Thursday, 4 December 2025

 Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (14:02): As I was saying, this amendment is a step forward to rebuilding our community’s confidence in this government, strengthening our law back to where it was and making Victoria safer. Hence this side of the chamber, the Liberal–Nationals, do not oppose this bill. But I do want to reiterate regarding this bill that it is a softer attempt to adopt the ‘adult crime, adult time’ law that has proved to be highly effective since its introduction in Queensland – a law, I might add, introduced by the Liberal Premier of Queensland the Honourable David Crisafulli and amendments he took to the 2024 election that were resoundingly endorsed by the people of that state and have successfully curbed the crime trend in Queensland. Like Victoria, Queensland had a record crime rate under the Labor government before the people said enough is enough. It has been so effective that victim numbers in the first nine months have come down 6.5 per cent since the introduction of this law compared to 2024. A downward trend, a decrease in crime – something unheard of in Victoria.

We have here in Victoria a reactive government, unfortunately, not a proactive one. Labor does not do anything until their internal research shows there is an issue. Forget listening to the community; forget listening to the Crime Statistics Agency, which has shown that crime is up 19 per cent since Labor formed government and 15 per cent on last year’s crime record. For years this Labor government have been dragging their feet, ignoring communities crying out, ignoring the Crime Statistics Agency. The reality in Victoria is that crime is real and it is out of control. The only reason we have even been debating yet another justice amendment bill of this nature is because countless lives have been destroyed. Unfortunately, some have paid the ultimate price, and unfortunately some of those are in my electorate. Families are being distorted, and communities are living in fear. We are going through a crime crisis. Victorians have seen wave after wave of young offenders causing terror and fear across the state, with violent crimes such as home invasions, aggravated burglaries, serious group assault and attacks on victims causing serious injuries, and too often there is a fatal result.

Why and how, you probably wonder? Well, like I said, if you weaken police powers and bail legislation, go soft on crime and lessen the consequences of people’s actions so there is no responsibility, you generate a cohort who will continue to commit crime. The thing is, the main denominator or contributing factor is that under the Allan Labor government and her predecessor Daniel Andrews, in cooperation with the Greens, they have gone soft on crime over many years now. The Labor government has taken personal responsibility away from young offenders. They have weakened the laws and downgraded the crimes that are committed by young offenders and softened the punishment on very violent crime. As a result, this state is now facing a crime crisis, and unfortunately many Victorians are paying the price.

Thankfully, today the Victorian Labor government have looked north and realised they need to do something about this crime crisis we are in, which has engulfed the state, before too many more suffer. While this bill before us, as I note, is substantially softer than the stronger laws in Queensland, it is something, and something is better than nothing, as they always say. The bill we are urgently debating is a lot softer than the one promised by our Premier only a few weeks ago. The Premier’s office promised us the so-called ‘adult time for violent crime’ regime would see children aged 14 and above who commit certain violent crimes facing adult sentences. This bill seeks to implement only some elements of the policy they announced by amending the Crimes Act 1958, the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Youth Justice Act 2024 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The stated purpose of this bill is to increase penalties for several offences, including raising aggravated home invasion and aggravated carjacking to level 1, creating a new offence of using a knife for a specific indictable offence and expanding the definition of ‘carjacking’ to include theft of a motor vehicle containing a child under 10. These are some things which I do commend. At least they are trying.

One of the biggest gripes I have with this bill is the shortfall of offences designated as significant offences and the fact that the government intends to designate only five offences compared to what has been done up north, where there are 33 offences. The five designated offences which will see strengthened sentences include aggravated home invasion, aggravated carjacking and home invasion, which, although a designated offence, will not include an increased sentence. The two which I have concern about are intentionally causing injury in circumstances of gross violence and recklessly causing injury in circumstances of gross violence. We already have ‘intentionally causing injury’ and ‘recklessly causing injury’, and seriously, what is the definition of ‘gross violence’? Who is going to define what ‘gross violence’ is? Is it a layman’s determination? Who will determine that? There are serious injuries and there are injuries. Now, with the term for these two offences, it must be ‘gross violence’. So that is something we need to speak about in relation to working with the government on what ‘gross violence’ is. Of the five offences that have been designated, compared to Queensland’s 33 offences, two I have concerns about, which I have just mentioned. I have some concerns around this level of ‘determining serious injury’. The bill also increases the maximum sentence for recruiting children to engage in criminal activities. The sentence is lifted from 10 to 15 years.

With the time I have got left I want to conclude my remarks and just reiterate that the coalition is not opposed to this bill, because we believe safety is paramount to our community. We must act now and act decisively. Even though this bill needs to uplift various offences and falls short in certain areas, we are addressing some of the things that are happening with the crime crisis. We are beginning to ram through certain bills, as the government has been doing in the past few weeks leading up to Christmas. That is not how you make legislation on serious issues such as youth crime at the moment. I acknowledge the government is trying to fix the problem, but you do not do it in this type of situation due to polling. What you need to do is listen to the community, listen to the victims and have time to consult in relation to the legislation – consult on what is really needed and how we implement the changes. This method of implementing legislation at half-measure on the run is how this government is addressing the serious issue of violent offenders and tackling violent crime, and it is not the way to go. There clearly has been very little, if any, attempt by the government to offer real consultation on this legislation, which is very important reform, I add. We need to do better when we are talking about legislation. It is an important issue and we need to address the finer detail, otherwise government will be just doing Victorians and those offending wrong with half-baked legislation.

Again, the coalition will not stand in the way of this legislation, and I and many of my colleagues stand ready to work with the government and the broader community on issues related to strengthening our response to crime issues, addressing the youth issue with violent crime, because the community expects us to do better in this chamber. In the last minute I want to stress that I do have concerns that there are various offences which are not being addressed here, and I will just quickly note them in the time I have left. For example, assault with intent to rape, assault, attempted robbery, robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault – the list goes on – are all serious offences and yet they are not contained in the bill. So that is something I need to outline where we need to do better. Those sorts of offences I just quickly mentioned are happening, and we are experiencing that in recent times, so it is not something out of the blue. These sorts of assault are regularly happening in our crime crisis, and we need to address them as part of the bill.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (14:13): I rise to speak on this disgraceful bill by the government, and in doing so I also want to express, like many others have, my disappointment at their attempts to rush this bill through the Parliament this week at such short notice. This bill, in simple terms, is a bad bill, and I want to acknowledge from the outset that we all know that crime has become an increasing and very real problem in our state, and I fully acknowledge that there are many Victorians who do not feel safe, and rightly so. The comments that I make in this contribution do not seek to discount or minimise the experiences of any victims of crime in this state. But the reality is that the latest kneejerk so-called solution from the government is just not it; it is not the solution. It has been ripped straight from the Queensland Liberals’ playbook by a government here that is unpopular and desperately seeking to win back votes ahead of the next state election. I remember watching the election coverage in Queensland on election night in absolute disgust that a government could commit to that, thinking to myself, ‘I am so thankful that we are here in Victoria, where that would never happen.’ Little did I think that only months later we would be staring down the barrel of very, very similar disturbing legislation.

I want to also thank, before I get into my remarks, the countless people and organisations who have reached out to me to express their concerns with this bill. I have noticed a really distinct shift and change in this bill compared to other pieces of legislation we have had come through here recently with the amount of members of the public who might have ordinarily supported other crime measures, who might have even supported the bail changes that we did in here, that just think this bill has gone too far, locking children up. The detrimental consequences it will have on children should not and cannot be accepted. Some of the groups that have written to me range from human rights groups, youth workers, researchers, legal experts and advocates representing Aboriginal people and other marginalised communities. In particular I would really like to thank the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Youthlaw, the Federation of Community Legal Centres and the Human Rights Legal Centre for their tireless work and support and putting in the hard yards this week to brief us on the crossbench and to give us as much information as they possibly can, because again, we received a notification on Monday night that this bill would be introduced as an urgent bill and did not get briefed until Tuesday morning. I mean, it is Thursday afternoon. We have got six other bills to go through this week on top of all the other business of the Parliament. It is just not enough time to consider and scrutinise such serious legislation. So thank you to all of the wonderful advocates and NGOs who have helped us on this journey to get across it as much as we possibly can. These people are the ones who pick up the pieces when government panic replaces good policy, and we could be doing good policy in this area – that is the most disappointing thing. Their message has been clear and it has been consistent: this legislation will not make Victorians safer.

It is a headline-driven bill that only seeks to prioritise political optics over real safety outcomes, and we all want real safety outcomes. At its core it will give Victorians a false promise that longer sentences will deter violent crime, and that is simply not the case – we know that; that is not me editorialising. The evidence shows us the precedent is there, and we should be learning from it. What deters crime are actually functioning systems, and we do not have those here in Victoria right now. These happen to be the systems that the government has repeatedly failed to invest in. We have seen cuts to critical support services in recent times, and we will continue to see more cuts to those services. I am talking about things such as early intervention programs, bail and parole assistance and youth programs. We have seen a lack of stable housing, mental health support and limited family violence services, just to name a few critical services, which we have seen and heard about a reduction of recently.

Recognising that children and young people are vulnerable and need more protection is a foundational component of our legal system, and it seems that the government have forgotten that in introducing this legislation. Our current laws already have provision for the Children’s Court to uplift matters to higher courts if they think it is necessary while still recognising fundamental sentencing principles. I am not for a moment suggesting that there are some youth offenders that do not need legal interventions – I do not think any of us are suggesting that – but there are processes that already exist in order for that to happen. To drastically expand mandatory minimum sentences in a way that removes judicial discretion is essentially to swing a blunt instrument at a complex, individual social challenge that we are facing in this state. It will cause collateral damage to our state’s most vulnerable cohorts. They will inadvertently fall victim to a system that has been set up to fail them.

One of the most alarming consequences of this bill is the disproportionate harm it will inflict on Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal people in Victoria, we know, are already over-represented in our criminal justice system. Over 60 per cent of children in prison are First Nations children. The figures show us that they are more likely to be policed, charged and thrown in jail. At the same time they are also less likely to have access to the support and services that help to steer people away from crime. We only need to look at the tragic case of Veronica Nelson, which we have spoken about many times in this place throughout other debates of recent legislation, and the warnings we got about deaths in custody. Now we are putting that threat onto children – we are putting that threat onto Aboriginal children as well as adults.

What is perhaps most galling to me is the fact that this legislation was announced just one week after this government made history with the treaty in this state and mere days before the government issues an apology to First Nations communities. Next week we will all come back to do that, and that apology will address the past injustices towards Aboriginal people so that we as a state can build a stronger, united future. And dare I say that one day there will be another leader in this place that will be forced to stand and deliver an apology to our First Nations communities again, apologising for the harm caused by these decisions to push ahead with laws like this one and other ones that have recently gone through the Parliament that will cause destruction and devastation in First Nations communities across our state.

Tuesday’s apology was a key recommendation of Victoria’s nation-leading Yoorrook Justice Commission, and another key recommendation of the very same commission was for the government to give full effect to the right of First Peoples to self-determination in the Victorian criminal justice system as it relates to First Peoples. That has been blatantly ignored, and that is clear from this bill before us today. You only need to look at what organisations such as the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service have said about this change. VALS CEO Nerita Waight has called this ‘a pivotal moment in Victoria’s history’. She says:

If this Bill passes parliament … we will see children’s rights, protected under international law, struck from the law in Victoria.

VALS have told me about a young girl named Lily, who was charged with aggravated burglary and aggravated home invasion despite only having played a secondary role in the crime. Lawyers from VALS strongly advocated for Lily to keep her out of youth detention. She ultimately received a sentence that was proportionate in the context of the offending, and, positively, she was diverted from the criminal justice system. Lily has had no further contact with the legal system since then, but under the proposed changes in this bill it would be a very, very different story for her. Despite having no prior convictions, Lily would be committed to the County Court and exposed to the adult jurisdiction, and she would be facing a life sentence.

We also cannot forget the other people that will be caught up by these changes. These are kids from migrant backgrounds, from state care and from broken families and children with disabilities. Let us remember these are our state’s most vulnerable children. They are young people who often carry histories of trauma. They have been subjected to childhood abuse and institutionalisation. To subject them to automatic adult sentences is to completely abandon any hope of rehabilitation for them. It is a signal from lawmakers that their past trauma is irrelevant and they should be condemned for their future and given no chance to rehabilitate and to prosper. For many of these children the state is their parent, and it is clear that the state has given up on them.

Another point that too often gets lost in political debates is that real community safety is achieved when there are fewer crimes committed, not when more people are locked up. Jail is not a safe place for children, especially when we know children in youth prisons are likely to have suffered multiple traumas, such as childhood abuse and childhood neglect, family violence and educational exclusion. Further to this, a significant majority of children in youth prisons in Victoria have one or more disabilities, such as a brain injury or severe neurodevelopmental impairment, and over half of the children charged with offending have at least one diagnosed psychiatric disorder. These kids are the ones who are more likely to be disengaged at school. They are more likely to be maltreated, neglected and traumatised, and they are less likely to understand police and court processes. More than other children, they need specialised support. Today this Parliament is failing them and denying them that.

Last month the Ombudsman wrote to politicians and sounded the alarm on policies like this one. She pointed to a 20 per cent surge in complaints from prison and youth justice centres compared to the previous year. According to media reporting she said her office was predicting a 157 per cent increase in youth justice complaints – and that is before the ‘adult time for violent crime’ changes come into effect. That should be a cause for concern for everyone in this place. The breach of human rights is not just some dramatic claim. The government has admitted the bill breaches the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The Attorney-General’s statement of compatibility acknowledges that this bill constitutes significant limits on the fundamental rights of children who are by their nature a vulnerable cohort. That is concerning. What is also concerning is the cost of this legislation, because locking people up is not cheap. The government has boasted that it intends to spend $730 million on new prison beds. If only that kind of money was spent on the intervention programs that I have spoken about, which have been backed by evidence and data and qualifications and have been proven to help young people break their cycles of offending. In contrast, the government is spending just a fraction of this on programs like them – a mere $135 million, in comparison to the $730 million. And just $1 million of this $135 million is for reconnecting kids in the youth justice system with school and education. I do have an amendment to this bill, which I ask to be circulated now.

The intention of this amendment is to allow greater time for courts, prosecutors and legal services to prepare for changes to sentencing for children for certain indictable offences in the bill, including by ensuring systems and additional resourcing are in place to effectively manage an estimated additional 450 cases – including an estimated 250 to 300 cases that will be subject to the mandatory uplift provisions – currently heard in the Children’s Court that will be heard in the County Court under parts 3 and 4 of the bill. In effect these amendments would delay the operation of parts 3 and 4 of the bill until 30 September 2026. In Victoria there are 23 regional Children’s Courts across the state. In comparison, there are only 11 County Courts, which are already full and have lengthy delays in hearing other matters. When this bill passes and the matters will be uplifted from the Children’s Court into the County Court, there is simply no current capacity for them to take on this workload.

I touched on this in my opening remarks. We all thought that we would have the summer break to consider this legislation – knowing that the announcement came only weeks ago – and to truly understand this consequential legislation in its full detail. I just want to reiterate how appalling it is that the government has forced all of us to consider this bill in less than a week – in fact nowhere near a week, mere days – receiving a notification on Monday evening that it would be an urgent bill, being briefed on Tuesday morning and then being here in the Parliament debating it by Thursday morning. We have essentially had less than two days to analyse it, alongside six other bills in the house this week. That is disgraceful policy on the run, and the government should be ashamed of the way that they have handled this. They should be ashamed of not just the policy but the way that they have treated other members in this place and this Parliament, asking us to take on such a significant decision in such a short period of time. But that aside, this bill is not only extraordinarily punitive but also defies decades of research and expert opinion. We are talking about a government that claim to care about vulnerable people, but with this legislation it is abundantly clear that they do not.

As I close, I just want to touch on the irony of the timing of this. From today there will be children across the country losing access to their Instagram and TikTok accounts. They will not be able to log in starting today, and by the 10th they will not be able to log in at all. Also today another Labor government is banking on passing this so that these same kids of similar age can face a lifetime in prison. Unfortunately, with the two major parties in lockstep on this issue, it is one of the rare instances where our votes on the crossbench will not count. But I think many of us are determined to do what we can to criticise and analyse and ensure that the government is held to account for this disgraceful decision. My vote will be recorded in the history books, which will be looked back on one day, as opposing this dangerous, harmful decision by the Allan Labor government.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:30): We are debating this bill in the middle of what we have all established is a public safety crisis that has been building and building for years, and we know that in the years in which it has been building and building Labor has been in power. It is a pattern that has been clear for over a decade, and we know that this pattern also extends to coming back to Parliament over and over again, tweaking the law, strengthening it, weakening it, tweaking it. I will not go through it again, because I have gone through it over and over and over with all these bills, starting in 2014. But basically, if we skip forward to this year, the crisis has returned worse than before, and in 2025 we are facing the highest crime figures in two decades. Now Labor is reacting again, but this time, in this bill, I have noticed there is something a little bit new. This time, for the first time, I think the government is trying to perform both sides of its contradiction in the same bill, having the appearance of harshness for a frightened and abused public and also the preservation of illegitimate leniency for the advocacy groups that they cannot afford to alienate. It is peak absurdity, peak symbolism, and it perfectly reflects the government’s world view, which avoids personal responsibility, avoids ministerial responsibility and replaces genuine leadership with theatrical announcements.

The headline message is unmistakeable: ‘Adult time for adult crime: life sentences for 14-year-olds’. They are words that are designed to be shocking, designed to look decisive, but legally and practically they are pretty misleading, actually. Fourteen- and 15-year-old’s cases for certain designated offences are initially sent to the higher courts, the County or the Supreme. But the child can ask to remain in the Children’s Court, and the Children’s Court must seriously consider that request. In practice the Children’s Court almost always finds that it is adequate that they stay in the Children’s Court. The legal test is generous and the sentencing powers are broad, and Victorian courts have consistently kept youth matters within the youth jurisdiction. That means that the pathway back to the Children’s Court remains fully intact. Nothing changes the underlying sentencing principles, which ensure that life imprisonment for a child in reality is actually pretty impossible in Victoria.

It brings me to the heart of the matter. If the government truly intended life sentences to be imposed, they would have had to change the sentencing principles, and they have not. We do not need to speculate about how courts sentence these offences. The Sentencing Advisory Council has already given us five years of detailed offence-level data. Across all higher courts, for sentencing between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2024, carjacking had a maximum of 15 years; aggravated home invasion had a maximum of 25 years; gross violence, intentional, a maximum of 20 years; and gross violence, reckless, a maximum of 15 years. And what percentage of time do we think the maximum was actually used? Zero per cent – not once. Even the longest sentences fall well below the actual maximums. In fact the median sits at around 20 to 40 per cent of the ceiling. And why – because sentencing is governed by proportionality, parity with previous cases, youth mitigation et cetera, et cetera. So raising these maximums to life when the courts have never, not once, used the existing maximums is not even a reform; it is a performance.

In practical terms the bill does pretty much nothing to change sentencing outcomes, and the crisis that we are facing was not caused by lenient maximums, was it? It was caused by chronic police shortages – we are now more than 2300 officers down – over 1100 vacant positions, 43 police stations being closed or with reduced hours, clearance rates for cases falling 42 per cent in a year, weakened bail laws, reduced supervision, underfunded or non-existent early intervention and a refusal to apply low-to-high escalating consequences early and consistently. A maximum life sentence on paper does not correct any of that. It does not make arrests more likely. It is not going to bring our police forces back. It does not make supervision more effective. It does not restore early interventions. It does not restore trust, and it does not make anybody safer. It simply changes a number in the legislation while leaving the entire machinery – I was going to say ‘machinery of justice in this state’ but it is actually ‘machinery of injustice in this state’ – completely untouched. This bill misleads the public about what it can deliver; preserves the very pathways that already keep youth offenders in the youth jurisdiction and protect them from those life sentences; raises maximums that have never once been used; ignores police shortages, court delays and failing supervision; and pretends that symbolism is a substitute for good governance. Victorians deserve better than that. They deserve a government that confronts reality, spends money well and delivers actual help to young people who have gone off the rails and actual justice to victims. This bill is deceptive. It wastes time. It wastes money. Honestly, I do not know how Victorians put up with you people. I cannot wait to see if they get rid of you at the election.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:36): Just for a bit of context on how this bill is actually being approached, I must be special: I got notification of this slightly before Ms Purcell at 3 o’clock on Monday afternoon. I was told it would be an urgent bill on Monday night. I was briefed on it Tuesday morning, and the government expects us to pass it today. At least parts 1 and 2 will be law after royal assent, presumably tomorrow. It could be as soon as tomorrow. The only way that this bill can pass is through this unusual mechanism that we have at the moment. It is the third time this week that I have heard the opposition get up and say that the government’s bill is terrible: ‘We don’t like it, but we’re going to pass it anyway.’ They are going to support it anyway. The hint is in the name ‘opposition’. When something bad like this comes along, maybe they should oppose it like I am going to oppose it.

I will tell you a story. There is a used car salesman; let us call them ‘the government’. And there is someone who is currently riding a bike around, but they really want an American muscle car. Everyone is hanging it on them – all their mates are laughing at them – because they are riding this bike, and they really want a muscle car. Let us call them ‘the opposition’. Now, the used car salesman goes to this person on Monday afternoon, and they say, ‘Have I got a car for you! It’s just what you want.’ And they say, ‘Oh, is it one of those American muscle cars that we’ve been looking for? Because we want everyone to point at us and say that we’re tough instead of saying that we’re weak because we’re riding around on our bike.’ And the government – sorry, the used car salesman – says, ‘Look, the truth of the matter is it’s got a hole in the exhaust. The suspension’s a bit clapped out. It’s burning a bit of oil and the gearbox is a bit rough, but you’ve got until Thursday to make up your mind on it.’ And the person goes, ‘Oh, gee, if we don’t take this car, people are going to laugh at us for riding around on our bike still, so we’d better just take the car.’ So they take the car. Even though it is crap, they take the car because they are worried that everyone will laugh at them because they are riding around on their bike still.

We have this crazy scenario where the opposition acknowledges that this bill is not good law. This is a highly significant change to our justice system. And look, there are a few things in here that I would probably support, like clarification of ram raids as aggravated burglary – that sort of thing. But laws that are this significant should not be done this way through these urgency procedures. The government’s lack of planning should not be Parliament’s emergency. I acknowledge that sometimes things need to go through Parliament urgently. Through the pandemic we had situations where the courts could not function unless we authorised certain things. I supported those. There was another situation that I was more sceptical about, sacking a council, but the government managed to convince me that actually it was urgent because of very serious things that were happening and were happening in a short timeframe. This is not an urgent bill. This is something that the government has sat on for ages and then had this panicked response about, probably because of polls or because they have had focus groups telling them that people hate the government because of crime. Crime is a real thing. People are really upset about it. They are really worried. Will this fix it? I do not think so.

This bill is proposing – and I agree with Mrs Deeming when she said that she thinks it is unlikely that it will ever happen – the idea of a 14-year-old kid getting a life sentence, and you want to rush that through without any sort of stakeholder consultation. This Parliament discussed in detail a very serious case about life sentencing, and we decided as a Parliament, unanimously, in the case of a man who murdered three women and posed an unreasonable threat to society, that is the sort of thing that is worthy of a life sentence. I do not think there are many people that believe a 14-year-old is incapable of reform and will be a danger to society forever. Certainly they must face consequences when they do these serious things. Breaking into people’s houses, aggravated burglaries and carjackings are all serious offences that deserve punishment by the law. But the idea that somehow some kid is going to get sentenced to prison for the rest of their life – I am not convinced. That is just one example out of this bill. There are many others.

Just the fact that the government is doing it this way – Victorians should be outraged about this. Victorians should be upset, and they should hold to account the people that enable it, and that includes the opposition. I do not know if other members of the crossbench are going to support this or not, but if there are terrible effects from this, the people that enabled the government to do this should be held to account for it, because those people had the chance to stop it and they did not.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (14:42): Could I just in opening commend the comments of Mr Limbrick and Ms Purcell, who preceded me, in terms of the outrageousness of legislation of this significance being dropped on us at short notice. The Premier announced this I think three weeks ago, yet suddenly on the last or second-last day of Parliament it is something we are expected to deliberate on, having had 72 hours to consider it, and of course we are considering other things apart from this legislation.

Dear me – another day, another piece of regressive legislation from a government intent on attacking young people in lieu of an effective justice policy. These cruel and ineffective new laws were cobbled together very quickly and basically commit children aged 14 to 17 to being tried and possibly sentenced in the County Court, where they will be treated like adults and receive adult sentencing. Stunningly, the government has also removed the principle of jail being a last resort for children, because for some crimes it should not be. According to the Premier’s media release, the Children’s Court only sentences 34 per cent of children and young people to jail for home invasions and carjackings, compared to 97 per cent of adults who go to jail for these crimes. The Premier glibly talked about children needing ‘firm boundaries’, as if locking up a 14-year-old for life is going to teach them a lesson. What might these children learn while they are locked up, at a cost, I might add, of approximately $2.7 million per child per year? While TAFE is free, prison is most certainly not.

We know that the overwhelming majority of children jailed have already experienced disadvantage and trauma, with many also having been in out-of-home care. Neurodivergent children and those with mental health disorders are over-represented in the criminal justice system. I just want to pick up a point from Mr Limbrick. We are not suggesting that if people do crime there should not be consequences. The question is: what is the appropriate consequence that they should face? This bill does not meet that test. What is the likely outcome for a 14-year-old serving a 25-year sentence? How is this 40-year-old going to cope once they are out? For starters, young people in long-term incarceration are isolated from their families and communities and may never reconnect. They are less likely to complete any sort of education, find stable housing, maintain employment or live independently. They will struggle to form healthy relationships and are far more likely to struggle with mental ill health and addiction. All of these factors are closely linked to recidivism.

We already know that our youth facilities and remand centres are filled to the brim. We are seeing more children – and they are children – end up in jail. Due to staffing shortages and overcrowding in our jails, these children are oftentimes kept in their cells for up to 23 hours a day – they get to walk around shackled for 1 hour in the yard for some exercise. And we expect these kids to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society? Is that really what is imagined by this government as an outcome of this legislation? Seriously, do we really need to explain why a young offender should be treated differently to an adult? Do we really need to explain why locking up children is unjustified and immoral? Children are immature and prone to ill-considered or rash decisions. They lack the insight, judgement and self-control of an adult. They are not able to fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct. I repeat: there should be consequences for criminal conduct – but life sentences? Children have a much better chance of being rehabilitated, and that should be the principal aim of our youth justice system, but jail is far more likely to hamper than improve a child’s prospects of rehabilitation.

The targets of this legislation are kids who have already been overpoliced, traumatised and unfairly targeted for most of their lives: Indigenous kids, out-of-home care kids, kids living with disability, kids experiencing homelessness or family violence – kids who have been failed by successive governments from a very young age. The government has basically given up on these young people: ‘Lock ’em up!’

It really calls into question the government’s commitment to treaty as well, because as this government well knows, Aboriginal and other children from marginalised backgrounds will be the most impacted by these punitive and harmful laws. To quote Nerita Waight, CEO of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service:

It is not possible for the Allan Government to profess a commitment to Treaty and self-determination while at the same time causing irreparable damage to the future leaders of our communities.

At the same time the government is spruiking its plans to establish a violence reduction unit based on the groundbreaking Scottish violence reduction unit. Over 20 years that program has seen Scotland go from being the youth crime capital of Western Europe to seeing a 75 per cent decrease in youth crime, and they did not get it through locking up children. But we do not have time for long-term evidence-based initiatives to tackle generational problems, do we? There is an election on next year. While we are at it, let us cut all those programs that mitigate the root causes of youth crime – disadvantage, trauma and family violence – even though they are far, far, far cheaper and far, far, far more effective. The government is sacrificing a generation of young people as political collateral, all for the sake of burnishing its tough-on-crime credentials in time for the next election. It is a spectacularly cynical move from a government who should know better – and in fact does know better but does not care.

The laws breach protected children’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires children to be treated by the courts in a way that is appropriate for their age. The Attorney-General in the other place has already admitted that the bill is incompatible with our charter of human rights, yet the government is going ahead and pushing this through. You know it does not comply with our own charter, and you are going to push it through. The amendments also may breach section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 due to their disproportionate impact on minorities, including First Nations people. So it will be interesting to see how these laws hold up in the Supreme Court going forward, but in the interim, push it through, push them into jail. That is what this is about. This is the theatre.

It seems to go without saying these days that the government did not bother to consult on the drafting of this bill – no consultation with the Aboriginal community or the legal community or youth justice sectors. Apparently the Premier has been listening to victims of crime – or maybe she has just been listening to her campaign advisers – and yet according to the Justice Reform Initiative, who reviewed the Queensland Liberal government’s adult time for adult crime scheme, victims of crime are more concerned about the need for a justice system that reduces the likelihood of further crime or further harm being committed. Indeed, a victim of sexual violence made a moving plea for investment in evidence-based and community-led programs to prevent future offending. She said:

… it’s not just about accountability and justice, it’s also about putting evidence-based policies in place for community-led diversion programs that stop this before it starts.

It’s about justice programs that include historic injustice, and it’s about seriously tackling the societal issues that lead to people’s offences.

I don’t believe we can just jail our way out of this if we truly want a safe and just community. True justice goes beyond retribution.

It is about fairness, accountability, and creating a society where harm is not just punished, it is prevented.

That is from a victim of a savage crime.

On an almost daily basis we are seeing rushed, flawed and damaging legislation that responds to whatever beat-up du jour the Herald Sun is hyping. Then we must sit through the deplorable spectacle of Labor members applauding and touting these regressive bills. We know those atrocious policies are supported by those opposite – and I take to heart Mr Limbrick’s ridiculing of the opposition for their hypocrisy in this approach – but we hope that something can be done to mitigate the inevitable harms this bill will have on vulnerable young people. My colleague Ms Payne has moved an amendment to legislate de novo appeals to ensure children whose matters are uplifted to the County Court retain their right to de novo appeal, and we will be supporting amendments moved by our colleagues from the Greens and the Animal Justice Party. This is a desperate government enacting performative cruelty on its young citizens. It is another serious erosion of civil rights that impacts all Victorians and, sadly, another shameful day for Victoria.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:53): I am going to point out something. In fact I will quote Mr Ettershank in a moment. No-one that has opposed this legislation has with any real effort acknowledged the victims of crime. In fact last night one of my elderly neighbours came round to tell me about his home invasion – I am in a fairly good suburb – and I had to sit through and listen to him. He slept through it all, lucky for him. But Mr Ettershank made a comment: apparently the Premier has been listening to victims of crime. Well, whilst I appreciate the irritation with the rush with which this has been brought in here, why wouldn’t you listen to victims of crime? We listen to – well, they should be listening to – other people about their rehabilitation prospects and this and that, but it seems that the victims are the ones forgotten in this, the people that have had the knives held at them, the people that have had their homes invaded or been carjacked or whatever it might be.

The young people that this will affect are not just kids whose high jinks get out of control. These are not just young people that think, ‘I see that bike; I might just take it.’ These are hardened criminals. How they have got there is not for me to say. Maybe it is a hard life and things like that. Maybe there is a program that will help them. But the reality of it is, until this bold experiment that we have been running has finished, we are not going to be in a position to know, because it is not working. Letting the kids run rampant is just creating more violence, because there are no repercussions – nothing of note. The ongoing bail saga is an example of that. No-one wants to put young people away, but in some cases you end up with that inevitability due to the nature of their crime.

But I will also point this out, for those that are distressed about the chances of a 14-year-old going to jail for life: let us talk about the sentencing problems. An assault on an emergency worker on duty is basically a penalty of six months imprisonment – it says maximum, but it is meant to be a sentence that everyone gets. Of 1071 charges – and in fairness, this was 2020 to 2023; it may have changed a bit – 43 per cent of them were jailed. And then there are community correction orders and fines and adjourned undertakings and all this other stuff. So without wild sentencing reform, as Mrs Deeming pointed out, there is little chance that a 14-year-old even convicted of murder is likely to spend their entire life in jail. Now, pick reasons why they are doing it. Each individual case is different, but the chances of a 14-year-old being put away, with all the hand-wringing that is going on that we are going to just wipe them out, are fairly slim. As it stands now, the judiciary has the ability to sentence them whether they are an adult or not. The sentencing is more or less up to them.

But in conjunction with this I would have liked to see more work on police resourcing, and another thing I have noticed that is coming up more and more, again, is the delays in courts. With the amount of time people are spending on remand as we go on – I think someone mentioned it – they are starting to get to the point where the person on remand is spending more time on remand than they would have got for the original sentence. I believe court delays, whether it is resourcing or not – maybe we need to open some more courts. I am not the government; they can look that up. But police resourcing is a definite thing, because it takes time to compile a brief of evidence, and they can be fairly complex, particularly for serious crimes, because you do not want someone let off on a technicality.

This should be part of a suite. Will it fix the ongoing crime problem? We will find out. But someone needs to listen to the victims, and despite what a couple of people have said about being on the wrong side of history, I feel that despite the flaws with how this got here and despite even some flaws with the bill, I think it is well intentioned. I do feel it will be rolled back to some degree at some point in time, but we need to give it time to work. When it comes to it, there are some of us that think of the victims.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (14:58): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Community Safety) Bill 2025. This is a piece of legislation that reeks of political posturing by an out-of-touch government and a really desperate Premier. You know that there must be an election around the corner, because all we are seeing from this government when it comes to policies that should be addressing challenges that Victorians are facing are policies centred around short-termism. It is legislation that is failing to meet the moment, failing to listen to evidence, failing to listen to the experts, failing First Nations communities, failing black and brown communities and, most of all, failing our next generation of leaders.

Added to this is the Labor government’s approach to this bill, rushing it through both houses with no scrutiny, no accountability, especially with a bill that carries such huge implications for certain groups in our communities. It really showcases this government’s standard operating procedure. Rather than following through with policy research, which would have led them to the overwhelming answer that funnelling children into prisons does not deter crime, instead it is a tick-box exercise to make it look like they are doing something about youth justice, but they are completely unwilling to go to the roots of the issues. This Labor government has no justification for bypassing the proper legislative process, and it is disappointing to find ourselves here again with this government refusing to implement policies that actually work to improve community safety. We know this hardline approach is driven by a law and order media narrative rather than evidence. For this government to model this legislation on Queensland’s ‘tough on youth crime’ approach is lazy and counterproductive.

This bill seeks to take children away from being trialled in the Children’s Court, with specialists trained in youth offending and child development, to matters being forced into the County Court, specifically for adults. It also changes sentencing principles to have maximum penalties, meaning that children should be locked up for life. I just need to say that again: children locked up for life – yes, it still sounds wrong. This legislation is incompatible with 16 human rights in the Victorian human rights charter, and it is really difficult for me to understand how this Premier and government sleep at night, knowing that they are actively breaching the human rights of children, children which the Premier herself acknowledged in her speech as a vulnerable cohort. Children who commit crimes are among our most vulnerable, often over-represented in harrowing statistics of abuse and trauma and economic and social disadvantage, and living with often undiagnosed disabilities and mental health conditions.

I would like everyone in this place to ask themselves the question: what would compel a child to commit a crime? What may be going on in a young person’s environment where they would even feel the desire to offend? These are children who are more likely to be experiencing poverty and unemployment, to be from single-parent families, or to be experiencing homelessness, insecure housing or crowded dwellings. They have had experiences of neglect and abuse. These are children who have had experiences of family and domestic violence and are more likely to be seduced by youth crime. We are talking about children who are always in survival mode, and we in this place are now debating bills which punish children for the circumstances that they have been born into. Research tells us that children with communication disabilities, challenges in expressing themselves and understanding spoken, signed or written language are over-represented in the system. An Australian health survey found that about 80 per cent of young people in custody had below-average speaking and listening skills, and 94 per cent had trouble understanding what they read. I wonder if this was factored into the drafting of this bill.

This bill fails to recognise that many children who commit offences have been victims of harm themselves. There is significant overlap between children who offend and children who are victimised. They are not two separate groups, and we must approach justice issues with the nuance and care that this reality demands. The Labor government’s own Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2020–2030 outlines the following principles which underpin the approach to youth justice in Victoria. It goes something like this:

1/   Recognises that children and young people must be treated differently to adults and delivers developmentally distinct and appropriate services

2/   Understands that prevention, diversion and early intervention are the most effective and fiscally responsible ways of reducing youth crime in the long term

3/   Builds community confidence in the system and enhances community safety by delivering evidence-based programs that reduce young people’s offending

4/   Understands that Aboriginal self-determination and Aboriginal communities must be at the centre of efforts to address the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children and young people in Youth Justice

5/   Recognises that young people should be subject to the least restrictive intervention appropriate in the circumstances, with custody an option of last resort, cognisant of the need to keep the community safe in both the immediate and longer term

I would like to remind the chamber that these are direct quotes from the Department of Justice and Community Safety’s website. How can anyone trust this Labor government when it is flip-flopping on its own principles and values? This so-called urgent bill is a sign something is going pretty wrong at ground zero for this government.

This government intends to spend $727 million on increasing prison and youth justice centre capacity. Just imagine for a moment if this money was spent on early intervention and prevention reforms – holy crap, what a transformation that would be; what a generational change that would be. Except that is not the priority of this government, so we can let go of that imagination. How can this Labor government sit there comfortably knowing that it will be putting more children in cages, saying that they deserve to be locked up, that they do not deserve care? It is ruthless and completely alarming. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it pretty clear: children should only be detained as a last resort and must be segregated from all detained adults. What this government is proposing in this legislation is a total violation of its responsibility to young people, a complete disregard for their safety and wellbeing and a breach of their human rights.

Let us talk about 14-year-olds, shall we? According to the Office of the Public Advocate, people under the age of 18 – minors – are not presumed to have decision-making capacity. The Royal Children’s Hospital research suggests that adolescence is a critical age when critical thinking and decision-making are developing – not developed but still developing. Nowhere in this ill-informed legislation does it centre children and the intersecting needs that must be considered: the complexity and the context of their families and communities in which they live. This should be the bare minimum for any decent public policy, but that requires commitment, right? It requires bravery, it requires coordination, it requires political will – all the things that we know this Labor government is completely lacking and refusing to do. UNICEF, the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council have all done research that found that harsher and longer sentences are linked to higher rates of reoffending and worse long-term outcomes for young people. Incarcerating children not only traumatises them but exposes them to risks of long-term psychiatric and developmental harms and severs links with families, communities and cultures.

The evidence is clear: legislation must focus on prevention and early intervention. There must be investment in upstream resources, such as addressing the root causes of crime, education, disadvantage, poverty, disability and strengthening community. We hear all the time in this chamber about how every Victorian child deserves the best start to life or that we have nation-leading early childhood reforms. Well, that is great. We welcome these investments. But why does the investment shrink the moment children become adolescents? Where do all those millions of dollars go? It is not news that Indigenous adolescents and children are incarcerated in much greater numbers than non-Indigenous counterparts. Why do we allow these punitive legislative reforms motivated by short-term, short-sighted solutions to continue to target Indigenous children?

This Labor government, I tell you, for all its talk about treaty and self-determination, is still producing policies like this – racist, fearmongering, controlling and sensationalised policies that will only compound the harm First Nations people are already experiencing. How is this policy much different to the 1967 referendum which spoke to self-determination? This policy not only misses the mark on self-determination; it is all about management and control. When the Premier apologises to First Nations people next week, is she going to apologise for this too? Is she going to be able to look them in the eye and explain to them why she has allowed this urgent bill to come through to these chambers? Well, I will be watching quite intently.

Multicultural communities are already over-represented in youth crime statistics, particularly those from African and – my community – Pacific Island backgrounds. We know this is not because these communities are more likely to commit crime but because these communities face systemic overpolicing, underdevelopment and structural racism. This bill will only compound this by disproportionately and overwhelmingly targeting First Nations, multicultural and migrant communities. The Victorian government knows Victoria’s justice system is racist, acknowledging how embedded racism is in the system within its own anti-racism strategy. God, how hypocritical can this government be? Locking up children will do nothing to protect the community but only repeat the cycle of trauma, poverty and underdevelopment of children. Like I said before, this government is effectively funnelling black and brown kids into prison. Successive governments have given up on teenagers, deeming them too hard and too complicated to deal with, resulting in years of withdrawal from the support young people need now more than ever. Now, when young people need governments to show up, what does this government do? It brings forward inhumane and racist laws that will disproportionately impact Aboriginal, black and brown communities.

The consequences of this chronic underfunding in youth programs have now reached a tipping point. The 2018 inquiry into youth justice centres in Victoria recommended the government develop programs to identify and respond to the causal factors contributing to the over-representation of multicultural groups in youth justice. Where is that investment? Once again, it is another round of lip-service with no action to follow through. Increasing connection between young people and their culture is a protective factor that reduces the risk of youth offending. Investment in culturally-led, community place-based programs improves justice outcomes. It improves social and emotional wellbeing. A well-rounded, holistic approach that acts against racialised social and justice systems is necessary to address the complex needs of children. The Greens know this is where investment is meaningful – investment that truly keeps communities safe.

We also need meaningful investments in schools. This Labor government has chronically underfunded public schools. You just need to look at the northern parts of my electorate of Northern Metro to see the resourcing gaps on full display. When you underfund schools, you are short-changing children’s futures. The reality is this government is lazy, incoherent and ineffective when it comes to meeting its responsibilities to all members of the community. Evidence is being ignored – the same evidence that tells us what works. Ultimately we all know this is about priorities. This Labor government has failed to invest in young people. This is not about saving money. They are just shifting the cost and responsibility back on our incredible but stretched frontline crisis services, into the justice system and back into communities carrying the burden alone. Most of all, we shift it onto children, who are still developing, still growing, still trying to figure out themselves and their place in the world. This bill strips them of that, strips them of their future, slamming the book shut before their stories can even begin. I think it is obvious to say I vehemently oppose this bill.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (15:12): I might keep my summation speech shorter than usual in light of the strong and long debate we will have, I am sure, during the committee stage. In light of that, I might just thank all members for their contributions on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Community Safety) Bill 2025. It is a bill that is a core part of what our government has made clear and what we are hearing from the community, and it implements our policy of adult time for violent crime. As the Premier stated when we made the announcement, this is a key pillar of our serious consequences and early interventions framework, our plan to reduce youth crime by reinforcing boundaries for children. The bill seeks to address increasing crime rates in Victoria and responds to serious violent offending, particularly by children. Victorians are seeing home invasions, carjackings and gross violent attacks, and as Minister for Corrections and Minister for Youth Justice, wherever I go, I continue to hear that the community expects firm consequences for the most serious youth crime. This is about a proportionate approach to the level of harm we are seeing unfold.

First, the bill amends the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 and the Youth Justice Act 2024 to deliver adult consequences for serious violent crimes. Certain serious offences committed by children will be moved out of the Children’s Court and into the adult jurisdiction of the County Court. In particular, this bill will uplift eight serious offences, a very targeted approach we are taking: aggravated home invasion, home invasion, aggravated carjacking, intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, carjacking, serious and repeat armed robberies, and serious and repeat aggravated burglaries. This is mandatory uplift for the most serious offences, with a clear presumption that uplift is a starting point for 14-year-olds charged with those offences and for carjacking more generally, and clear direction and guidance to the court that serious and repeat armed robbery and aggravated burglary should be heard in an adult court. For this broad group of serious violent offences children aged 14 and over will face adult courts and adult sentencing, increasing the likelihood and potential of jail sentences.

Second, the bill amends the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 and the Youth Justice Act 2024 to change sentencing principles for children. When the Youth Justice Act commences in full next year, it will set out a comprehensive list of sentencing principles for the Children’s Court. The bill amends principles that relate to community protection and victim impact, ensuring that community protection is focused on preventing further offending and recognising the impact on victims. It also removes the reference to custody as a last resort from the minimum intervention principle, because for some serious crimes, it should not be. To ensure these changes commence sooner, the bill also amends the current Children, Youth and Families Act in a similar way. The Children’s Court will be required to consider protecting the community from further offending by the child and to consider the impact of the offending on victims in every case.

Third, the bill amends the Crimes Act 1958 to strengthen penalties for high-harm conduct. It increases maximum penalties as follows: aggravated home invasion and aggravated carjacking from 25 years to life, intentionally causing serious injury from 20 to 25 years, recklessly causing serious injury from 15 to 20 years and recruiting a child to engage in criminal activity from 10 to 15 years. The bill also creates a new standalone knife-use offence, with a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment, where a knife is used in the commission of six indictable offences: causing serious injury intentionally, causing serious injury recklessly, causing injury intentionally or recklessly, assault, affray and violent disorder. It expands the carjacking offence so that it captures cases where an offender steals a car with a child under the age of 10 inside.

Adult time for violent crime changes the status quo of youth sentencing in Victoria, because we know the current settings are simply not working. As the Attorney-General has emphasised, when child offenders are sentenced in an adult court, most go to jail. Adult courts put more emphasis on victims, violence and community safety. Our focus is truly on community safety and violence here – and victims. This bill increases the likelihood that serious violent child offenders will go to jail and increases the maximum terms they can receive. It strengthens the sentencing principles in the Children’s Court so that community safety and victim impact are front and centre, and it updates our offence framework to deal with knife violence and child-endangering carjacking.

We know there are no easy solutions to youth crime. Prevention and early intervention will always matter. But for a small group of children committing some of the most shocking violent crimes in our state, serious consequences are required to protect the community. This bill delivers those consequences, and I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 1 (15:28)

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, the State of Australia’s Children 2025 report shows that the drivers of youth offending are overwhelmingly structural: poverty, homelessness, trauma, disability and disconnection from school. Why has the government chosen a punitive sentencing model approach rather than addressing these well-documented causes?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is clear that there are too many victims, and therefore we need to take action to ensure that repeat offenders are held to account.

Katherine COPSEY: But that does not answer the question. I agree, we should not have victims of crime increasing, and so if the drivers of youth offending are structural – poverty, homelessness, trauma, disabilities and disconnection from school – and your government is surely aware of that, why would you invest in a punitive, expensive model and neglect those drivers?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, I think you would appreciate that there are too many victims and not enough consequences. As a government, we are focused on making sure that there are serious consequences for high-level offending and also that we do the investment in early intervention, and some of them you outlined, because they are key to getting better outcomes for most children – that is, education, engagement and making sure people’s health needs are met. All those wraparound supports are crucial. But usually where there has been a high level of harm it is appropriate that there are serious consequences. Today the focus is on serious consequences.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, you are going to have to do better with the questions this afternoon – and there are going to be a lot of them – than recycling Queensland Liberal talking points. You know as well as I do that investment in overcoming the structural drivers is going to be the thing that actually brings down rates of offending and therefore creates the outcomes for victims that you purport to be pursuing. That same report, The State of Australia’s Children 2025, also shows that children from the most disadvantaged communities have far higher rates of police contact. Is the minister acknowledging that these reforms will disproportionately fall on children who are already facing entrenched economic and social disadvantage?

Enver ERDOGAN: The goal of this legislation is to hold people – and in this case children – to account for high level of harm-causing offences. The goal is not to have a disproportionate effect, but I do acknowledge that it may.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, educational disengagement is one of the strongest predictors of youth offending, and absenteeism is rising across disadvantaged communities. Why has your government been silent on reforms to address school re-engagement strategies, and why are you focusing on sending kids to prison instead of sending them to school?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, you can answer if you wish, but I am just going to caution the member that the questions actually have to be about the legislation, not just random questions about government policy, unless you can tie them to a particular clause in the legislation. I will allow the minister, if he wants, to answer. It is his choice whether he wants to answer this question or not.

Katherine COPSEY: I note there has been no point of order called yet. I will take your feedback on board –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Copsey, there does not need to be a point of order called. It is actually in the standing orders that this is a committee stage about a piece of legislation. It is not question time, when you can ask broader questions about government policy.

Katherine COPSEY: My question relates to the pathways that this piece of legislation creates for children into prison.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you repeat your question?

Katherine COPSEY: Why is the government sending children to prison rather than school?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If the minister wishes to make a statement or answer, he can. But we are sailing close to the wind.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the Deputy President is correct. I feel we are getting outside the scope of the legislation. I know that there is a big focus on broader government policy around educational engagement for young people and other policy settings for early interventions that our government provides and supports, but I think they are outside the scope. I do not want to set a precedent of getting into broader policies and work that the government is doing in the education space and in the health space, because then I think we are really departing from the purpose. As I said, they are all important, those early intervention works, but today’s focus in this legislation is about the serious consequences. So it is my view, so that we can set the debate going forward, that we focus on the clauses directly as they relate to the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just to add to the minister’s answer, the second-reading debate is the time when we make points about the impact of legislation et cetera. If we can keep questioning to the scope of the bill, it will help the committee stage.

Katherine COPSEY: Given the evidence that children’s unmet needs drive contact with the criminal legal system and that meeting those needs, not imprisonment, keeps children and the community safe, why is the government proposing changes that breach Australia’s international obligations by scrapping the requirement that incarceration is the last resort for children?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think as a government we have been listening to victims, and it is clear that there are too many victims and not enough consequences, especially where there is a high level of harm. I think the Attorney-General touched on this in her statement of compatibility, in fact – that there is a balance with these charters and obligations. We believe in the circumstances that what we are proposing is appropriate and proportionate to the level of harm we are seeing.

Katherine COPSEY: In April 2024 Scotland passed legislation, the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, which outlawed detention of under-18s in young offender institutions. There are now only nine children in Scotland who have committed offences who are in special, secure centres. How will this bill take Victoria close to achieving a goal of zero children in custody in Victoria?

Enver ERDOGAN: A lot of the work that our government does in reducing young people’s contact with the criminal justice system does fall outside the justice system, for good reason, and that is in those areas that you discussed earlier, about education and health and support. In terms of our goals, I do not want to see young people come into contact with the criminal justice system, but by the time the goal of this bill is in place, already a high level of harm has been caused, and at this stage we do need to send a strong message that this is unacceptable. We need to also respect victims and their rights to be and feel safe and have appropriate, proportionate penalties in place, and I think that is what this legislation is about once a high level of harm has already been caused.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, in Victoria we know there are currently two small, secure care units, in Maribyrnong and Ascot Vale. Each those is a locked 10-bed facility which provides a safer, different and therapeutic model of care compared to other custodial settings. As a result of the impact of this legislation, do you foresee that the government is going to need to build more of these units?

Enver ERDOGAN: As a government we have made a number of announcements about capacity in both our adult and youth justice systems this year. My most recent announcement was the reopening of the Malmsbury youth justice precinct. Therefore we have the capacity at the moment, we have got significant headroom, but we are also investing in unlocking further capacity with our announcement of Malmsbury.

Rachel PAYNE: I guess my question strikes to out-of-home care and some of the rationale behind the bill. One in three children leaving out-of-home care becomes homeless within 12 months. Given that there is a direct pipeline into offending, what is the rationale for prioritising harsher criminal penalties rather than housing, care and stability reforms for young people?

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, as a government we are focused on doing both the work in terms of having serious consequences for people that cause a high level of harm – in this instance, children – but also the work in terms of early intervention to get the best outcomes for young people. But I think the bill today is really focused on the serious consequences piece, about improving our sentencing regime to better reflect the level of harm caused and what we are seeing in Victoria.

Rachel PAYNE: Experts have warned that children in residential care are criminalised for behaviour that would never lead to charges in a family home. Why has the government not addressed the criminalisation of care-based conflict before introducing reforms that uplift these children into adult courts? I have an example here, if that is helpful. For example, many aggravated burglary charges against children in residential care arise from conflict within that care environment, not community harm. So why is the government increasing the likelihood these children will face adult-style sentences?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Payne, I know this is an issue that you have touched on in the past in this chamber. But what our legislation is focused on is a new type of crime we are seeing. We are focused on addressing that, and that is why we have limited our uplifts to the listed eight or so offences that we are seeing are causing the greatest community concern. It is not about where the young person is staying or their accommodation settings or their carer settings. The focus is on where the harm has been caused and what we are seeing in Victoria.

Rachel PAYNE: Many children affected by these reforms come from systems that the government is responsible for: child protection, out-of-home care, disability services. What is the government doing to fix some of these failures within these systems?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am inclined to say that this is out of the scope of the bill, because the bill really is focused on, once the high level of harm has been caused, the appropriate response. If we could really focus our attention to the bill and the clauses within the bill, that would be helpful.

Rachel PAYNE: Evidence shows that increasing prison time for children who have already been in the government’s systems will not result in safer communities. Why is this approach being taken rather than looking at a holistic system approach?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is because we are seeing a new type of crime. We are focused on doing both, but today’s focus is on the serious consequences. Where there has been a high level of harm caused, it is incumbent upon the justice system to have an appropriate response, and clearly what we are hearing from the community and from victims is that the response was not appropriate to the level of harm caused for victims. Obviously as victims of crime, they have a right to be safe. Therefore we have rebalanced the justice system to reflect that.

Katherine COPSEY: The bill itself, the Attorney’s second-reading speech and many contributions that we have heard throughout these debates assume that deterrence works – the idea that making sentences longer somehow scares people off crime. However, sentencing expert University of New South Wales emeritus law professor David Brown says that this actually simply does not hold up and calls deterrence ‘sentencing’s dirty secret’. The evidence, he says, is that increasing penalties has little or no impact on whether people offend. What matters is being caught at all, not whether the maximum is three years or life. So why does the government persist with the fantasy of deterrence?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think for some offences a deterrence is needed. We are getting to experts now. Dr Bagaric is an academic here at Swinburne University and someone that actually grew up in Broadmeadows, a working-class boy; he does not live in Broadmeadows at the moment. He would say that if you want to reduce crime, especially when you are talking about violent crime, you need a high likelihood of detection – so obviously enforcement – but you also need proportionate penalties, because if people know, even in our children’s behaviour, that there are no consequences, then there is a propensity to repeat some of that behaviour. It is about setting boundaries, and I think that is what we talked about at our announcement. We are setting boundaries so people do not repeat these offences because the level of harm is so great.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, we have not seen any – and I would be interested if you want to point to any – additional Victorian, national or international evidence showing that harsher sentences for children reduce reoffending.

Enver ERDOGAN: Dr Bagaric would say that recidivism rates for young people that have entered custody and those who are put into the community are relatively similar. That is what his evidence says. He has got a sentencing book I can refer you to, and in that book he says that actually the recidivism rates are quite similar but what is 100 per cent guaranteed is that whilst they are incarcerated, obviously, the community is relatively safe during that period.

Katherine COPSEY: Maybe they will be incarcerated through to November 2026 – that would be useful for you, wouldn’t it? The data shows that First Nations children already face the highest levels of justice system contact. Why is the government proceeding with reforms that every expert warns will increase First Nations children’s imprisonment?

Enver ERDOGAN: The purpose of today’s debate is about serious consequences, because we are thinking about victims and making Victorians be safe but also feel safe. I think that is a real goal of this legislation. This is not about targeting any specific groups in our community, except for those that have caused a high level of harm. A lot of our interventions which, in my view, fall outside the scope of this legislation are making sure that people do not make contact with the criminal justice system and that they do not participate in a high level of criminal behaviour in the first place.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, respectfully, my question just then was about First Nations children already facing the highest levels of justice system contact, and unless I misheard you, I do not think in your answer you mentioned First Nations children once. So I will ask again: why is the government proceeding with reforms that every expert warns will increase First Nations children’s imprisonment?

Enver ERDOGAN: As a government we remain very committed to reducing the over-representation of Aboriginal people in our criminal justice system, but we need to achieve that outside the criminal justice framework so that young people do not make contact with the criminal justice system. We are doing that work. We have very strong partnerships through the Aboriginal justice agreement and through many of our partners from the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and the Aboriginal Justice Caucus. We are committed to doing that work, but a lot of that work is to stop, as you say, young people coming into contact with the criminal justice system. The legislation we are talking about here is about, once young people have already committed a high level of criminal violence, making sure that there is a proportionate justice response. But obviously the goal is that young people do not make contact and do not participate in that kind of behaviour.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, has your government conducted modelling on how many additional First Nations children, children in out-of-home care, children with a disability and children who have experienced trauma will be incarcerated as a result of these reforms?

Enver ERDOGAN: It is clear that, as the purpose was set out with the announcement from the Attorney-General, it is expected that we will see an increase in the amount of young people that will be incarcerated as a result of these justice settings. The groups that you referred to are already over-represented, so it is expected that they will also be over-represented in the increase in incarceration.

Katherine COPSEY: I note that you gave a similar response in relation to the bail reforms that we debated in this place recently. You asserted that it would continue to be the same disproportionate impact, but in fact what we have seen in practice is that the disproportionate impact has been even greater, so it has exacerbated the number of First Nations people who are coming into contact with the criminal justice system. You consider that it will create a continued disproportionate impact, but your government has not done modelling – did I understand your answer correctly?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will just seek some guidance from the box.

We are expecting an increase in the amount of young people in custody. Applying the logic that Aboriginal people are already over-represented in contact with the criminal justice system, we will see an increase in Aboriginal young people in custody as a result. We are monitoring and we are committed to monitoring that, once the legislation is in place, and our focus on reducing the over-representation is before young people come in contact with the criminal justice system.

Katherine COPSEY: Removing prison as a last resort for children overrides a protected right under our charter and under international law. Can the minister identify the exceptional circumstances that justify this overriding of children’s rights?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, I accept, as tabled by the Attorney-General in the statement of compatibility, that part of this bill is incompatible with the charter of human rights. The Attorney-General also goes on to outline the justification in that document, and I think that justification is entirely sensible and compatible with what the Victorian community expects, as we say – and we have heard it loud and clear – that there are too many victims and not enough consequences. So some offending requires a stronger response than others.

Katherine COPSEY: How can the government reconcile these laws with the evidence that what it is doing is contradictory to improving community and child safety, given, quoting from the Law Council of Australia submission 195 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into Australia’s youth justice and incarceration system:

Being arrested, remanded or sentenced to detention all increase the risk that a child will commit further offences and become involved further with the criminal justice system.

Enver ERDOGAN: Children need consequences, and that is what this bill is about. Ultimately, when someone has caused such significant levels of harm, there is a range of evidence about criminal justice and how to do it right. I believe where they have caused significant levels of harm, and we are talking about criminal justice and the scales of justice, we also need to think about justice for victims. Sometimes I feel that some of these moral equivalencies are not fair for victims, and that is what we have tried to do where high levels of offending have been created. That is why we have targeted and actually limited the scope in terms of the uplifts to what we are seeing in terms of the changing nature of youth crime in our state, focusing on those offences. We believe there needs to be an appropriate response.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, with respect, you say you care about victims. How can you pursue a policy that will increase the risk that children will commit further offences and become further involved with the criminal justice system if that is the case?

Enver ERDOGAN: Children need consequences and need boundaries. When they have caused high levels of harm incarceration is appropriate, and that is the message we are sending to our courts through these amendments. I think we were finding that there were too many victims, and the consequences just did not match. Obviously, when young people enter into the criminal justice system, we have an obligation to provide them with a pathway for a better future, and that is why we do invest in services and treatment when people are with us in our youth justice system, to make sure that they can leave the system a lot stronger and less likely to reoffend. We are focused on both – consequences and early interventions – but this legislation is focused on consequences. Once that high level of harm has been caused, this is about what a fair justice outcome is in those circumstances for victims and the community.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, you have repeatedly stated that this bill reflects the views of victims. Even yesterday you said that you acknowledge that people have different views but that you are listening to victims of crime. Could you please specify which victims, organisations or advocacy groups you have consulted with in the development of this legislation?

Enver ERDOGAN: In terms of this bill, this bill was a very clear policy decision of government because we have heard there are too many victims, and we have seen too many victims and not enough consequences. Every day in our roles, as ministers and as members of Parliament, we have heard from victims and communities, and there are many, many people that we have had discussions with over that journey. But more importantly, I think it was quite publicly visible that there were not proportionate consequences for some of these high levels of harm. The target list, so to speak, has offences that were being repeated in our communities. So it was a policy decision of government, and following the announcement, there has been engagement with the courts, Victoria Legal Aid (VLA), Victoria Police, Office of Public Prosecutions, Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service (VALS) and Aboriginal Justice Caucus about these reforms. But the decision to make these reforms was based on what we know. The crime statistics are clear for everyone to read. There has been an uptick in youth crime in Victoria, and we are committed to tackling that.

Rachel PAYNE: With this policy development, what was the scope and nature of that consultation, if any? Was it formal and documented? Did it include any diverse victim cohorts, such as family violence survivors or child victims? You mentioned VALS. Were any Aboriginal communities consulted?

Enver ERDOGAN: The legislation was a policy decision in response to there being too many victims and increasing levels of crime, specifically those crimes that we have listed, which were creating the greatest harm and concern in the community and which we are responding to. Post the policy decision, there was engagement following the announcement. They were not involved in the development; the development of the policy was a government decision, as executive government has that prerogative. But following the announcement, there has been engagement with the courts, Victoria Legal Aid, Victoria Police, Office of Public Prosecutions, Aboriginal Legal Service and Aboriginal Justice Caucus. Were you asking about how that engagement was? Is that what you are looking for? I will see what detail I can provide – post announcement, I might add; it was after the policy decision. I think post announcement in the usual way – if the department or the minister’s office met with these stakeholders to hear their views.

Rachel PAYNE: Were any children who are victims of crime or have been victimised themselves consulted? The reason I ask is because we know that Aboriginal, African and Pasifika children are disproportionately targeted by police and PSOs, so we are just wondering if the bill actually incorporated any of their views or concerns.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is an ordinary part of business. Post announcement we heard from many people. Many stakeholders wrote to us as ministers – namely, the Attorney-General’s office and the department. I know our youth justice commissioner has had many conversations with many stakeholders on their views, and I can say there is no one single view. There are different views with different stakeholders within the justice system and also broadly in the community.

Rachel PAYNE: Was the victims of crime commissioner, whose statutory role is to represent and advocate for victims, briefed or consulted on this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I understand their view was sought post announcement. The policy decision was a government decision, but post the decision, yes.

Rachel PAYNE: So it was post announcement that the victims of crime commissioner was briefed. Can you explain how the government reconciles that with the obligations under the victims charter and the commissioner’s mandate to ensure victims’ voices inform justice policy?

Enver ERDOGAN: I just refer to my previous answer. I think there are too many crimes, and that is what the statistics are showing – an increase in Victoria – and not enough consequences, and many victims have told us that directly in the course of our usual role as justice ministers. So in the end, following what we are seeing and the data, the government made a policy decision to rebalance the justice settings for these specific offences.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I might take this in a little bit of a different direction. Obviously, you have got adult time for violent crime. You also have adult time for adult crime in Queensland. The framework here only contains five offences. The framework in Queensland contains 33 distinct offences that constitute serious violent crimes eligible for the adult time framework. These include manslaughter, rape, grievous bodily harm, kidnapping, armed robbery, torture, trafficking, unlawful striking causing death and numerous vehicle-related crimes involving lethal risk. Did the government consider a broader of range of offences to add to this bill? If so, why were they not included? And why did the Victorian government opt for such a small number of offences?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a very fair and good question. It is definitely a change of tack. Let me start from the outset by saying that some of those crimes that you have listed unequivocally are serious crimes that are appropriately reflected in the crimes statute book and are treated as such. But I do think it is important to distinguish Victoria from Queensland. These Victorian laws are designed for what is occurring here and what we are seeing here, so they are based on what is happening in Victoria to support the operation of the Victorian legal system. I know you can fall into the trap of looking for inspiration from Queensland. The other day I was reading that the Queensland Premier himself was saying that Queensland is the youth crime capital of Australia, so we do not want to be like that. That is not our approach, and that is not the outcome we are replicating. The issues in Queensland are a lot bigger. You can look at any data. They have a higher offence rate, for example. So we are not aspiring to get there. The list of offences are what we are seeing in particular in Victoria, and we are taking an appropriate approach. It is definitely not to say that the other offences are not very serious, but this is what we are seeing in Victoria, and it is a targeted approach for our state.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Why wasn’t rape included as an offence in the adult time for violent crime laws?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think rape, from the outset, is one of the most serious crimes that someone can commit, including children. I think there are existing provisions where cases of rape can be elevated to a higher court. This bill is really focused in particular on what we are seeing in terms of, based on the data, some of these offences that we have seen a substantial increase in from historical levels. We have tried to put a laser focus on those elements.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Crisafulli government boasts the success of its laws is largely to do with some of the intervention measures included in the broader package. Yes, there are serious consequences for violent crime, but they also had a very similar one to what we have announced, a $100 million package of specific intervention supports, including both camps and facilities, to help people with discipline, training, educational training and psychological support. Did the government look at a similar intervention model to Queensland?

Enver ERDOGAN: For consistency’s sake, I do not want to digress. We made an announcement about serious consequences and early interventions and we are committed to doing both, but today is more about the serious consequences piece. But I think it is worth adding that we have had a number of announcements following our serious consequences announcement that are focused on reducing violence, such as the violence reduction unit that is based on best practice from Glasgow and London, for example, which are focused on lived experience mentoring and turning young people’s lives around. We are most wholeheartedly committed to doing that work. But I think the focus of this bill is on serious consequences today.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Can I ask about the Scotland intervention unit?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ask away.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am just keen for a quick clarification on something that I found quite amusing. In response to questions in the lower house during question time the Premier was boasting about this model and said that as a result, crime in Scotland and London had decreased. Police-recorded crime in London has increased. Compared with about 10 years ago there has been a roughly 30 per cent rise in offences in London. Would you acknowledge that as a result of those programs crime has increased?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I said earlier, I want to be careful about being consistent in my responses to people in the chamber, but I think your questions about the violence reduction unit are important. I think the goal here is about taking a data-informed approach so that we can tackle the root causes of crime more broadly, and our initial investment is about making sure that there are positive role models in mentoring. I think the results are clearly a lot better in Glasgow than they are in London – I think anyone that looks at the data would acknowledge that – but the whole approach and challenges of every city are different and the demographics are different. That is why even our violence reduction unit – the lived-experience mentoring is one example and is one that we have already announced – is focused on connecting with those communities that we do see over-represented, as a starting point. But I do not want to digress, because today is about too many victims and not enough consequences, and I need to be consistent for everyone in the chamber, so I want to just focus on the sections of this bill, please.

Evan MULHOLLAND: When we were, a couple of years ago now – maybe even a year and a half ago – having a conversation in this place that everyone was engaged in about raising the age of criminal responsibility, we made the argument, both at 14 and at 12, that older, more sinister criminal elements would use children to carry out serious offences. I think we have seen several examples of more sinister criminal elements using children to carry out firebombings, aggravated burglaries, tobacco shop arsons – all sorts of horrific crimes. Do you acknowledge that that is the case? You have obviously got 14 as the appropriate age threshold. How did you come to that age figure? What evidence was that based on?

Enver ERDOGAN: Good question. The age of criminal responsibility is 12, and I will not be relitigating that issue today. In terms of 14, we know that young people do have different developmental stages, and we felt that 14 was the appropriate age to lift it to. It was, again, a policy decision based on the fact of young people’s development, and I guess in terms of the conduct of these kinds of behaviour we felt 14 was appropriate in the circumstances to raise to adult courts. Any younger we did not believe was appropriate, from what we are seeing.

Katherine COPSEY: Did the government consider focus groups in developing this policy?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think on consultation, our focus – I believe I have already answered this question. Ultimately, this legislation came about because we did see a changing nature of crime. We have seen the statistics of an increase in these types of crimes in particular. There are just too many victims and we felt the consequences were not appropriate. So it was not based on focus groups, it is about what we have seen occurring in Victoria.

Katherine COPSEY: Where did you see that?

Enver ERDOGAN: There are crime statistics, but I would not just rely on crime statistics as well. It is also based on the number of victims we are seeing and obviously, as members of the executive but also as members of Parliament, what we are hearing in the community.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, turning to the impacts that this will have on girls and non-binary children and young people, how does this bill take into account the specific and unique needs of young girls and non-binary people? Girls and young women, especially from Aboriginal and African backgrounds, experience compounded gendered violence and will be disproportionately impacted, as you have admitted, by these laws, funnelled into the system and then subjected to all of the things that occur when someone is institutionalised. Will there be a targeted strategy to support girls who are criminalised as a result of this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am very tempted to say we have very, very few young girls incarcerated in Victoria, but that work that you are talking about is more programmatic on the ground level, so it is not necessarily in this bill. We are not doing carve-outs per se. That work you are talking about is more on the ground level. But I can say, as Minister for Youth Justice, it is a good statistic; there are very few young girls incarcerated in our state.

Katherine COPSEY: I think we are going to get into familiar territory to your answers to the anti-protest laws that we passed in this place early on Wednesday morning. In your response there, you are acknowledging that there are some existing supports but there will be nothing additional despite the additional impacts this bill will create.

Enver ERDOGAN: That is not what I said. We are doing increased engagement in terms of early interventions and, as I have stated to Mr Mulholland, I do not want to get into that space because I want to focus on serious consequences today. And there are going to be a whole bunch of government announcements. There have already been some about, for example, work in the school environment – again, outside this portfolio and outside this bill. There is work in schools, so in the classroom. There will be work with lived experience mentoring. That will all go to addressing and intervening for all young people, irrespective of gender, to support them. But I want to focus on this bill today, if we can.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, you have acknowledged that this bill is going to disproportionately affect Aboriginal children, and I note that African children and Pasifika children, in particular, and other communities of colour are already overpoliced and face disproportionate impacts from our justice system. How does this bill not constitute indirect racial discrimination?

Enver ERDOGAN: The direct goal of this legislation is to ensure that where a high level of harm has been caused, especially in relation to these listed offences, there is an appropriate, proportionate response by the courts, and that is why we have elevated these offences to adult courts, because we know the level of harm it causes to victims, and that is my focus here. The issue of proportionality – I feel we have already touched on this issue earlier. A lot of these issues are because we do not want these young people to come in contact with criminal justice in the first place, so a lot of those supports need to happen, and a lot of it is happening outside the criminal justice setting.

Katherine COPSEY: I just want to take you up on a point you made in your response then. You said that there need to be proportionate responses and that is why you are uplifting things to the adult courts. Are you asserting that sentences passed through the Children’s Court are not proportionate?

Enver ERDOGAN: I want to make clear that that was not what I was saying and I had no intention of reflecting on the courts. As we know, we have an independent judiciary. This is about legislative reform, making sure that there are the appropriate settings to hear these matters, and we feel that the County Court is better placed. We do know, as the Attorney-General outlined in her announcement, that when young people go to the County Court they are more likely to be incarcerated and get a jail sentence, and they are some of the policy objectives. We are saying for these offences a jail term is appropriate. It is a clear policy decision. For these offences jail is appropriate, and it is reflected in the community’s expectations for these offences. That is why we have elevated it. The Children’s Court, as you reflected earlier – I did listen to your contribution during the second-reading debate – is a specialist court. I want to thank them for the work they do, but I have no intention of reflecting on any of our courts. It is just factual that in the County Court in these matters there is more of a likelihood of incarceration, and that is the goal. For these offences we are sending a strong signal that we expect a term of jail.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, just a question about how committal hearings will work under these changes: when a child is charged with a death-related offence they first appear in the Children’s Court for a committal hearing. Will this be the same procedure for the offences nominated in this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm the same process will apply.

Rachel PAYNE: What we have heard from experts is that children require child-specific procedures and environments to effectively participate in legal proceedings. My question is: has the government considered the impacts of the lack of these services in the County Court? And will the government consider establishing a specialist children’s list in the County Court?

Enver ERDOGAN: We are committed to appropriately resourcing the court, but establishing a specific list is a matter for the court.

Rachel PAYNE: In relation to that being required by the court, the County Court facilities will need to meet child safe standards, such as separate waiting areas, trauma-informed staff and no shared space with adult defendants. Is that correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Trung LUU: I just want to go on to the framework relating to designated offences. I know you mentioned earlier it is a response to what is happening in Victoria. I just want to clarify – there are two that have been mentioned in here. I know in the Crimes Act 1958 there is already intentionally causing injury and there is already intentionally causing serious injury, whereas this one uplifts designated offences to intentionally causing injury in circumstances of gross violence. Can you just define ‘gross violence’ and what the classification of gross violence is and who determines what is gross violence?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Mr Luu, for that really informative question. ‘Gross violence’ is defined in the Crimes Act, so it actually has a definition. It includes conduct planned with the intent to or implied knowledge it would cause serious injury; serious injury caused by the offender in company with two others; the offender planning to be armed with an offensive weapon, including weapons such as a machete – and using that weapon to cause serious injury; continuing to cause injury after the victim has been incapacitated; or causing serious injury while the victim is incapacitated. So gross violence is defined in the Crimes Act. We will be using that definition.

Trung LUU: I want to ask a question in relation to injury. There is ‘causing serious injury’ and ‘causing injury’. You just said ‘gross violence in company’. Does this offence only apply when it is in concert – more than two offenders? Secondly, when you say gross violence, serious injury, the definition in the Crimes Act says it is multiple injuries, not just one. So what is it? Why are we creating a new offence which complicates regarding intentionally causing serious injury with gross violence – does it contradict itself or is it the same offence?

Enver ERDOGAN: No, that is not what my intention was. That is not what I was saying. We are not creating a new offence in that sense, but I think gross violence is more defined as and includes – I was giving examples of what it includes. That was my focus.

Trung LUU: I am still not quite clear on the difference between the offences being put forward – and as you said, there is no new offence – between intentionally causing injury in circumstances of gross violence and intentionally causing serious injury, which in the definition is part of gross violence. Can you define the difference between the two? Because assaults are happening at the moment. Respectfully, what is happening in Victoria are ‘intentionally causing serious injuries’, which are all the offences happening at the moment.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the goal here is to uplift some of these offences that are already defined in the Crimes Act to the adult court, for children. That is the real purpose. Many of those offences you have described are already defined in the Crimes Act. All we are doing is making sure that when they are perpetrated by a 14- or 15- or 16- or 17-year-old they can go to the higher court. That is the real goal here. I do not know if that assists. Causing serious injury is one offence; causing serious injury with gross violence is another, more serious offence. They are both different levels of the offence. They already exist. All we are saying here is where a child perpetrates them, it could be heard in the adult court. That is what we are trying to do. That is the goal here. These offences already exist.

Trung LUU: So ‘intentionally causing serious injury’ is part of this ‘intentionally causing injury in circumstances of gross violence’, I take it?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. That is a more serious offence, and it will be elevated to a higher court for a young person.

Trung LUU: So are you saying intentionally causing injury in circumstances of gross violence is another offence which is more elevated?

Enver ERDOGAN: Than just causing serious injury.

Trung LUU: So in relation to all the offences occurring at the moment with all those injuries, they are not particularly gross violence?

Enver ERDOGAN: I now know where you are headed. You are right that causing serious injury is not part of this bill, so we are not elevating it. If you cause serious injury alone, it will not be automatic – it will just be subject to the existing provisions of the Children’s Court, where on a case-by-case basis the court may see fit to elevate it. But it is not part of this bill.

Trung LUU: So we definitely know now that it is a different offence – intentionally causing injury in circumstances of gross violence. That is different from intentionally causing serious injury. I just want to ask the minister: who defines and where do we classify gross violence? Is it the courts or the police putting forward the charges?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, in the usual way, police will decide what charges to bring. So if they bring the higher charge, then obviously following the committal process if it is going to be committed for hearing it will go to the higher court.

Trung LUU: I understand the police decide the charge, but there are two offences at the moment – causing injury and causing serious injury. Gross violence is not a charge; it is something being put forward today as a designated offence in the Crimes Act – intentionally causing injury in circumstances of gross violence. I just want to know: is it the police who determine the points of proof for gross violence before they type the charges – because every time you type a charge you need to certify that the points of proof have been ticked off – or do the police charge the offender with causing serious injury, at which point they bring it to the court and then the magistrate or the judge deems it to be gross violence after it has been brought to court?

Enver ERDOGAN: Gross violence is defined, and police bring evidence to prove gross violence. The court determine if the evidence stands. Like with any charge, it is up to police to bring evidence to prove gross violence.

Trung LUU: I am not really sure you answered the question relating to the points of proof of gross violence with these types of charges, but we will move on. I take it that the police bring the charges. Whether they type ‘gross violence’ or ‘serious injury’, it is something the police I think need to consider during the procedure.

Just moving forward, because we are going back and forth here in relation to those two offences, in relation to the five charges, you stated earlier that they are designated in response to what is happening in Victoria. It is fantastic that you are responding to it. I just want to ask you in relation to the response in Victoria: there is one particular charge in Queensland, trafficking in dangerous drugs. It has been noted in this chamber that in one location alone, the medically supervised injecting room in Richmond, there were over 1100 overdoses. I was wondering, in response to what is happening in Victoria, is drug trafficking in Victoria serious enough to be put as a designated offence? There have been over 1100 overdoses at one particular location. How many overdoses in Victoria would make it serious enough to respond to what is happening in Victoria in the crime space?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will take that almost as a statement, Mr Luu, but I thank you for sharing your concern. I think what we have tried to do today is respond to what we have heard from the community, as we are members of the executive but also members of Parliament. These are the offences causing the most concern: home invasions, aggravated home invasions, aggravated carjackings, intentionally causing serious injury, carjackings, aggravated burglaries and armed robberies. With some of these what we are seeing is a lot of serious and repeat offending, so we have had to have a bit of a focus and limit them. I do understand that the offence that you referred to is something very serious, similar to the offence that Mr Mulholland raised; these are very serious offences. But in the Victorian response these are what we are subjecting to the higher court, and we have focused on these offences. I can understand that there are many other serious offences, but these are the ones that we have made a policy decision to elevate.

Trung LUU: Just one more question before you finish off: under the human rights charter and under this bill, are there any exemptions for young offenders based on ethnicity and religion?

Enver ERDOGAN: No, not proposed in this bill.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, just on the topic of ethnicity that Mr Luu just raised, is there any work underway to monitor the impacts of increased incarceration of young people through the admissions process into court systems? You seem quite aware of the number of First Nations young people impacted. What kind of information do you get, and do you foresee that there need to be changes to record whether or not this is having a different impact on young people from different ethnic backgrounds?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a really important question. I think data collection is an issue and a matter that I know both of us share concern about. In our youth justice system we do a great job of collecting not just First Nations but also ethnicity data, and I think that is important. In adult corrections that is a bit different. We only collect country of birth, which is not the level of detail that we sometimes require. In terms of what the courts collect, I might just seek some guidance. But we do want better data so we can make better decisions and better investments as a government. I might just seek some guidance about what the courts collect through that charging process as well, but I am all for trying to get as much information as we can. The other side of it is that we can target those early interventions where they are needed most. Let me seek some guidance about what the courts collect, but in youth justice we collect ethnicity, race, religion – all that information – and obviously gender. The adult system only collects country of birth, but I will see what the courts collect. One moment.

Ms Copsey, I am not sure if you are already aware, but now at the charge stage police do in fact keep data on ethnicity as well as race data.

Katherine COPSEY: In relation to an independent statutory review to monitor this reform’s impacts, including any imprisonment of First Nations or other marginalised children, why has the government not included a two-year statutory review?

Enver ERDOGAN: We are committed to monitoring our new laws, as we do for all our reforms. But these are permanent changes to the criminal justice settings.

Katherine COPSEY: So there is not a timeframe in which you would be committed today to reviewing these laws?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Katherine COPSEY: If the government intends to override the rights of children under the charter of human rights, as we have discussed and acknowledged is going to occur, you are aware that requires exceptional circumstances under section 31(4) of the charter. How is the government going to monitor when those exceptional circumstances have concluded?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think we are going over similar ground, but this bill is necessary to address compelling and pressing community safety concerns brought about by unprecedented incidents of serious and violent offending by young people. We would say, and I think the Attorney-General addressed this issue in her statement of compatibility, that we do not have an override declaration in this bill. It is not necessary. The incompatibility with the charter is due to the inherent difficulty of meeting the high standard set by the charter and the challenges that come from legislating in the criminal justice system. We believe that overall the priority of community safety needs to come first, and that is what we are focused on today.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, how long therefore do you plan to infringe on the rights of children, and what are you going to be monitoring in order to determine whether that is still necessary?

Enver ERDOGAN: As we do for all our laws, we will be monitoring the application of these laws going forward. Like with all our reforms, if there are further reforms needed, we will not hesitate to make changes.

Katherine COPSEY: That is a good segue to my next question, Minister. Why is the government not committed to data collection and monitoring, as recommended by the Australian Human Rights Commission? They would wish to see that any reform premised on reducing youth crime must measure outcomes, equity and harm. What kinds of structures will you have in place to collect data on these outcomes?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, you would appreciate we have existing datasets, both Victorian and national datasets, that we obviously keep a close eye on.

Katherine COPSEY: That was quite a broad answer. I have heard you refer to crime statistics previously as a justification for this policy. What other data are you speaking about in terms of that dataset that you just referred to?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am just referring to many of the publicly available reports, such as the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports, the reports on government services, which we all see, and of course youth justice’s own internal reports and data.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, the State of Australia’s Children 2025 report shows children with disabilities, especially children with cognitive disability and neurodevelopmental conditions, are significantly more likely to come into contact with police and the criminal justice system. Has the government built any disability-informed safeguards into these reforms, and if not, why not?

Enver ERDOGAN: For 14-year-olds and for the offence of carjacking, some of those provisions and considerations are built in for the uplift, but not for the other offences.

Rachel PAYNE: Children with undiagnosed disability are over-represented in youth detention and are less able to navigate those adult court processes, it would be assumed. Why has the government not included specialist protections or screening requirements before uplifting a child to the County Court?

Enver ERDOGAN: I refer to some of my earlier remarks. It is our view that serious offending requires serious consequences. The focus of this bill is solely on community safety, and therefore we do not believe it is appropriate to have any carve-outs of that nature for these targeted offences.

Rachel PAYNE: In relation to police complaints and accountability, 15 per cent of IBAC’s investigations and preliminary inquiries are into the corrections and youth justice sector, making it the third-most investigated sector after local government and Victoria Police. How does the government intend to keep children in custody safe and what consideration has been given to monitoring, improvement and oversight of child detention facilities?

Enver ERDOGAN: This is an issue I am very passionate about. In Victoria we have robust oversight mechanisms in our youth justice systems. We of course have dedicated commissioners, which you are well aware of; we have IBAC – and the statistics that you shared I think are an indication that people can make complaints and that they are appropriately reviewed; we have the Ombudsman; we have the independent visitors. In our settings we have healthcare professionals that have sworn an oath and we have many educational providers, so there is existing oversight. We have WorkSafe. Also we have a department that is committed to keeping the community safe but also providing a safe environment for people in custodial settings. So I believe we have a robust framework of oversight in Victoria in our youth justice settings. I will take your statistic as an indication that it is working; people can make complaints and matters are followed through and reviewed.

Rachel PAYNE: I too am quite passionate about the integrity space as someone who is on the Integrity and Oversight Committee. We often receive feedback from both integrity agencies – IBAC and the Ombudsman – that funding is an issue. With the fact that we will see an increase in young people in detention due to these changes in legislation, is there any intention then to reflect on the budget restraints around that investigative or oversight process?

Enver ERDOGAN: You would not find an agency or an organisation that would not ask for greater resources, I am sure, if they were unlimited. But I think no – no specific additional resources.

Rachel PAYNE: Thank you, Minister; that is helpful. In the current financial year the government has invested $4.51 billion in policing and $727 million to increase beds in Victorian prisons and youth justice centres. Can I just clarify: with that $727 million, is there an equivalent investment, or is it captured, in offering childhood behavioural programs, including funding of youth legal services, youth alcohol and drug services, family violence counselling, youth homelessness services and community- and Aboriginal-controlled organisations delivering services for First Nations communities? Is it all captured under that budget, or would that be considered under a separate budget?

Enver ERDOGAN: I just wanted to double-check before I gave a response on record. Yes, some of the community safety package is for organisations – you gave an example – like VLA, VALS and others as well. So they incorporated some in custodial services but also outside custody.

Katherine COPSEY: The Yoorrook Justice Commission has made a number of recommendations based on truth-telling and extensive evidence around what will address the over-representation of First Nations people in custody. The changes in this bill are, to put it bluntly, inconsistent with the findings and recommendations made by the Yoorrook Justice Commission. Why has the government decided to ignore the evidence, advice and guidance of Yoorrook in tabling this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think I have given a similar answer, so without repeating myself, there have been too many victims and too many serious offences and serious harm. So there need to be serious consequences in place to respond, and that has been the main focus of these reforms. Yes, we are balancing different rights here, but victims have been the greatest focus to make sure there are appropriate sanctions or appropriate sentences in place for those people that cause that high level of harm.

Rachel PAYNE: Just on consultation, a hundred community organisations have written an open letter to the Premier strongly opposing these laws and the lack of consultation with frontline workers and services on the ground who work with these children every day. Why has the government developed these significant departures from current youth law justice sentencing practices without consulting with legal and community experts?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, as good governments do, we have heard the community’s broader concern loud and clear, and there was concern about a lack of serious consequences for this high-level offending. Therefore we have taken it on ourselves as the executive to set about a policy which recalibrates the system where there will be adult time for violent crime, because that is appropriate for some of these offences. We do not want people incarcerated for low-level offending, but the offences we are targeting in the bill today are fairly and squarely very high level and cause a high level of harm, and we believe an appropriate response is needed. But I do want to thank those organisations. Many of those organisations are our partners more broadly in the justice system, and we will continue to engage with them. But in relation to this policy, I think it is the high-level harm that we are focused on.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, in the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 there are safeguard provisions that require not only that consultation occur but that responses are considered in good faith and that there is a response by your government to any issues that those bodies raise. Do you believe that the level of consultation for this bill met the government’s obligations under treaty?

Enver ERDOGAN: As a government we are proud of the treaty act and changes it will bring to self-determination for First Nations people, and as a government we remain very committed to that relationship. But in the formation of this bill, as I think I have already stated, the focus was on making sure that we act to contain this acute problem being driven by a small group of serious offenders, and there were just too many victims and not enough consequences. You will note even under the treaty there is an obligation to consult, but ultimately as the government of the day we will need to make these tough decisions, and that is what we have done today.

Katherine COPSEY: Yes or no: do you think that you met your obligations under treaty in developing this bill, or are you saying that in this case you have allowed those other considerations to override it?

Enver ERDOGAN: Could you say that second bit again, sorry?

Katherine COPSEY: In your response just then, are you saying that in this case you have allowed those other considerations to override your obligations under treaty?

Enver ERDOGAN: We are committed to treaty, but in this instance the government made a policy decision and that was communicated to partners after the decision was made.

Katherine COPSEY: That is not what is envisioned by treaty.

Enver ERDOGAN: I will take that as a comment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you repeat the question, Ms Copsey?

Katherine COPSEY: You have not met the process that is laid out under treaty for consultation on this bill, have you?

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Deputy President, I am just concerned that the questions are becoming increasingly circular and repetitive. The minister has, to my listening, already answered these questions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, do you feel the same way? It is up to you if you wish to answer or if you wish to make a statement.

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Katherine COPSEY: I take it from your silence that I am not incorrect to say the government has failed to meet its obligations to consult, as laid out by treaty, in the development of this legislation. Correct the record if you feel the need.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will take that as a comment. It is dangerous to interpret or put words in a minister’s mouth in the committee stage, so if we could stick to questions on the bill, please.

Katherine COPSEY: I am very happy for the words to come out of the minister’s mouth if he wants to.

In the era of treaty, a state that talks about self-determination cannot justify life sentences for 14-year-olds. The First People’s Assembly has put on the public record that:

The government should be prioritising prevention, healing and support for children who are at risk or have offended, not throwing them behind bars.

Minister, what is your response to that?

Enver ERDOGAN: I want to thank Aboriginal stakeholders for sharing their views on the bill. I do acknowledge that many of them expressed their opposition to this bill; I do acknowledge that. What I will say is that, outside of this bill, separately, we are tackling over-representation of Aboriginal children in our justice system with self-determined programs and responses, both in the youth system and the adult system, and we remain very committed to working with them more than ever.

Rachel PAYNE: The data tells us and the experts tell us – ex-prisoners also tell us – that prison itself is criminogenic. Time in prison literally makes people more likely to reoffend and therefore makes the community less safe. What sort of prevention mechanism is included in this bill, if any, that will see young people not just continue in that cycle of recidivism?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Ms Payne, for a really important question but a question that I feel is more focused on our government’s announcement around early interventions and about breaking the cycle and addressing the root causes of violence – we are doing that work. But this bill is not focused there; this bill is on the serious consequences aspect of our announcement. So there are serious consequences and there are early interventions. This bill’s focus is on serious consequences; we are doing a separate piece of work in terms of early interventions. We have a number of programs and partnerships that we are focused on, and we have announced some of them – in terms of the violence reduction unit, lived experience and mentoring programs in schools – but I feel that many of them are outside the scope of this bill.

Rachel PAYNE: Crime statistics and criminologists alike show that youth offending overall has not exploded. A very small number of young people are responsible for a disproportionate share of serious incidents, and you have touched on this around the types of offending. But I would like to reiterate that police deputy commissioner Hill, as reported on 25 September 2025, said that a small cohort was responsible for 40 per cent of crime in Victoria. That cohort is less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of Victorians. Is the government intending on targeting that particular cohort, and is there any intention that there would be intervention options available for that cohort?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, most definitely we are targeting that cohort, and some of the listed offences are those offences that we are seeing a propensity to be repeated. But a lot of that work is in fact outside this bill in early interventions work, and that lived-experience mentoring was one of the first announcements as part of our violence reduction unit. That will be the focus. It is about people from these communities working with young people in these communities. That is the goal, but a lot of that work is outside the scope of this bill.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, forgive me if this is a repetition, but I cannot remember if we have actually covered it off. These are significant reforms which will impact court resourcing. What plan is in place to ensure the safe implementation of these reforms within, I believe, the three-month timeframe the government is aiming for?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am assured that the Attorney-General is committed to working with the courts to make sure it is implemented as safely as possible.

Katherine COPSEY: Yes, significantly more time and resources are required to hear matters in the County Court, so what additional resources will the government be providing to the County Court and legal services to ensure these matters can be run efficiently and in a timely manner?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the Premier, when we made the announcement, stated that we will be appropriately resourcing these reforms as needed, and the Attorney-General’s office is working with the courts as we speak, making sure that these reforms are appropriately resourced. Those investments are not part of this bill, and they will be reported in the usual way.

Katherine COPSEY: Children who are unsentenced and on remand are innocent until proven guilty. In the likely event that courts are not ready by February – we are coming up to Christmas, so the lists are already jam packed – there could be up to 450 cases uplifted from the Children’s Court as a result of these measures. What measures has the government put in place to ensure children are not spending extended periods in prison while they await trial because of court delays?

Enver ERDOGAN: We have a commencement date, and we are working towards that.

Katherine COPSEY: Did the courts have any consultation on this policy prior to the announcement or, just like other stakeholders, were they informed of this after the fact?

Enver ERDOGAN: As with all of our law reforms, the courts are consulted, and they were consulted on these reforms before the announcement.

Katherine COPSEY: Well, that sounds like a special case then. Have the courts given you feedback on the likely resourcing that they will need?

Enver ERDOGAN: We are working with all the stakeholders to make sure they are appropriately resourced and ready to go by the commencement date.

Katherine COPSEY: Coming to a particular matter in relation to the designated offences that are uplifted to the adult court, the government has used an ambiguous term: ‘repeated pattern’. Why has the government used that language rather than a clear, legal test, such as ‘a proven pattern of serious violent offences’?

Enver ERDOGAN: In my view, it is important to give the courts appropriate discretion, and I think to use a term such as that will mean that the decision-makers in the circumstances will be able to make an assessment based on the lay understanding of those terms.

Katherine COPSEY: Is it the government’s intention that children with low-level or nonviolent prior matters would face automatic uplift?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, you would understand for some of the charges it is an automatic uplift. There is a presumption of uplift for some of the offences listed in the act. Therefore for the offences listed with a presumption, that presumption will exist irrespective of past offending – for some of the offences, not for all of the offences.

Katherine COPSEY: But you have referred repeatedly to high-harm and violent offences, so can you clarify the government’s intent? Are you trying to be selective with the types of crimes that are subject to automatic uplift?

Enver ERDOGAN: Sorry, with your indulgence, Ms Copsey, could you repeat that question?

Katherine COPSEY: If I can remember it. You have referred repeatedly throughout the debate to high-harm and violent offences. Is it the government’s intention to be selective about the types of alleged crimes that are subject to automatic uplift? That is, are you trying to focus on high-harm and violent offences as opposed to low-level repeat offending?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Katherine COPSEY: How will the bill avoid uplifting nonviolent aggravated burglary charges, which do occur – for example, someone entering a home with an intent to steal where there is no violence?

Enver ERDOGAN: The aggravated nature of it in itself is violent, I would say.

Katherine COPSEY: I think you might want to check the definition of ‘aggravated’ with the box.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will take that as a comment.

Enver ERDOGAN: I will withdraw that answer in response to Ms Copsey.

Katherine COPSEY: Children uplifted to the County Court will not have access to the Children’s Court Clinic, which provides vital and specialist information to the court about the psychological wellbeing of children and their development. This will be particularly punitive for vulnerable children who may not have received diagnoses. They might be in a situation where this is their first opportunity to have conditions diagnosed, such as developmental conditions, disabilities or mental health conditions. How will the Victorian government ensure that the specialist assessments that are currently undertaken in the Children’s Court Clinic are made available for children who are facing uplift to the County Court?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I stated in my answer to the previous questions, we are going to work with the courts to make sure they are ready for the commencement date. We will make sure that there are appropriate supports in place. But that work is obviously ongoing, and we still have some time.

Katherine COPSEY: I take it from that answer it is the government’s intention that those sorts of supports that the Children’s Court Clinic provides are going to continue to be available to the cohort that are targeted by this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: I cannot commit to exactly the same, but there will be supports in place.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, the statement of compatibility admits that the mandatory uplifts are incompatible with children’s rights under the charter of human rights, and it concedes that more children will be exposed to adult prisons, despite our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to keep them separate from adults in detention. The statement also notes that children in adult prisons face a greater prospect of being placed in protective separation, which is effectively solitary confinement. This has already caused this government significant problems in relation to subjecting children to that when we have had issues with lockdowns and solitary confinement in youth justice settings. Subjecting children to such conditions amounts to cruel, inhumane, inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of their rights under the charter. How are you going to overcome this difficulty, and how are you going to avoid children being placed in, effectively, solitary confinement when they are awaiting trial?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, Ms Copsey, we are getting into really detailed operational matters about children on remand, but children on remand will be placed in the youth justice system during that period.

Katherine COPSEY: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that. The statement of compatibility speaking about children being exposed to adult prisons is worrying. Are you committing to your government’s intention being to minimise that as much as possible?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. There does exist a power under the existing legislation for an over-16-year-old to be transferred to the adult system. I have only seen that being used once during my time. Broadly speaking, the broad rule is that they are in the youth justice system if they are under 18.

Katherine COPSEY: There is a bit of an inconsistency in relation to the carjacking offence, and I would just like to clarify how this operates. Adult carjacking matters can be heard in the Magistrates’ Court. Does a child charged with the new carjacking offence face automatic uplift to the County Court, thereby exposing them to a more severe penalty than an adult in the same circumstances?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Copsey, that is a really good question, and it is something that I know that the Attorney-General has had close consideration of in the drafting of the bill. That is why it is not one of the offences that is subject to an automatic uplift per se. It will be up to the discretion of the court to consider if it is appropriate in the case to uplift to the County Court, so the Children’s Court could still in the circumstances – because there are different types of carjacking offences and levels of harm caused – decide to keep that case in the Children’s Court.

Katherine COPSEY: Just so I have understood that: it is in relation to 14-year-olds and 15- to 17-year-olds that that circumstance can apply?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, you are correct. That will apply to 14- to 17-year-olds for the carjacking offence, and because of the issue you raised it was considered by the Attorney-General. We thought it was best that it not be automatically uplifted. Instead, depending on the severity, the Children’s Court could make that decision.

Rachel PAYNE: Just back onto the Children’s Court conducting committal hearings, I am wanting to clarify some points on that. Obviously victims will seek resolution as soon as possible, and given that with the nominated offences the young person would be sentenced according to the Sentencing Act 1991, there could be concern about delays. Is there any commitment to make sure that there is appropriate resourcing of magistrates in both the County Court and the Children’s Court?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I stated earlier, we are committed to resourcing the courts to implement these reforms, and we will work with the courts to make that happen. So we are committed to the resourcing that is needed.

Rachel PAYNE: Committals represent an additional procedural step, and full briefings of evidence would be required to be prepared and served before a committal were listed for hearing. So is it anticipated that Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) or VicPol would prosecute the committals, and have they been provided with additional resources?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm that OPP will be running those committals, and they will be resourced accordingly.

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, line 13, omit “and the Youth Justice Act 2024”.

I will speak to my amendments all at once for clarity. On the effect of my amendments, this bill today is removing really important principles that this Parliament only recently introduced after an exhaustive process to improve justice outcomes and to improve the rights of children within our youth justice system. My amendments retain core sentencing principles of rehabilitation, positive development and detention as a last resort, and they do that by deleting clauses 12 and 13 of the bill. In the government’s bill clause 12 removes from section 204 of the Youth Justice Act the principle that ‘efforts to support rehabilitation and positive development are the most effective ways to reduce reoffending’. And in the government’s bill clause 13 removes from section 208 of the Youth Justice Act 2024 the principle that custodial sentencing for children must be a last resort and imposed only for the minimum period appropriate and necessary. The effect of my amendments is to retain these important principles within our youth justice framework, and I commend them to the house.

Enver ERDOGAN: The government will not be supporting Ms Copsey’s amendments. In saying that, I will emphasise that this was not a decision the government made lightly. It was in response to what we are seeing in terms of there being too many victims and not enough consequences. As a result, we are now acting to contain this problem driven by a small number of serious offenders. The Attorney-General has worked diligently to make sure the scope of the reforms is targeted at those offences. In light of that, I urge everyone in the chamber to vote against these amendments and support the bill.

Melina BATH: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment, and my colleague Mr Mulholland has outlined in detail the reasons why.

David LIMBRICK: I thank Ms Copsey for bringing forward this amendment. As I stated in my second-reading debate speech, I am not convinced of the effects of this bill, and I have had even less chance to do consultation on the effects of the amendments. Therefore I will not be supporting any amendments today, regardless of whether or not I am sympathetic to what Ms Copsey is proposing.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Ms Copsey’s amendment 1, which tests all her remaining amendments, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Rachel PAYNE: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 19 insert –

“(ca) to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to provide that a child convicted by the County Court in respect of certain offences has a right to an appeal on which the Court of Appeal must order that there be a new trial conducted by the Trial Division of the Supreme Court; and”.

I raised this in the second-reading debate, but essentially it is around how young people whose matters are uplifted to the County Court are no longer able to bring a de novo appeal, losing the right they had in the Children’s Court to appeal. Instead they can apply to the Supreme Court in the standard appeal process. However, this process of appeal is complex and dependent on the facts of each case. These changes mean children will have their ability to seek appeal against their sentencing drastically diminished. Children’s right to appeal is a fundamental aspect of access to justice, requiring special protection, and it should not be diminished in any way. My amendment seeks to address this issue by allowing a child to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which would then order a new trial by the Supreme Court.

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Ms Payne for her amendment, but I can confirm that the government will not be supporting this amendment, as the existing appeal process for appeals from County Court decisions is in our view fit for purpose. It requires the Court of Appeal to give leave to appeal, and a child must have some grounds to appeal. So we do not support a new, distinct process.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Ms Payne’s amendment 1, which tests all of her remaining amendments, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 2 (17:42)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

1.   Clause 2, lines 27 to 31, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(2) Parts 3 and 4 come into operation on 30 September 2026.”.

I covered this off in my second-reading debate speech. This amendment, essentially, delays the commencement of the bill until 30 September 2026, reflecting the commencement of outstanding provisions of the Youth Justice Act. This is because the systems need time to effectively manage an estimated additional 450 cases, including an estimated 250 to 300 cases subject to the mandatory uplift provisions in this bill currently heard in the Children’s Court being heard in the County Court. Essentially, it is just to allow us the time for the system to catch up to the changes within this bill.

Enver ERDOGAN: The government will not be supporting these amendments.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Ms Purcell’s amendment 1, which tests all her amendments 4 to 15, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 11 and division heading preceding clause 11 (17:46)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

2.   Division heading before clause 11, omit this heading.

3.   Clause 11, omit this clause.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind people that if they are in support of Ms Purcell’s position, they should vote no, and if they are not, they should vote yes.

Council divided on clause and division heading:

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (17:51): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (17:51): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

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 same without amendment.