we need to improve the safety of prisons before continuing on to other areas. Earlier this year in May, corrections staff voted clearly on their feet, declaring that they did not feel safe in the workplace, and a no-confidence motion was passed. That no-confidence motion is why we are doing this today and why this legislation needs to be supported with this amendment to make sure it is strong and adequate across the board. The no-confidence motions are coming through thick and fast for the government. We have seen them against the Chief Commissioner of Police, the fire rescue commissioner and now the corrections commissioner. When does the Minister for Corrections ultimately take some responsibility for the lack of safety of staff in the workplace?

I implore the government and the corrections minister to take note of some of the sensible policy solution amendments we have put forward today for this debate. I strongly hope they support it, because we want our prison staff, including all those employed to work in the area, to feel safe and for there to be consequences if prisoners decide to attack people who are looking after them. There will be consequences, and the consequences we put forward are tangible and will help prevent and deter further committing of offences. We have entered into this debate in good faith with the government, and those amendments in good faith have been agreed. I hope this bill will be passed, with greater strength for our prison staff. We will not stop working hard for the Corrections Victoria staff to make sure they feel safe.

There are a few minutes left before I finish. I want to mention quickly the parole amendment and miscellaneous changes, namely clarity around the application of two provisions in the Corrections Act 1986. The first one is a ‘no body, no parole’ provision. The second one is an amendment that the Adult Parole Board can revoke an automatic cancellation of parole. In relation to the ‘no body, no parole’ provision, it is important. It is something we call for, recognising it is vitally important, because it stipulates firmly that you will not be granted parole unless you cooperate with authorities to determine where the body is. I will give you the example – I will not go into too much detail – of the Samantha Murphy case. If you have been convicted and there is enough evidence there but you are not going to cooperate with the authorities and help the victim’s family to move on, to notify where the body is, there will be no parole. The other miscellaneous change related to the parole board is altering the discretion to revoke automatic parole and cancellation for minor offences.

In the last minute I want to clearly state that, with these amendments, it is important that all those in chamber recognise those working in the prison system are not just prison guards – they are nurses and they are educators who are there on programs employed to help the inmate to rehabilitate and to find a pathway to leave the system. Secondly, there need to be consequences for your actions whether you are in prison or out of prison. In the prison system if you hit someone and cause serious injury, there need to be consequences. If you do not have consequences, it is going to happen over and over again. The penalty needs to be on top of what you are serving. If a prisoner has been sentenced for 10 years, you are not going to add any penalty above that if he goes, ‘I’m doing 10 years anyway. I’ll keep committing those offences.’ That is why it is put on top of what you have been sentenced. It is important we send this message strong and loud and assist the governor and prison management to do their job by approving and supporting the amendments we put forward. Include all persons working in the prison system. Consequences for your actions – you cannot assault and cause serious injury to people looking after you and walk away scot-free. Make sure they have penalties and are restrained for their safety and the safety of all around them.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (15:19): I rise to also make a contribution on the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The bill substantively amends three acts: the Serious Offenders Act 2018, the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and the Corrections Act 1986. I will go through these and speak to some of the elements of the amendments one by one.

On the Serious Offenders Act 2018, I note that the Corrections Amendment Bill implements recommendations of the review of the Serious Offenders Act 2018. It is important to note that review found, encouragingly, that the post-sentence scheme is working well to both protect the community and support rehabilitation and treatment of serious sexual and violent offenders. Stakeholders have made the case that this scheme works precisely because it has more of an intensive case management, support and treatment approach than a purely custodial approach. Even those who, for example, are on detention orders who reside within a prison are managed differently from the general prison population in recognition of their different status. Together these sorts of supports increase rehabilitation prospects and therefore keep the community safer.

The bill also addresses membership of the Post Sentence Authority and requires that at least one of the 13 members who make up the authority must be a member of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community, and that requirement is positive to provide perspectives on culturally safe supervision and support.

The Law Institute of Victoria does hold reservations about clause 5 of this bill, stating that post-sentencing orders may breach the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, namely the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention and recognition that the person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence.

This bill also makes minor or technical amendments to victims’ submissions, arrests without warrant, proceedings for the offence of attempting to contravene a supervision order or interim supervision order, and the use and disclosure of information by authorised officers.

The second act that the bill substantively amends is the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, relating to reporting periods for registrable offenders who are serious sex offenders. I note that the bill amends supervision orders, extending the current requirement for serious sex offenders who are subject to a supervision or detention order to report to police both during and for five years after the conclusion of their order. A key specialist service provider in this space has asked what the evidence base is for extending these reporting periods. With extensive experience providing forensic casework to people on post-sentence orders, stakeholders have shared with us that where reporting requirements are not combined with targeted reintegrative and rehabilitative measures and regular opportunities to review that registration, the restrictive impact on people can impact their capacity to start afresh or go in a different direction, which could negatively outweigh any risk that they continue to pose to the community.

Finally, the bill substantively amends the Corrections Act 1986. This includes clarifying amendments in relation to processes around Victoria’s ‘no body, no parole’ rule. The bill also reinstates revocation of the cancellation of a prisoner’s parole abilities to the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. This gives the adult parole board an appropriate discretion to revoke cancellation of a prisoner’s parole, for example, if there is a situation where time has been served for an additional sentence. This is an administrative change that will assist the adult parole board in its function and will support prisoners not having to restart an entire parole process where that is appropriate and the adult parole board determine so based on information that they already have in existing or prior parole applications.

The bill also inserts a new definition of ‘custodial worker’ and a new definition of ‘prison offence’. It was explained to me in the briefing from the minister’s office that this has been done to deter assaults on custodial officers by strengthening sentencing outcomes for people who commit serious offences in prison. We do not believe that this measure is going to achieve the outcome that the government intends, and I will pursue some questions in committee with the minister around this point.

One issue that the Greens have sought to bring forward by amendment and be explored but have ultimately found is out of scope for this bill is that time served on parole does not count as time served in Victoria. To work through a little example of this, a prisoner could be given a sentence with a minimum of eight years and a maximum of 12 years. If they are successful in applying for parole after serving eight years, it means there is a parole period remaining of four years. Extending the example, if that prisoner does very well in terms of 18 months but then has a relapse into drug use, their parole could be cancelled and they return to prison. But the 18 months of time that they have had on parole then does not count, so the prisoner is then required to serve out four years, and therefore it is entirely possible the person could end up serving 18 months more than their original maximum sentence.

This system is a real disincentive to applying for parole if a prisoner is worried or scared that due to an addiction or so on they may mess up and then ultimately have to serve more time than they were sentenced to, and it does result in people coming out of prison on unsupported straight release. From a reintegration and assistance perspective this is worse for everyone – the person concerned and the community – so I would encourage the government to explore this issue. We would have liked to see it within the scope of this bill. It does not seem fair to anyone to have to serve more time than they were sentenced to, and it does not seem fair to have a system that this disincentivises eligible prisoners from applying for parole.

My final point on the bill is that there was another set of amendments to the Corrections Act 1986 that we explored to enable notice to be given when a prisoner is released in circumstances where there had been family violence. The amendment we sought to pursue was based on the coroner’s recommendation from the inquest into the death of Noeline Dalzell. The specific recommendation I will quote is recommendation 3:

Victoria Police (in conjunction with DJCS) develop a policy to ensure that any victim of family violence or an AFM in an active FVIO case is notified of a court outcome. It is desirable for Victoria Police to notify all victims and AFMs in an active FVIO, however I consider it essential that in cases where an offender is considered high risk, that this notification occur within 48 hours.

And recommendation 4 is:

If Recommendation 3 is accepted, the Victorian Government investigate enhancement to the CIP to include a capability that the release of a FV offender (from prison, police cells or directly from a court) triggers an automated notification of that information to all other agencies.

In plain English, this is about people who have been victims of family violence receiving automated notifications when there is a court outcome or the release of a family violence offender from prison, a police cell or court. These recommendations, as we understand it, are yet to be implemented, and we would urge the government to explore this and find a mechanism.

Given this bill makes a relatively narrow set of step changes to the act, the Greens were unable to produce amendments that were in scope to the bill, so we have not pursued those. But we strongly urge the government to find an opportunity to do so with the next convenient piece of legislation. I will leave my remarks on the bill there.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:28): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which is before the chamber today.

Obviously, this bill, which deals with some matters related to the corrections end of the criminal justice system, provides an opportunity I think more broadly to briefly make some remarks about community safety. This bill forms part of the continuum of work that the government is doing to improve community safety. I think it is pretty clear – and the government acknowledges this – that there have been concerns about community safety out in the community. The government has listened and we have acted, and the statistics are demonstrating that the changes that the government has made to a range of laws, but particularly to our bail laws introduced earlier this year, are having an impact. We are seeing more people accused of crimes being remanded in custody whilst they await their trial this year compared to last year, so there are fewer people who are accused of committing crimes on our streets as a result of the changes to the law that this government has made. We have heard, we have listened and we have acted.

What that is doing is putting more pressure on our remand and prison system to accommodate these individuals. I am very pleased to have been hearing the regular updates from the minister, who joins us in the chamber today, about the investments that the government is making and the work that he is doing to lead the improvements to our corrections system to make sure that they are there to do their job, which is to look after the people that our criminal justice system has taken the view should not be on our streets. Certainly there has been significant work that has been done. We are recruiting more staff. We are opening up more beds in our prison system. Even as recently as earlier today the minister has been informing the house about the success of the work that has been underway to recruit more staff into our prison system, the additional funding that has gone in to support that work, the significant additional resources that have been made available and the investments made by the Allan Labor government to make sure that our corrections system is able to do the job that the rest of the criminal justice system is asking it to do, and I commend him for that. We heard earlier today of the significant work that has been done to get something like the Western Plains Correctional Centre built, operational and staffed. I think that is exceptionally welcome.

The bill today builds on these changes and makes further amendments to the law to ensure that our communities are kept safe and that those who reoffend face more serious consequences for their actions. The bill makes a number of targeted changes to facilitate our community safety agenda and crack down on serious offending, including by making amendments to the Serious Offenders Act 2018, the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and the Corrections Act 1986. The changes to these acts are designed to facilitate a recently announced suite of reforms.

In relation to the Serious Offenders Act, the changes that we make will strengthen the functioning of Victoria’s post-sentence scheme. The post-sentence scheme is designed for people identified as posing an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence, whether that be a sex offence or a violent offence, when they have completed their sentence. With this bill, the post-sentence scheme will improve the protections for the community, for members of the public, and improve the engagement with victims of those who committed the original offence.

With respect to the improved protections for the public, the bill proposes new tools for managing people on supervision orders. At any one time there are around 150 people who have committed serious crimes and are subject to supervision orders. The amendments in the bill clarify the directions the Post Sentence Authority can give the people on supervision orders to reduce their risk of reoffending. The bill also clarifies the actions that police can take after arresting someone suspected of breaching their supervision order.

In line with our recently implemented tough new bail laws, people who are charged with further offences whilst subject to a post-sentence order will face the full force of these new laws, which put community safety as the overarching principle for decision-making. So those on these post-sentence supervision orders who reoffend will have the principle of community safety put front and centre as the number one consideration in the determination of future decision-making. I think that is an exceptionally welcome change and one that is very consistent with the attitude the government has taken across a range of areas. The Post Sentence Authority will be able to give directions about who a person on a supervision order can live with. If the court decides to impose such limitations, this will lessen the impact of possible triggers of further offending and protect others from harm.

Another important change is to clarify that electronic monitoring devices can be fitted without a direction from the Post Sentence Authority, in line with things such as court orders, as appropriate. I have mentioned that improvements are being made to engagement with victims, and we all should recognise that victims do have a very difficult time when someone who has been convicted and sentenced for an offence reaches the end of their custodial sentence. So the bill will improve how victims are engaged with, with the aim of avoiding unnecessary trauma for these victims. The changes outlined in the bill make it clear that people on the victims register can receive appropriate information about an individual’s involvement in the post-sentence scheme and that they can make submissions to the Post Sentence Authority about how that individual is managed. The Post Sentence Authority will also be given greater resources and flexibility to engage with victims, ensuring they are kept informed and that their wellbeing is placed at the centre of the post-sentence arrangements. I think that is a really critical point to highlight: we are making sure that the Post Sentence Authority is engaging with and taking the wellbeing of the victims to be at the centre of this process. These are part of the recommendations made by a 2023 review of the Serious Offenders Act 2018. This bill will be implementing six of the recommendations from that review. That 2023 review into this did show that the scheme is working well but highlighted some areas where we could see improvement. The improvements that were recommended by that review will be implemented by this legislation.

The bill will also make changes to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. Under this act, offenders who have committed serious sex offences are required to report to Victoria Police for a specified period. Changes to that scheme that this bill will make will lengthen the reporting periods for some individuals who are subject to a post-sentence order. The majority of people who commit serious sex offences already have to report to the police for the rest of their life, but we are strengthening the law for those who do not have the requirement in their post-sentence order to force them to report to police for a further five years after their post-sentence order expires. As with all of the changes that we have been making, this is all about making our communities safe.

The bill will make some further changes to the Corrections Act 1986. One of the results of the tough new bail laws is more people on remand awaiting trial, particularly those who have been repeat offenders. We need to make sure that the corrections system is well placed to manage these additional demands. One of the issues that we face, sadly, and one of the things that our corrections system and particularly those who work in our corrections system face is the threat of injury. Sadly, our corrections workers, prison officers, are from time to time subject to threat and harm by those who they are charged with supervising. In the year to March 2025 there were approximately 330 assaults on staff in prisons, and while most of these did not result in serious injury, five incidents resulted in prison staff being admitted to hospital.

I think we should all agree that everyone has the right to be safe at work and that whilst being a prison officer is a tough job and comes with clear risks, prison officers are not excluded from the right to be safe at work. The changes this bill makes make it clear that a prisoner who injures a prison officer will face extra prison time. I think that principle has been well articulated by the minister and the government and is made clear in the bill. Hopefully it will have a real impact on the attitude of those who are serving custodial sentences as to how they engage with the workers who are there to supervise and take care of them.

The bill clarifies that the courts must impose an additional sentence and not direct that their sentence be served concurrently with their existing sentence. Part of the issue at the moment is that these arrangements are not clear and that additional sentences as a result of the crime of assaulting a police officer can be served concurrently with the existing sentence, meaning effectively there is no difference. This change means there is a real difference. There are real consequences for assaulting a police officer. I think it is an important message to send to both those who are in custody and those who we seek to employ to supervise them that we have their back and we can support them in the important work that they do.

The bill makes a series of other changes to improve efficiency and make clarifications, including the way that the ‘no body, no parole’ provisions are applied for use in murder and manslaughter cases. The provision prevents people in prison for such offences receiving parole if they are not cooperating sufficiently with police on matters such as helping to locate the body of a victim. In the bill a minor amendment is made to clarify a provision ensuring the law is enacted as intended and eliminating the administrative burden of Victoria Police and the Adult Parole Board of Victoria having to prepare long reports in cases where a victim’s body has been found but there is no longer a reason to incentivise an offender’s cooperation with police. In such a case where a victim’s body is found, the offender will have to go through a stringent parole suitability process, with paramount importance given to community safety. Further changes in this bill are to do with measures around the revocation of automatic cancellation of parole, and a variety of changes are made.

I just want to remark here on some really positive signs of improvement in the work of the adult parole board. In their 2023–24 annual report the adult parole board has reported that 82 per cent of parolees successfully completed parole without further offending while they were on parole, and that is the highest rate that it has been in 23 years. Further, for the second consecutive year, during the 2023–24 year no person on parole was convicted of committing a serious violent or sexual offence while on parole, and I think it demonstrates that the work that is done inside our prison system, the work that is done to support parolees, the work of the adult parole board, is having its effect, which is ensuring that there is no further offending and that there are significant numbers of those who are not further offending once they are out on parole.

As I said, this government is absolutely committed to keeping Victorians safe. We know that serious offenders need to face the consequence of their actions. We have strengthened our bail laws. We have improved, through this bill and through other actions that the minister has been undertaking, our corrections system. We are absolutely determined to make sure that our community is kept safe.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:42): Acting President, let me read to you, as I rise to speak on the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, some comments that have come from the cultural review of the adult custodial corrections system 2022 report. This is quoting a staff member. It is out of that document, and I am assuming that that staff member, notably, will be undisclosed. They say:

A good day is when no one gets assaulted or threatened.

A good day in this system is when no-one gets assaulted or threatened. The second part of that document that I want to relate to the house is some WorkCover data: staff working in front-end and maximum-security locations are most at risk, accounting for 70 per cent of mental injury claims. It is a good day if you go home without being assaulted or threatened. How many jobs have you been in where that was your primary thought throughout your day – ‘I need to get home without being (a) assaulted or (b) threatened.’ That provides the context – the dangerous context, the risky nature – of the work that people in the correctional system do.

I know my Liberal and National colleagues Mr Michael O’Brien and Mr David Southwick only recently, and I thank the minister for enabling this, were out at a particular correctional facility and in the period of time that they were there – less than a couple of hours, maybe an hour and a bit – there were two emergency alerts that rang through that system. In that short period of time, we will say 90 minutes, there were two emergency alerts, and it just shows the level of risk people are under in that situation and the fraught and dangerous nature of that workplace.

Before I begin my contribution I just want to acknowledge the people who work in that system in my region, Eastern Victoria Region, which has Fulham Correctional Centre. When I first came in here many years ago, I had the opportunity to have a very fulsome look around and tour of that centre. I spoke with many of the guards that were there, and we went into the different sections. It is a different situation and mindset. Truly they were very well prepared and trained for these sorts of situations, but they are always on alert. They are always conscious of what could happen and the double-locking that could occur. They are very mindful of the criminality of the members that are in there, and of course there are different rankings and different rates. But there are always opportunities for people to take a pair of scissors or take some sort of an implement and turn it into a weapon. So I feel for that person that says, ‘I just want to get home without being assaulted or threatened.’

We heard from the former speaker that we are toughening up our bail laws. I feel like this has been semantics ping-pong over the last five to six years. In 2008 the Labor government said that they were tightening the bail laws to be some of the strongest bail laws in the nation, and then back in 2023 they walked some of those bail laws back. I will not have time to go through them today, but they walked them back. They decided they had better soften them. They had been speaking to various people. Maybe they were thinking about the polls. And now we know that, come this month, we are going back and the Premier is talking about the toughest bail laws again in 2025.

A member interjected.

Melina BATH: Tougher-er – much more tougher-er. I do not know. I find it is semantics. I guess you go out into our communities and talk to people in our communities. I raised a constituent issue earlier this week on crime in our streets and the lack of protection that people feel. This is no reflection on our wonderful Victorian police members, who I have the opportunity to speak to and see on occasion down the street. But this particular person was shopping in her regular shopping centre in what I would consider to be and what should be a safe area not far from my office, and she saw crime and theft and came in quite bewildered and scared. That was one microcosm of an example of where people are not feeling more safe under this Labor government, irrespective of the more tough or less tough bail laws that they seem to be pushing.

I think the Liberals and Nationals have been quite strong over the years. In doing the research for this bill, I want to acknowledge that there are amendments to three acts: the Serious Offenders Act 2018, the Corrections Act 1986 and the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, all of which we are not opposing. We want to see a greater level of strength in these areas, not only for prison guards but all staff, as my colleague Mr Luu has mentioned – not just guards but all custodial workers, all of those correctional staff. We want to see that occur. If people accept the amendment that the Liberals and Nationals are putting forward, well, all hail, and that is a good thing. But we need to see it strengthened, and that person who made that quote needs to feel that the work that we are doing in here in letting this bill go through this house and the minister will mean there is better safety in our justice system and criminal system.

One thing that I did research, a really important part of this, is the amendment to the parole amendment, just to clarify the application of a couple of parole provisions. One of them was the ‘no body, no parole’ provision, just to tighten it up or to give clarity that there can be licence that when a body is found therefore this no longer applies because the body is identified, found, and that person may well be able to enter into parole, meeting all of the provisions. But I actually went back and checked the ‘no body, no parole’ bill that was introduced by the Liberals and Nationals by the then shadow minister, and a very, very formidable one, Mr Ed O’Donohue. We introduced ‘no body, no parole’ in 2016 in relation to making prisoners ineligible for parole if they did not cooperate to a satisfactory standard in terms of investigations and finding the last known location of the victim. Indeed when I think about this, I could only imagine this must be one of the most excruciating elements of a homicide. If your loved one has not come home or is known to be or considered to be dead and all the circumstantial evidence and the courts have then placed somebody in jail, for you not to know where that person lies, for you to always wake up on a Sunday morning or on a Monday morning and wonder where your loved one lies and in what part of the earth they lie, must be the most horrendous thing. There are some others. I will not go into them today, but that must be one of the most horrendous situations. Where there can be closure for families – we heard one of the former speakers talk about Samantha Murphy; we certainly identify with that family and their pain, and I am sure everyone in this house would seek to have their pain alleviated – we certainly do not oppose those sorts of amendments.

The other one that I wanted to speak to was in relation to Aboriginal representation in the Post Sentence Authority. This is made up of a number of people with various skill sets – legal skill sets and the like – but to include at least one member of that authority who is Aboriginal I think is a sensible addition to this piece of legislation and one that we certainly would support. It also made me think about some of the contexts in which our First Nations people find themselves incarcerated. Just looking at the Productivity Commission’s report into the 2020 – I think it is 2024, but it was released only this week; only yesterday it came into my inbox – Closing the Gap targets, again, all governments at every level should be meeting the objective to focus in on those targets. Sadly, we certainly know that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are over-represented in that space. Statistics have come out that for every 100,000 members of the population there are 2304 adults imprisoned – that is the adult imprisonment rate. We also see it in youth detention: per 10,000 head of population there are 26 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander youths in detention. Really, when you look at that population as a percentage, very, very sadly, it is well, well over-represented. I will offer my support to do everything that is sensible and reasonable and achievable with measurable and demonstrable outcomes to see that those figures go down to a more – well, to go down, period.

In relation to some of the stats, some other stats that are quite alarming to see around the correctional system and to understand are – the stats are out again – that in the past 12 months we have seen 442 assaults on Victorian prison guards, 10 sexual assaults and six serious attacks that required hospitalisation. Again, going back to my starting comments, these are some of the most horrendous and fearful attacks that we could understand, and knowing that these people, our prison guards, are well trained, for that to eventuate it must be quite a graphic and violent space, and all of us want to see improvements on that.

In just a few other comments I would like to make from my electorate, we have seen the crime stats. They are always trending at the moment in the wrong direction. From Bass to Baw Baw to Cardinia to East Gippsland to Latrobe to South Gippsland and Wellington, they all range between 11 per cent and 32 per cent increases – even attacks on the home and in the home situation. That is not good, and this government needs to be held to account for that. I know we have got a new Chief Commissioner of Police. I think the Premier is banking all of her hopes on a cleansing or a transformation. But the reality is, while this government is still playing semantics with bail laws, while it still is having over-representation in our justice system and while we are not supporting our Victorian police with community safety, with resources and with support, it is certainly going to be difficult to get those numbers trending down. I know the Liberals and Nationals are committed to doing this, and we cannot wait for November 2026.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:55): I rise to speak in support of the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This bill represents a significant step forward in our ongoing efforts to enhance the safety, integrity and effectiveness of Victoria’s corrections system. It addresses critical areas such as the protection of custodial officers, the management of serious offenders post sentence and the refinement of parole provisions to ensure they operate as intended.

Firstly, I would like to thank my friend the Minister for Corrections Mr Erdogan for all of his hard work and for introducing this very important and timely bill. It is clear that this bill will help fulfil our duty to protect the people who serve our community, to stand by victims and to ensure that individuals who pose a serious risk to public safety are managed appropriately. I think everyone in this chamber today knows and realises our role in making and enforcing safe working conditions for all Victorians, and I cannot imagine any one of us in this room would disagree with that. All of us that go to work, whether we are working on the Big Build here in Melbourne or on worksites or whether we are here in Parliament, deserve to be sure that we have got the regulations and procedures in place that protect us while doing that work, because safety is paramount and everyone is entitled to have the right to be safe at work. Without these safeguards, how can we expect our workers, our communities and our economy to function as well as they can and as well as they have been? With these key objectives in mind, this legislation in front of us introduces significant reforms that will provide tangible improvements to our corrections system and the safety of all Victorians. This is about bringing our existing legislation in line with community expectations, protecting ordinary Victorians and making sure that the worst criminals in Victoria are dealt with properly.

The Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill in front of us today seeks to amend the Corrections Act 1986, the Serious Offenders Act 2018, or SOA, and the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, the SORA. The bill will also make minor amendments to the Corrections Act to clarify the application of provisions that are not operating as intended. The primary objectives of these amendments are to strengthen protections for custodial officers by clarifying sentencing outcomes for offences involving injury to these officers; implement recommendations to the 2023 statutory review of the SOA to enhance and strengthen the operation of Victoria’s post-sentence scheme, address operational issues and reinforce the scheme’s ability to protect the community; and amend the SORA to ensure that individuals convicted of serious sex offences subject to post-sentence orders continue to report to police for the duration of their order for at least five years thereafter to help manage the community safety risks. Collectively, these reforms are designed to bolster community safety, uphold human rights and ensure that our corrections system functions effectively and justly. The proposed amendments in the bill will engage and strengthen protections for a number of rights, as set out in the charter.

One of the key provisions of this bill is the amendment to the Corrections Act 1986 to clarify that offences involving causing injury to custodial officers are prison offences. As we are all well aware, custodial officers play an essential role in maintaining order within our prisons, as well as ensuring rehabilitation efforts can take place in a structured and secure environment. Currently too many people in prison who cause injury to custodial officers are not required to serve any additional prison time for their offences, despite an existing presumption that the Sentencing Act 1991 requires sentences for prison offences to be served cumulatively, and a lack of clarity in legislation has meant that some perpetrators who cause injury to custodial officers receive concurrent sentences to be served at the same time as their existing sentences. Hence they spend no additional time in prison after assaulting a custodial officer as the sentences overlap and are served concurrently.

Unfortunately, this can lead to a false perception among perpetrators that assaulting a prison officer warrants no real consequences, which compromises worker safety and the safety of prisons more broadly. This should not be the case. Individuals that assault a custodial officer should be dealt with and dealt with severely. This clarification will ensure that such offences attract the presumption of sentence accumulation under section 16(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991. By doing so we reinforce the seriousness of assaults on custodial staff and provide a strong deterrent against such behaviour. This bill will broaden the stated definition of a prison offence to include special offences committed against custodial workers on duty, which includes governors, prison officers, escort officers and others fulfilling the same functions, because just like anybody else, these officers have the right to feel safe at work. They perform a challenging and often dangerous role in maintaining the safety and security of our correctional facilities, and it is imperative that we in turn provide them with the legal protections that they need to carry out their duties without fear of assault or injury.

I want to take a moment here just to thank the corrections staff for all the work they do, their professionalism and their dedication. This workforce is fundamental to a safe, secure, humane and rehabilitative prison system. Across my electorate of Southern Metro and indeed across the state of Victoria hundreds and thousands of people work hard day in and day out to keep our community safe. Every one of these people deserves a workplace where their safety is prioritised and where deterrence measures are strong enough to prevent violence from occurring in the first place. Custodial officers are not the exception. The impacts of assaults on custodial officers are often significant and can include ongoing health impacts and trauma requiring specialised support and treatment. Further, assaults on custodial officers can compromise perceptions of safety at work, leading to difficulties attracting and retaining staff, and they can have flow-on effects for the safety of prisoners and more broadly. This bill seeks to address these issues.

The amendment sends a clear message that violence against custodial staff will not be tolerated and will be met with the appropriate legal consequences. It also recognises that safe workplaces and workforces are fundamental to a safe, secure, humane and rehabilitative prison system. Accordingly, alongside broader reforms being rolled out across the corrections system, it will help protect the safety of both custodial officers and people in custody. We know that this government is a champion of workers and a champion of occupational health and safety, and I am proud of that. That is why it has supported workplace manslaughter laws and that is why it works every day with unions and respects unions. We will continue to implement measures that support and protect our hardworking staff and union members. Once again, I thank them for all the hard work that they do.

Clearly the Allan Labor government is dedicated to making our community safer and making our justice system stronger. Hence the bill is one of a number of reforms that the Allan Labor government has brought before this Parliament to crack down on serious offending. This is in addition to recent tough new bail laws, a ban on the sale of machetes and the announcement of the new ‘post and boast’ laws. In the most recent budget the government committed $2 billion towards the criminal justice system, courts and emergency services. $727 million was invested in improving capacity at prisons and youth justice centres. This went towards providing beds and more staff. Further, I would also like to highlight some of the funding in this year’s state budget that is targeting recidivism and integration – for example, employment hubs at prisons, as well as assessment and transition coordinators and Aboriginal wellbeing officers, which will assist with the transition in and out of custody. This seeks to help to ensure that the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend is decreased, which again is all part of a well-planned and coordinated effort to make the community safer for all.

This bill also implements several recommendations from the 2023 statutory review of the Serious Offenders Act 2018. These amendments aim to strengthen the operation of Victoria’s post-sentence scheme, address operational issues and reinforce the scheme’s ability to protect the community. These amendments will help strengthen community safety and support effective operation of the scheme through a variety of changes. This includes clarifying that the Post Sentence Authority can give directions about who a person on a supervision order can live with. This is crucial in managing the individual’s risk, especially if certain co-residents may increase the risk or be vulnerable to harm. Additionally, there will be an increase in Indigenous and Aboriginal representation amongst the Post Sentence Authority. This ensures that the specific needs and perspectives of Indigenous and Aboriginal people subject to the post-sentence scheme are considered, therefore strengthening their cultural rights. Furthermore, changes will clarify the actions of Victoria Police that can take effect when arresting a person suspected of contravening a supervision order, including allowing police to release the person unconditionally where appropriate. This reduces the risk associated with arbitrary detention and protects the individual’s right to liberty.

Overall, these amendments enhance the effectiveness of the post-sentence scheme in managing serious offenders and protecting the community whilst also simultaneously upholding the rights of individuals subject to supervision and detention orders. Our community can be assured that if an offender under post-sentence supervision breaks their conditions, authorities will be able to act immediately and decisively. This ensures that offenders who disregard their conditions are swiftly held accountable.

The bill also amends the SORA to help manage community safety risks posed by serious sex offenders. Currently these individuals are required to provide critical information to authorities, including personal details, employment arrangements and travel plans. This serves the purpose of helping law enforcement monitor their movements and assess any risks. However, the current system enables reporting obligations to cease when a post-sentence order expires. The Allan Labor government recognises the potential dangers that this transition out of intensive supervision possibly presents to the community. This change will therefore ensure that individuals convicted of serious sex offences and who are placed on a supervision or detention order under the SOA must be reported to police under the SORA for the duration of their SOA order and at least five years thereafter. By extending the reporting period we ensure that the law enforcement agencies have the necessary information to monitor and manage the risks posed by these individuals, therefore enhancing community safety. These reporting obligations provide an additional mechanism to manage the ongoing risk of reoffending – particularly critical when a post-sentence order expires and individuals transition away from the intensive supervision oversight of the post-sentence scheme.

I feel confident that this will provide solace for families in Southern Metro and across the state more broadly, especially those with children. They can rest assured that even when the post-sentence order has expired, authorities can still track the whereabouts of these offenders, because it is their safety and the safety of their loved ones that is always at the heart of everything that this government does.

Lastly, the bill also makes an important amendment to the parole provisions in the Corrections Act 1986 to ensure that they operate as intended. The ‘no body, no parole’ provision is amended to clarify that the presumption against parole does not apply if the victim’s body or remains have been located and there is no longer a need to incentivise the offender to cooperate with police. This provision was introduced to incentivise individuals in prison to cooperate with authorities in locating the remains of their victims, thus bringing closure to grieving families. We know all too well the impact that a lack of closure can have on families who have lost a loved one. For many multicultural communities and religious groups mourning is deeply rooted in cultural and spiritual traditions that emphasise the importance of being able to properly lay a loved one to rest. Hence the absence of a body disrupts these traditions and leaves families in an emotional limbo. This government recognises the importance of the grieving process in enabling them to find closure and allowing them to honour their loved one’s memory with the dignity they rightfully deserve. As such the clarification provided in this bill prevents the unintended consequences of denying parole to individuals who have already assisted in locating the victim’s remains.

The Corrections Act is also to be amended to allow for the Adult Parole Board of Victoria to revoke an automatic cancellation of parole. This provides the board with the discretion to reinstate the parole in appropriate circumstances, ensuring that individuals are not subject to arbitrary detention and that their rights to humane treatment are upheld. Such refinements ensure that the parole provisions are applied fairly and justly, balancing the needs of the community’s safety with the rights of individuals.

Evidently, the bill engages several human rights, and proposed amendments strengthen protections for these rights by enhancing community safety, ensuring fair treatment of individuals in the corrections system and recognising the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Indigenous people. Accordingly, the bill strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals and the need to protect the community from serious offenders, because Victorians rightfully expect their government to take decisive action when it comes to community safety. They expect us to promote frontline workers and protect them well. They trust us to stand by the victims and ensure the individuals who pose a serious risk are managed responsibly, and they deserve to be able to fulfil their traditions and practices as is meaningful to them in the worst of circumstances. This is why the Allan Labor government is committed to doing what it can with this bill, and it will deliver. With that I commend the bill to the house.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:10): I too rise to speak on the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This bill seeks to amend the Serious Offenders Act 2018, the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and the Corrections Act 1986, and it also has other purposes. It specialises in, for particular purposes, the Serious Offenders Act 2018, the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and the Corrections Act 1986, but it also has additional changes around the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. This is because we are looking to provide better support to victims, clarifying directions for electronic monitoring and the Post Sentence Authority and also clarifying police actions on breaches of orders.

It is a really interesting collection within the bill, but I would like to start by remembering why we have to make these corrections: it is because we have an Allan Labor government that has failed Victorians and has not been keeping the community safe. To have a situation where we have sex offenders, for instance, able to come back out into the community and to put people at risk is diabolical, particularly for those victims who are aware that they are now once again at risk, so it is good that we are actually tightening some things up here. Obviously one would prefer to see reform, in a way, for every individual. But knowing that every individual does not necessarily wish to be reformed and that many others have chosen a life of crime or of violence, it is incredibly important that we do tighten things up.

Having said that, in the past year alone there have been 442 assaults on staff in corrections that we know of, including 10 sexual assaults and six incidents requiring hospitalisation. These are really serious figures, and it really bothers me that we have this situation in the community. If I look at my own community alone, I am aware that we have had a number of rises in crime, which means that there are going to be a number of additional people in time, in corrections. In the Greater Dandenong local government area we recorded in the 2024 calendar year 440 sexual offences, representing a 28.7 per cent increase from 2023. In the City of Casey, in the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region, which I represent as well, it was higher, at about 642 offences. So we can see that there are large numbers of sexual offences taking place. It has been on the rise and people are not safe, so it is incredibly important that we get things right. The coalition does welcome reforms and changes that are going to make our Victorian community more safe. I welcome anything that is going to make the people of the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region more safe, because indeed many times in this place I have raised incidents of crime – violent crimes – and the concerns and causes for them are known and I have spoken about them. But the issue of people feeling unsafe is very, very high.

I am aware that we are looking at prison reform. One of the things that I am not quite sure of is how we are also putting in protections for prisoners. I know that might sound like this is all about making sure that the staff are safe, and they absolutely should be. Everybody should be able to go to work, and they should feel that they are safe at work. To think that we have people working in corrections that can be assaulted, even sexually assaulted or abused in any way requiring hospitalisation, is simply unacceptable in this day and age. In a modern age that is just an archaic thing to even be entertaining, let alone having to deal with the reality of it.

I cannot help but remember the Stanford prison experiment, which I am sure many people would be familiar with, in August 1971 at Stanford University. The Stanford prison experiment was also known as the Zimbardo experiment, named after the person who conducted it. It was a very controversial psychological experiment that took place in a prison which actually showed that when people have too much power, that imbalance of power can cause all sorts of issues, and people can behave outside the normal behaviour that they would have in society and in other contexts and they can do things to people that would be inappropriate and unwarranted and in fact cruel and violent and abusive. I think we need to make sure in these measures that we are also making sure that prisoners are safe and that there is a standard of nonviolence in prisons. It should not be acceptable to have violent behaviour from staff or from prisoners. I think that it needs to be a balanced approach, recognising that this should be an acceptable position that we take in society and that there is zero tolerance for violence and zero tolerance for unacceptable behaviour. I welcome the opportunity for the corrections here. I know that the amendments that we are looking to make will support prison staff, who are entitled to work in a safe workspace, and if a prisoner is assaulted, there will be consequences.

I have mentioned in this place as well that I have a social work background. One of the first things I learned about in social work, and I have said this before, was the consequences of actions. That is what we teach adolescents, teenagers and young adults about – the consequences of actions. Unfortunately, under a Labor government, under the Allan government, that has not been the case for a long time. There have not been significant consequences of actions, so much so that we have young people laughing in the face of being picked up by police and getting off on bail. The highest number of times I have heard of is 58 times, and maybe there are others that have had even more opportunities to get out on bail, but to me that is a ridiculous amount. For a teenager to be laughing and saying ‘The police can’t do anything to me; I just get let out no matter what I do’ is simply unacceptable.

But we are now talking about violent and criminal behaviour within the corrections system with this amendment and keeping the community safe by being able to put particular boundaries in place and positions in place which will give people the authority to make wise decisions as to whether somebody is actually going to be putting the community at risk. I think it is good that we are making these amendments, but I do have to note that the legal position on this is varied and that there have been concerns regarding potential human rights violations. As the prison population is expected to rise, there are concerns from the Law Institute of Victoria that there are going to be compliance issues with the authorities being able to decide where a person on supervision may reside, impacting their ability to interact with family and friends. I realise that that is in here to provide safety for family members and safety for the community, but one would like to think that we are not going to be coming back to amend this again and again and again. Obviously, we will need to if it is not working, but one would like to think that we are also going to be allowing a situation which is supportive, not preventing those who are perhaps not long-term criminals from having the opportunity for reform and the opportunity to be around support systems that will allow them to have a turnaround in their life.

I realise in some cases, as I have said, this is not going to be the case. Many criminals are embedded in their criminal activity and lifestyle and have made choices and are not unhappy with the choices they have made. It has provided rewards for them. In situations like those and in other cases where reform has just not happened, where a person chooses to continually offend again and again and becomes more and more dangerous and more and more violent, obviously there need to be sensible choices and decisions made around this. And it does need to be well documented so that we can make sure that this is rolling out in a way that is going to work for all Victorians. I do welcome changes as, along with my colleagues, we are aware that things are not working. We all hear it in our electorates. I have 11 electorates in the south-east, and I am continually confronted with stories of crime, stories of assault and stories of situations where it is dangerous for people to be even in their own home or going from their car to their home. Simply going down the street or even going down the supermarket now you can be assaulted at knifepoint. It is simply out of control, and this government has allowed our state to get out of control. So it is great that we are looking at ways that we can make corrections.

This is particularly important when we are looking at sex offences. I think that to keep people who have been violated safe from sexual predators, who are going to be allowed to just be out on the streets without anyone knowing where they are, and to reform that is a good idea. It is essential. I would imagine that that has been done based on a lot of the work that we have been doing in this chamber. I congratulate a number of my colleagues in the coalition, because we have been fighting so hard and raising these issues because we know that the system needs to be reformed and there needs to be a tightening on conditions.

If I go through some of the amendments, for anyone in the prison system that is assaulted, there will be amendments so that not just prison guards but anyone that works in the prison system will be able to be protected or should be protected through this legislation. It is simply unacceptable for violence to take place. The loss of privileges for those who are causing assaults against a staff member – to me that is a little bit weak, but yes, that is a start. Handcuffs should be applied for a minimum of a three-month period – that is interesting. The Serious Offenders Act – it talks about better protection for community, victims and families of victims upon release. There are details, as I mentioned, about where they live, who they live with and ensuring that they do not live with dubious characters or with those who have sexual convictions as well or with people who are violent and need to be managed. Things like ankle monitoring are seriously on the cards here, and it is good that we are looking at these things to be able, as I said, to keep the community safe. This legislation, this amendment, is looking at how the victims register will allow eligibility for victims to have full access to a number of resources. If we look at sex offenders again and I bring them up – and I am sorry if I am jumping all over the place – 22 people are currently on the register. This will allow for those who are not on the register for life to be registered for at least five years. There are changes in the Corrections Act for prisoners who assault corrections workers in prison. They will have further time added to their current term and so on. This is an important change, but I think, again, we must always remember why we are doing it.

I noticed that Ms Bath mentioned the addition of Aboriginal worker representation on the Post Sentence Authority, which I think is very helpful given the number of Aboriginal people that have been put into custody. I, being a Liberal, struggle with the concept of quotas – mandating it. I think it should be highly recommended. I do not know that mandating it is necessarily the way to go. I wonder how much consultation was taken with the Aboriginal community, and I look forward to hearing from the minister a little bit more about that. But I do not know about mandating it.

Whilst I welcome the opportunity for particularly people who have come from an Aboriginal background to have somebody that is part of that authority board to speak to that may understand their culture, I think we have got to remember we are not talking about a homogenous culture here. We are talking about people from all different community groups, originally from different countries. I know those countries were lost over 150-odd years ago, but there are differences in needs, and I think that that needs to be significantly addressed. Just putting in a quota for an Aboriginal person to be on the authority does not mean that they are going to fully have the understanding of or a concept of the situation of that person. Maybe being allowed to have a prisoner allocate somebody to that authority that comes from their own community might have been a better way to go about that if such a person exists. As we know, there are many Aboriginal people that are completely removed from their own Aboriginal culture and background, and so they may not even feel that that is necessary.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:25): I rise to make a short contribution on the bill. I think my colleague Ms Bath made a really pertinent observation in that any line of work where you consider it a good day that you go home and were not assaulted points to a bigger and broader problem. Naturally, depending on your line of work, that may be more or less the case, but there are too many situations where assaults should not occur in our community but do. That is obviously prison workers, but the exclusion of other prison staff from equivalent protections seems inappropriate.

My feedback and my input on the bill today really come from the perspective of the community I serve and really wanting to inject their perspective into the debate. Their perspective is: if people in custody assault staff of any kind, there must be genuine consequences, and the consequences must not be at the whim of a magistrate. They must not be concurrent to any other penalties they are serving; they must be in addition to. That is what the community would expect. If you were walking down the street and you asked someone about this matter, they would be surprised if it were otherwise. Equally, we know that we have record numbers of teaching staff being assaulted on the job. One of the major reasons that teachers are leaving the profession is because assaults at work do not have consequences – at least not the consequences that the person in the street and the community would expect.

The purpose of law always is to serve justice, but justice must be seen to be done, and it must be in line with the community’s expectations. When it is not, we lose trust in the institutions, we lose trust in the law to protect us and we lose trust in the ability of the law to make sure people are held accountable. I will conclude my contribution there. It is good that we are making progress in these areas, but it is not enough and we can do more.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:28): Thank you to all members that have spoken and contributed to the debate on the Corrections Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We have heard quite thoughtful contributions from many members right across the chamber, and I want to thank everyone for their remarks in regard to this very important bill.

This bill is designed to support the hardworking people employed in our corrections system. It will also help critical justice system agencies to continue to do the important work they do in keeping the Victorian community safe from crime, making it crystal clear that prisoners who assault staff should receive additional prison time. It will denounce that reprehensible behaviour and discourage this sort of violence from occurring in our correctional facilities. Enhancing the operations of the post-sentence scheme will acquit recommendations from the recent statutory review and ensure that the Post Sentence Authority have all the tools they need to continue to supervise serious offenders in the community.

I also do welcome the opposition’s indication that they are supporting this bill. I also note that crossbench members have indicated that they will support its passage today. I want to thank the opposition and Mr Luu for bringing forward his amendments. I will address these in more detail once the amendments are put, but what I will say is that the government will support the first amendment regarding the definition of a custodial worker but we are not in a position to support the changes to the handcuffing regimes. I do understand the broad intent of the opposition’s amendments. However, we cannot support these amendments as they are drafted, and I will have more to say when those amendments are before the chamber. What I will say is I am committed to doing everything we can to make prisons as safe a workplace as possible, but these amendments that have been proposed are not necessarily the best way of doing that.

We want to ensure that staff have the right tools, training and powers they need to keep them safe in the best way possible. This bill is one part of that, but there is more work to do both within this act and outside of legislation, and we will continue to do that work. Ultimately this bill is about making sure that the corrections system is working at its best to keep the community safe as well as keeping our hardworking staff safe. I want to commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:33)

Katherine COPSEY: I have a series of questions, about 10, and I will ask them all on clause 1 if it assists the committee. Minister, can I just begin by asking: what is the actual rate of assaults on custodial officers, and has it increased recently?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a very important question. It is a question that I note was raised by a number of speakers in their contributions on the second reading, and therefore I do have the statistics with me, Ms Copsey. I might just confirm at the high level that in the year 2024–25 there have been 458 assaults against prison staff by people in custody. Of those, 35 per cent resulted in injury and five assaults on staff resulted in hospitalisation. So more broadly – that is the high level – there have been five hospitalisations in the last financial year. But your direct question was: has there been an increase? I can confirm there has been. The rate of assaults per 100 people was 6.4 in 2023–24, so 6.4 assaults per 100 people in prison. That has gone up to 7.5 assaults per 100 people in 2024–25; it has gone from 6.4 to 7.5 over the last year.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, have workplace issues within Corrections Victoria relating to, for example, staffing levels, pay, leave, rostering and conditions been a factor in the government’s approach to the treatment of people in prison in relation to this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: The short answer is no. This bill is quite clear about ensuring that there are appropriate consequences for those that do cause significant harm to staff, and in particular in relation to staff assaults. That has been the approach. The law already exists in this regard, but this is about making sure there is clarity about the need for cumulative sentences in these instances.

Katherine COPSEY: I just want to test your view. Can you acknowledge that there certainly can be a link between the conditions that workers within Corrections Victoria are working under, including particularly their staffing levels, and the rates of injuries and assaults?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think there are a number of factors in relation to assaults in correctional facilities. Obviously the behaviour of people in custody – in particular the different security settings are different, and I do know that in maximum-security prisons factors are quite different to those that might be in, say, minimum-security settings, where they are much less likely to occur. But what I will say is that prisoners are already in custody, and the consequence of being sentenced to prison has no effect unless they get additional time. That is why we have brought these laws. It is about bringing consequences where assaults do occur. I do acknowledge that there are a number of factors or reasons for assaults, and I know that after every such incident staff, professionals and the management within our corrections settings do have debriefs to understand the causes and drivers, because there are a number of drivers and causes in correctional settings. Obviously the offending behaviour is clear from those doing that behaviour, but ultimately there could be other underlying reasons for that. We know there are multiple factors. There are a lot of studies in this regard about health reasons – it could be people’s actual health. It could be agitation with some of the decisions made. There could be misunderstandings. But ultimately there is no excuse for assaulting staff, and we have zero tolerance for it in our system.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, what is your evidence base to support the idea that cumulative sentencing is the solution to the problem of assaults on custodial officers?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I was kind of discussing in my previous answer, I think it is a commonsense approach. These people that are doing this offending behaviour are already in custody, so therefore if they do not get any additional time then in a real sense there is no consequence. Everyone that enters into custody or is in a custodial setting looks forward to being released, and I did note in your contribution you talked about the impact of something that is outside the remit of this debate today per se but broadly linked to my corrections portfolio around parole. The biggest deterrent we can have is people doing additional time, so it is more of a commonsense approach in legislation.

Katherine COPSEY: So you cannot provide any kind of academic reference or documented proof that cumulative sentencing will have a deterrent effect? You want to rely on common sense?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am confirming what we do know from the workers in corrections, that people do look forward to their release date. So as a deterrent, as a tough consequence, I think that is the toughest deterrent we can put in place. Of course our focus is on preventing assaults, and I think in terms of safety we need to look at building up the relational security approaches that Corrections Victoria focuses on and obviously having staff trained to deal with those situations. But clearly the best incentive for good behaviour is to ensure that people that offend know that there will be additional time.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, what other options did you consider as a solution to the problem of assaults on staff other than cumulative sentencing?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, as a government we have invested significantly in physical infrastructure. One example that comes to mind is the use of tools. We have reduced the need for strip searches, which usually do have, as many human rights activists talk about, a dehumanising effect but also can lead to prisoner agitation. Through the use of technology, for the majority of times now people do not need to be strip searched. So I think the use of investment infrastructure is one way. But other ways are definitely training in de-escalation and relational security approaches – so building those relationships – but also making sure there are tools and accoutrements in place. There is a lot of commentary around management units and the conditions in there, about handcuffing regimes et cetera, so I guess for people who have a history of presenting a risk to staff, managing them appropriately. So there are a number of tools.

But I think another really important point, and one that I do always find interesting, is when I hear from corrections after an incident about the lessons that can be learned. I think there are a lot of detailed debriefs that happen in corrections after every incident about the lessons from that, because as I said, every location is different and has its own challenges. I think a combination of staff training, building relational security, having tools or accoutrements but also having the built infrastructure in place – like I said, less need for body searches – and building up those relationships in terms of that correctional setting are clearly key.

Katherine COPSEY: There are some supports and measures that I did not hear in that list. Why, in terms of deciding to go with cumulative sentencing as your proposed solution here, did you not consider more intensive mental health or behavioural support for people using violent behaviours in prison?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is important to state that we do both, and I think there is a role for both, 100 per cent. I was proud of the fact that – we have seen recent reports, but we changed our model of health care in correctional settings, especially on the back of quite a few distressing incidents in custodial facilities. We have had new health contracts in place since 2023, with GEO taking over the delivery of primary health care services in our adult men’s system and obviously public providers in our women’s system. But I think that they are complementary. I think you need to do both. Recently I was at the Melbourne Assessment Prison, and what struck me was the amount of people that were definitely suffering from psychological issues, and especially many people with brain injuries. So it is really important that we have appropriate supports and that we do that work together. They are complements; it is not and/or. I think you need to do both in a correctional setting.

Katherine COPSEY: I will turn now to the 2021 Ombudsman investigation into prison disciplinary processes. That Ombudsman investigation found that there are serious issues with disciplinary processes within prisons, including a failure to properly take mental illness and disability, which, as you just mentioned, are unfortunately rife throughout the prison population, into account, poor record keeping, inconsistent decision-making, limited rights of review and also an absence of independent scrutiny and oversight. Minister, how many of the Ombudsman’s investigation recommendations has the government implemented?

Enver ERDOGAN: At a high level, Ms Copsey, I might say that the real focus of the bill and the reforms today is about staff assaults, and they do not necessarily relate to internal discipline in the sense that many of the staff assaults are automatically referred to Victoria Police in the first instance. But what I will say is that the Department of Justice and Community Safety did consider all six recommendations made by the Ombudsman at the time, and all the recommendations that were accepted have been implemented as far as practicable. I am going to potentially pre-empt your future questions – as much as practicable, they have been considered. They were considered as part of the cultural review as well that looked into these issues, and the final report of that review has been made publicly available. I think they are important, and as far as they could be implemented, they were.

Katherine COPSEY: I would appreciate it if you could tell me where there were particular recommendations that it was not practicable to fully implement.

Enver ERDOGAN: I might seek some clarification from the box, but if they do not have that at hand, it might be one that I take on notice.

Ms Copsey, I understand that of the six original recommendations from the Ombudsman, three were implemented, so three of the six have been implemented. The other three were considered as part of the cultural review. In terms of a greater breakdown of which ones, I do not have that at hand, and it is something that I can provide in due course if that assists.

Katherine COPSEY: I will not keep us here all night asking your office to look them up, but I would appreciate that. I understand your point that not all assaults might go through a prison disciplinary process, but certainly many would, so I think it is particularly relevant to our debate today. In that context, where people are often facing an internal prison disciplinary process as well, prior to charges being referred to Victoria Police – and by your admission there, some of these recommendations have not been addressed and therefore there are these ongoing issues with the prison disciplinary process – how will you ensure that those ongoing programs do not result in cumulative sentencing being applied unjustly?

Enver ERDOGAN: From the outset, all assaults on staff are referred to police. Of course it is up to law enforcement to decide what course of action takes place afterwards, in terms of investigating those allegations and whether they proceed to court. In terms of the link between prison disciplinary processes, it seems, not anecdotally but through discussions I have had with prison officers in the field – we condemn all forms of assaults on staff – that usually the ones that lead to injury requiring treatment would go through that process with police. All are referred to police, but police might be willing to take them further. They will need to wait for the police’s decision on whether they proceed with charges down those paths to ensure that there is no interference with a criminal investigation and no double punishment. I think that is important. Therefore that is what occurs. With the majority of the charges at a disciplinary level, there is obviously harm, but it is a lower level of harm, and they are resolved internally.

There are two different perspectives on this, and I will clarify that. Some of the prison officers that I speak to feel that the consequences are not strong enough, and some of the advocates, in particular those for some of the prisoners, feel that some of the outcomes of the disciplinary processes are unfair and that the consequences are too great considering the limited resources, because some of the penalties could be financial penalties, for example. There are other types of penalties, like loss of privileges in some instances, that do take place. It is something that I am acutely aware of. It is not in this bill, and my staff are probably looking at me, but I have asked the department to get more information about how we can create greater consistency in this area, because clearly it is an issue that comes up.

I visit all our prisons across our state, and I have a lot of conversations with staff and have a lot of conversations with stakeholders and advocates around these issues. It is something that does come up. I would like to see greater consistency. A lot of those processes are led by default by the operational management at the site, and therefore the general manager is responsible for ensuring discipline, understanding there is a dynamic environment. It is important that discipline is maintained for the safety and security of everyone at the facility – the safety of staff of course, but even the prisoners. If you do not have rules in place and those rules are not enforced and followed, there are consequences. They are a challenging environment, and I do appreciate your interest in this matter.

Trung LUU: What are the reporting obligations for prison assaults, and what data is kept on this?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is my expectation and my understanding of the practice that all assaults are referred to police in the first instance.

Trung LUU: Will the minister update the Parliament on this data on a regular basis?

Enver ERDOGAN: We do provide data annually through the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee process and WorkSafe data. For people that are looking for information on the number of assaults, I feel the current system of reporting does work, because I have been questioned about WorkSafe claims and assaults at PAECs before. I feel like our existing system is quite robust.

Trung LUU: You noted earlier that there are increasing assaults. How many times have the prisons had to go into lockdown because of assaults in the past year?

Enver ERDOGAN: I might just go to the box if it pleases. Mr Luu, it is my understanding that lockdowns do not occur after every assault. It is case by case, depending on the circumstances and depending on the prison. I do not have that level of detail on hand, but it is something I could take on notice if that assists.

Trung LUU: If you could break it down by prison as well, that might make it easier. Will you break it down? Also, I just want to ask how many prisoners are currently under the handcuff regime in Victoria – the restraint management system.

Enver ERDOGAN: I can give you the numbers of people in prison. How many people on handcuff regimes and on management units – I would not have that level of detail. At a high level, I can confirm the numbers of people in custody. That might assist, but I do not have the number that are on management regimes, because it changes from place to place. Obviously, those numbers do fluctuate because people come in and out, but I can say that as of 18 July there were 6565 people in custody, and of that, 6190 were male and 375 were female. That is the breakdown of the prison population. But in terms of who is on a handcuff regime, who is in the protection units within, there is a lot of operational detail that I do not have at hand, and I am not sure if we would share it, for a whole bunch of security-based reasons.

Trung LUU: In that case, if you cannot share the handcuff data, what losses of privilege are used when a prisoner commits an assault, and does this escalate depending on the severity of the assault?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Luu, I can confirm that with assaults on staff, obviously on the loss of privileges ranges, depending on the offending type. Of course an assault on staff is the highest range, so they would be separated in a management unit and on a handcuff regime. So they would only be moved around in handcuffs.

Trung LUU: So the serious offenders basically are separated, and they are being handcuffed at the moment?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Trung LUU: What are the circumstances where an assault on staff would not incur a loss of privileges?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is my understanding that whenever there is an assault on staff there would be a handcuff regime and there would be a loss of privileges.

Trung LUU: Regarding safety, which was one of the main reasons why prison staff supported a no-confidence motion on the commissioner recently, how does adding additional time or loss of privileges keep other staff or prisoners safe in prison?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Luu, it is crucial to show that there is a consequence for that prisoner, because, like I said, it is important to maintain the security and discipline in these custodial settings. But it is also vital in terms of preventing further offending behaviour. If someone has got a past history of assaulting staff, there is a clear risk of further offending, as we know. Therefore there are two solid reasons why you would put them on such a regime.

Trung LUU: At the moment consequences are important for showing the severity of the offences. Wouldn’t a legislated handcuffing regime ensure the safety of prison officers from long-term violent prisoners?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is a really important point you make, Mr Luu, because handcuffing regimes, I understand, are used where there are assaults. I visited the Metropolitan Remand Centre recently, and already when people do assault staff they are usually in handcuffs for a long time. I asked this question to our commissioner recently, and she informed me that on average handcuffs are usually applied to people for more than three months at a time following a serious assault on staff. So usually when people have assaulted staff, especially at the higher end, they could be in a handcuffing regime for months on end, to be frank, because the risk is still there. But it depends on their risk rating. There is currently the ability to handcuff people. People are handcuffed. I do want to make it clear on that perception that we do not handcuff people – we do, especially when they have a history of assaulting staff. In many instances the people that assault staff are actually on handcuff regimes for much longer than three months. That is what the commissioner has informed me.

Trung LUU: Could you take those operational matters on notice?

Enver ERDOGAN: Sure.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I have just got a few. Minister, you mentioned the consequence of handcuffs and the loss of privileges. Just a quick question: you mentioned that was for the assault of workers, and obviously that is primary and essential because we need to keep our workers safe in prisons. But does this also apply to assaults on other prisoners from prisoners?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, it does, Mrs Hermans.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Another question I have is regarding the register for five years. We had here that a recent County Court proposal had sought to increase judges’ discretion to keep convicted sex offenders off the register, meaning sex offenders could be employed in schools, religious organisations and transport services, leaving police – and victims, more importantly – blind as to people’s whereabouts. I am assuming that is what has brought the interest in the register for five years. My question is: is the five years evidence based? Why not 10 years? Why five?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mrs Hermans, we had a statutory review that reviewed and made suggestions for improvements. Many of the recommendations in this bill are directly as a result of that. But in particular on your specific question, I might just seek some guidance.

I understand that with this change in particular the focus was that once people’s orders finish they still have a requirement to report for five years – even after their orders are finished. So it is an extra layer of prevention. And I know you asked the question about their employment. It is fair to say that these people would not be getting a working with children’s check.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: One last question: I do not like to think of myself as being a token woman for the Liberal Party and as having been put here just because we need to have women in Parliament. I like to think that I am here contributing and that I am a fully functioning member of Parliament because I bring something to the table and I work hard in this area and I have something to offer. My question of course then goes to the addition of – and do not get me wrong, I am not saying I am not supportive of it, because obviously I see the situation that we have – putting into legislation one Aboriginal person on the committee. Could you please expand – is this evidence based? Is this just to do with Labor’s ideology? Is there a bit more to it, and is there any particular example of where this has become necessary and was not in place and therefore needed to be put into place? I am just trying to get a better understanding of what is behind this; that is all.

Enver ERDOGAN: At a high level we do know that Aboriginal people are over-represented in the justice system and in custodial settings. We as a government accept that historically and ongoing Aboriginal people have been disadvantaged through their interactions with the criminal justice system and the corrections system in particular, and there is high level of distrust of these institutions. That is why it is important to have Aboriginal voices there. That is the real goal, and my view is it should be reflective of the community. I would say these are merit-based appointments, but we want people from the Aboriginal community and we encourage them to apply for these roles. I do not view this as a limit on the amount of Aboriginal people. In fact, if there was more than one Aboriginal person and they went through the merit-based process – we do want Aboriginal people to step up. I know corrections have Aboriginal wellbeing officers in our system, and we find those roles challenging to fill. I think for Aboriginal people there is a lot of trauma attached to these settings, and they are grossly over-represented. So I think the whole idea was to have different perspectives. I think seeing that Aboriginal people are so greatly impacted, it would be good to have someone with those perspectives.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Just one final question based on that response – and I really thank the minister for that, and I agree that it is just completely inappropriate that we have an overrepresentation in our community of Aboriginal people in custody and in corrections. I thank you for trying to look for ways to make this more appropriate.

My question then: you have mentioned the representation of people that have an understanding and a background of their community and are able to have some sort of input into this and insight – perhaps also making it a little bit easier for the criminal who is in this situation. But my question then goes to: we now have a number of other community groups – multicultural, ethnic groups – that are becoming more and more represented in correctional services, as you would be well aware. There does not seem to be any provision therefore for a person that might come from a different multicultural background, maybe language background or historical background or, let us just say, from a very violent background – maybe a former child soldier that has now been resettled and become an Australian and now has been acting out inappropriately in Victorian society and now is coming to a place where they are going to come before the authority. Has there been any thought or provision made for having representatives? I know the Sudanese community, for instance, is working very actively to try to work within their own community to make change to criminal behaviour, with their own young people and young adults. Has there been any thought to that? You have only mentioned Aboriginal representation, and I do thank you for making some decisions in this area. But has there been any thought of that at all in putting this together?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mrs Hermans, I think you have done a good job of articulating some really challenging questions. I think what I will say is: since becoming minister I have always tried to aim for greater diversity on all committees or appointments. This is not about tokenism; it is merit-based, making sure that the people on parole boards or on the Post Sentence Authority – where possible, merit-based; people still need to have the ability to do the role well – reflect our Victorian community. The issues that you have raised about certain groups being over-represented are just factual. I think for our Aboriginal community it is quite unique, as they are the traditional owners in terms of being the Indigenous people of Australia and Victoria, and they continue to be. It is just historic, and they continue today to be well over-represented.

But there are obviously different trends in different communities, and so I am aiming for diversity across the board. I encourage people that in the past might not have considered applying for these roles, because as you would know – you are in the south-east – there are a lot of talented people from multicultural backgrounds that might not think, because they do not know people from their backgrounds that have ever been in these kinds of significant roles before, that they really actually do have the underlying talent. We need to encourage that. A broad policy of having greater diversity – not tokenism, diversity, and genuinely merit-based – is what we should be aiming for everywhere, and that is what I look for when we make appointments as well: people that have the ability. It is an added bonus if they are quite diverse as well, because that just brings different perspectives and will make these boards stronger.

Trung LUU: Just one more question, Minister. You mentioned separation and loss of privilege and handcuffs being used on various occasions in case-by-case situations. With regimes varying from prison to prison depending on the governor, consistency is important for running a smooth prison. Why are we not legislating consistency across all prisons in relation to loss of privilege and handcuffs?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Luu, there currently are regulations across the system, but of course the application from site to site – the regulations are the same, so that provides the consistency, but the governor has to make a decision on a case-by-case basis. I guess it is probably a reflection, from some of the feedback I get, that every case could be different or unique and have different circumstances, and that is why they could be potentially applied differently by different governors. But the actual regulations are consistent and effective. The rules are the same for discipline, but in the end the type of offending might be unique and therefore each governor might effectively give a different penalty to each offender, because every circumstance is different. Not every situation is the same.

Trung LUU: I understand every case of assault is different, but in relation to classifying assault, all serious assault is rated at a certain level and all minor assault is rated a certain level. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to have consistency across the board, as prisoners do get transferred from prison to prison, to have the same across all prisons, where all serious assault is at the same level and all minor assault is at the same level?

Enver ERDOGAN: Assaults are a high category in the correction setting. In particular, assaults on staff and serious assaults are police matters, so they are always the first point of call. Usually Corrections and the Department of Justice and Community Safety have been working closely with police to try to make sure that in these cases people are held to account. The police do take action. A lot of the matters that are resolved at a disciplinary level can sometimes be – you know, it ranges, but from what I hear when I go to prisons, a lot of the time we are talking about verbal abuse within a correctional setting or not following instructions in terms of what they should be doing in the correctional setting. Most of the discretions are at the lower level, because the higher level should be for police matters. When you talk about assaults, my view is that really police should be taking action. But there are some disciplinary matters that the police might not necessarily take further, such as at the lower end of verbal abuse and other things that police might not necessarily escalate, and that will go through the disciplinary process. I think the governors are well placed. They understand the broad rules and what they think is appropriate for the prisoner’s circumstance.

Trung LUU: I appreciate you mentioned assault. At the moment we are talking about inmates assaulting prison guards or staff at a serious level, causing serious injury – all mentioned serious injuries and assaults. So in relation to serious injuries, as classified in the Crimes Act 1958, which hospitalise, why are we not legislating that consistently across all prisons to ensure that governors are acting evenly across the board?

Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Luu, assaults, in my view, are police matters. Obviously with this bill we are hoping that there is consistency when police do prosecute and when people are found guilty so that they do get a cumulative sentence. That is the objective of what we are trying to do here for those assaults, and especially for serious assaults. But I think it is important that we do have consistency. There are regulations in place that say what should happen more broadly, but I think there is more work to be done, because as I said, I hear different perspectives. I shared that with Ms Copsey earlier today when I said that some prison officers say they want greater consequences and greater penalties, because the discipline could be a fine. It could be a fine of $100. It could be a lot. For a lot of prisoners that is actually a very significant amount of money. And then a lot of the advocates say that the consequences are too harsh. So clearly, in terms of looking at the disciplinary system, it needs a lot more work, and it would need to be looked at closely. I have told the department I want to look at it. There are broad rules already in place, and as a minister I am up for looking at it. But I think it is not something that we would rush into. You would need to get everyone’s views on what is appropriate.

Trung LUU: Minister, I appreciate you looking into it. I think that does answer my question in relation to consistency. If you make it consistent across the board, everybody knows at what level. But I was wondering, you mentioned assault and serious assault and how that is a police matter. At what stage does the governor decide about the loss of privilege? At what level of assault, whether it is serious assault or normal assault, does a loss of privilege occur? And when does handcuffing occur – is it for serious assault or assault?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm for all serious assaults I know people are put on handcuff regimes, because I remember having this discussion with the commissioner, and many of the people are on handcuffing regimes for four or five months and some for even longer. I will respond more thoroughly to your question, because I know there are other parts of that question, and I might just go to the box.

I do have some updated information. I understand currently that where there is a staff assault which causes injury, the average for cuffing regimes is 160 days, so people are actually cuffed for quite a considerable time on average.

Your question was more about at which level do you decide what privileges are lost. I guess for every kind of indiscretion or where someone is found in breach of a disciplinary proceeding there are consequences, but that is up to the discretion of the governor. I think that is important, because I think the governors are best placed to make those operational decisions about the broader impacts on security for staff, for prisoners and for the whole premises or location. There is a lot of discretion and a lot of powers for governors. These are operational matters. I have heard of people being spat at and being sworn at, and I guess the governor is best placed to respond in terms of – there will be a loss of privilege – what that loss of privilege is. The governor can issue fines effectively, but I think the governor is best placed to decide because they understand the whole dynamic situation on the ground to make those decisions. We back our governors. They have a really important role, and these are challenging roles.

Trung LUU: I have just one more question to finish off. I appreciate you let the governors decide. In relation to acting on behalf of the prisoner’s rights, some prisons at times will have an influx of prisoners or an influx of activities, and stress will occur with that particular prisoner, whereas some will have less. If we vary governors’ decisions on each situation and do not have a standard across prisons regarding assault, how would you ensure that the inmates have equal rights and equal privileges across different prisons if he or she gets transferred each time an offence occurs? The punishment varies on the same offence?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can understand that from location to location. That is why I say the governor has the best understanding of the operational situation at that location, and that is why I think them having that discretion is appropriate, because I guess the punishment or loss of privilege that you might give in one setting might not be appropriate in another setting. There might be other factors at play. I think they need that operational flexibility in decision-making, and I back their judgement when they make those calls. I think consistency is important, and I do get the point you are making.

Trung LUU: I move:

1. Clause 1, page 2, line 12, after “offences” insert “and penalties for certain prison offences”.

Enver ERDOGAN: As this is testing amendment 3, which is about handcuffing and the approach to handcuffing, the government will not be supporting it. I just want to touch on that a little bit. In terms of the approach to handcuffing, I think it is clear that the government and opposition do want to introduce this legislation to protect hardworking corrections staff in the best way possible. What I would say for a number of reasons is I am sympathetic to some of the arguments, but I hope through the committee of the whole I have been able to explain that three months per se might not necessarily be the right formula, because many of the people are doing a lot longer than that anyway. I feel like in the attempt to try to create predictability and consistency it might lead to in fact a bit of an opposite effect.

I was thinking about this for some time. First, handcuffing regimes are already applied, and in most cases where there are these sorts of assaults people are on them for a lot longer than three months. So it might create an unexpected expectation that after three months you get off the handcuff regime. That might be the unintended impact. Secondly, the way it has been drafted I think creates a bit of a complicated legal judgement on thresholds that might actually put more stress onto corrections officers to try and make those decisions. And the interaction with police – the way it has been drafted is that the proposed amendment creates further risks and uncertainty. The opposition’s amendment applies different rules where the matter has been referred to police. The reality is that all serious assaults covered by the scope of the amendment are referred to Victoria Police for investigation. How the provisions work while police investigation is underway is unclear, and that could potentially undermine the way internal discipline is working and reduce operational flexibility.

The Corrections Regulations 2019 already contain requirements around handcuffing, and we can provide more consistency with existing requirements through amendments to those regulations. I can confirm on the record that I am committed to doing that work and doing everything we can to make prisons a safer workplace, but these amendments are not necessarily the best place. So what I am saying is, having weighed the proposed amendment, the best way forward is working through regulations to try and make some adjustments, because having this default three months might send the wrong message in fact. I know you are trying to create consistency, but then there might just be an expectation that after three months you get off handcuffs, which is just not the case at the moment. It is case by case, depending on the risk that the offender is to staff, really, and to the system.

We want to ensure that staff have the right tools and training and powers to keep them safe. This bill is one part of that, but there is a lot more that we need to do that is outside of legislation, and we are going to continue to do that work. Unfortunately, although I broadly agree with the intention and I understand where the opposition was coming from – and it is not often I give credit, but I understand where the shadow minister was trying to come from on this provision around handcuffing – we cannot support it.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will also not be supporting this amendment. The way it is drafted I am concerned will place a further and rather arbitrary use of restraint within the prison system. I do concur with the minister that these sorts of operational matters are best left to operational staff.

Trung LUU: In addressing the minister’s concerns, first of all, it did start in section 30B. It is on serious assaults on the prison guard, and it is no less than three months. This is only a strengthening of what is already in place at the moment. Other than that, we are just strengthening it and making sure that it is consistent across the board. It is not ‘three months and you’re out’; it is basically no less than three months after that date. So at the hearing the governor can determine three months or more as he or she is currently doing. It just legislates it across the board for all prisoners when it has been done. In relation to your concern about police investigations, if an assault has occurred while the police investigation is taking place and a charge has been formulated, at the present time that prisoner needs to understand the consequences and that actions will indeed be taken to ensure the safety of the staff during the time the investigation is occurring. That could be up to three months, depending on the investigations. It is up to the governor’s hearing to determine that. This will stay in place to ensure the safety of the staff while the investigation is happening, which at the moment is what is in place. This is just strengthening the process at the moment.

In relation to your concern regarding the three months, the disciplinary officer can determine when the three months can be extended if it needs to be as well. This all addresses what is currently in place, varying from prison to prison, but it lets us legislate across the board, giving assistance to the governor without hesitation about what he or she can do about any issues. But besides that, prisoners or inmates will understand the consequences in place all across the prison system in Victoria and not think if he or she is transferred that it might be different in that situation.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (13): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (18): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 (17:33)

Trung LUU: I move:

2. Clause 30, lines 18 and 19, after “custodial worker on duty” insert “or another person employed or engaged to work in a prison while working in the prison”.

Enver ERDOGAN: I will just be very brief. This amendment is about expanding the definition of ‘custodial worker’ to include all staff who work inside prisons. While assaults on any staff member other than frontline corrections officers are exceptionally rare in our system and there are specific provisions relating to emergency workers, we do accept that it is appropriate for these to also be treated as a prison offence. The government will support this amendment, and I want to thank the opposition as well. The opposition shadow minister and my office have been discussing this one, and we are happy to support the expansion of this definition.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment from the Liberals. Consistent with my comments in the second-reading debate and the discussion that the minister and I had during the committee, we are not satisfied that the government has a sufficient evidence base, essentially, to justify the approach they are taking by seeking to combat prison offences by mandating cumulative sentencing. This limiting of judicial discretion and the failure to consider other mechanisms within prisons to address the use of violence by prisoners, we think, would have been better for the government to explore. Consistent with that position, we will not be supporting the expansion of the application of that which is represented by the Liberals’ amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (25): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (6): Katherine Copsey, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell

Amendment agreed to.

Council divided on amended clause:

Ayes (25): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (6): Katherine Copsey, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell

Amended clause agreed to.

Clauses 31 to 58 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendment.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (17:42): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (17:42): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendment.