Thursday, 14 November 2019

 Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (14:44): I am pleased to rise and indicate on behalf of the opposition that the opposition will not be opposing the Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Offenders and Other Matters) Bill 2019. This bill amends a number of justice acts. It amends the Corrections Act 1986, the Serious Offenders Act 2018 and the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. As one would anticipate, there are a significant number of updating, administrative-style amendments—I would refer to them as implementation amendments—in relation to the serious offenders legislation, which of course came into being and was passed by this place in 2018 and which is quite a significant reform, establishing a new authority and creating that separation from the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. There are a number of amendments to that act and a number of amendments to the Corrections Act and to the Children, Youth and Families Act.

The opposition, as my colleague Mr Southwick in the other place has communicated, will be moving amendments to the legislation. Those amendments will seek to enhance the role of victims of crime in the system and provide protection to victims of crime. The amendment to have a victim as a member of the adult parole board was an election commitment of the Liberal-Nationals coalition at last year’s election. We believe it remains good policy and therefore we will be moving that amendment during the course of the committee stage.

The bill makes a number of reforms to the Corrections Act. It makes reforms to the use of emergency management days to disallow their use in some cases. This follows the prisoners involved in the Metropolitan Remand Centre (MRC) riot seeking to apply for emergency management days. The amendment will amend the Corrections Act so that prisoners involved in security incidents which cause the lockdown of prisons, which leads to the granting of emergency management days, cannot actually apply for those emergency management days. Generally when a prison is in lockdown prisoners can apply for up to four emergency management days to make up for that day of being locked down.

The Metropolitan Remand Centre riot was of course an enormous shock to Victorians. Unlike the New South Wales government when it implemented the smoking ban in its prison system and had its equivalent of the security and emergency services group and other highly trained prison response units ready and available to deal with any disturbances, the Andrews government decided to have barbecues and utilise other means of engaging prisoners as part of managing the introduction of the smoking ban on 1 July 2015. History will show the approach taken by the New South Wales government worked very effectively. Their smoking ban was implemented with very little disturbance and very little unrest.

We now know that the trashing of the Metropolitan Remand Centre ruined the lives of several prison officers who have been left deeply traumatised with PTSD as well as, in some instances, significant physical injuries. It forced a number of prison officers to leave the employ of Corrections Victoria. And the taxpayer has been left with a bill of over $100 million in total costs to fix and upgrade the MRC as a result of that disgraceful, shocking prison riot that saw such disgraceful behaviour, the targeting of prison officers and concerns about the accessing of the private information of prison officers from secure parts of the prison that were accessed by prisoners.

Some of those prisoners who caused that damage had the gall to then apply for emergency management days because—guess what?—the prison was in chaos, with some maximum-security prisoners transported to the Hopkins prison in Ararat because there was nowhere else to put them. The MRC, or what was left of it, was left in lockdown for weeks and months. Some of those prisoners then applied for basically discounts on their time in prison as a result of the riot that they had caused. This amendment is a good one, and again I note the gall of some who trash public property and cause enormous cost to the state and who then think they will be able to generate a discount on their prison term as a result.

The bill also extends the operation of the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund to include compensation to convicted prisoners who were on remand at the time of the incident where compensation is incurred but who are subsequently convicted and sentenced. It makes changes to clarify existing powers and provide new powers to enable parcels received by prisoners to be managed as the prisoner’s property, including allowing the storage of items until the prisoner’s release.

It amends section 47 of the Corrections Act to allow a prison general manager to stop all or part of a letter or parcel being sent or received by a prisoner if the general manager reasonably believes the prisoner and the sender may be placed at risk of exploitation or manipulation. Of course the area of communication between prisoners and the outside world is fraught and there is a difficult balance to be struck. We have all been incensed by some of the communications of some very high profile prisoners making the most of modern communication methods. Perhaps I will leave it at that without being any more explicit. But that is an issue which I think should be addressed and which the government needs to fix.

The bill amends the act to allow prisoners who are ordered to be released, granted parole or granted bail to, on request, stay in prison until the next working day. It broadens the category of senior skilled and experienced persons who can be appointed as chairperson and deputy chairperson of the adult parole board to include Australian lawyers with at least 10 years experience and that a chairperson can be appointed on a full-time or part-time basis. The opposition will not be moving amendments to this part of the act as it did to the Serious Offenders Act last year. I want to thank His Honour Peter Couzens for the dialogue he had with me and my then colleague Robert Clark, the former member for Box Hill.

Mr Finn: A good man.

Mr O’DONOHUE: A very good man, Mr Finn. Indeed the minister facilitated this, and I appreciate that. We had an excellent discussion about the appropriate class of people to fill the chair of such an important body. As members would be aware, traditionally it was a sitting Supreme Court judge. Following the Callinan reforms, a retired judge could be made the chair of the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. My belief remains that it would be best to have a sitting or retired judge as the chair of the APB, noting now, however, that given work demands and the importance of the role, a sitting judge simply would not have the time to be the chair or deputy chair. Then the question is: is there a sufficient pool of retired judicial officers prepared to take on the responsibility of chair of the adult parole board as His Honour Peter Couzens has done and as his excellent deputy, His Honour Frank Shelton, has done? The answer, on the advice from the government, on the advice from Mr Couzens and from my own knowledge, is no. Therefore the threshold for the appointment of a chair and deputy chair for the adult parole board is being changed. In one sense that is, I think, unfortunate, but I recognise there is no alternative.

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr O’DONOHUE: I do not think so, thank you, Minister. We will not be moving amendments to that part of the bill, as we did previously with the introduction of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 and the establishment of that regime. As I said, I thank His Honour Peter Couzens for the conversations we have had about that.

The bill also removes the requirements of the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to be a member of the APB—which is absolutely appropriate—and adds the offence of extortion with threat to kill as a serious violent offence for the purposes of all parole decisions. I think members of the community would want the two-tier process that the serious violent offenders cohort, as defined in the act, must go through to satisfy the requirements of the parole process.

The bill makes amendments to the Serious Offenders Act. It makes clear that a restrictive condition can be placed on an interim supervision order, as is currently the case with final supervision orders. It suspends the managerial requirement for the review of coordinated service plans for offenders serving 12 months or more in custody. The review by a court of intensive treatment and supervision condition order will now be made no less than 12 months after the condition commences, rather than when it was made, to ensure more contemporaneous information is provided to the court when the supervision order is reviewed.

The bill clarifies how temporary conditions on a supervision order can be renewed by a court to further aid an offender’s rehabilitation and allow the court to consider all of an offender’s compliance with post-sentence orders when making a non-publication order, and it makes other saving and transitional provisions. As I said in my introduction, I refer to those sorts of amendments as an update that one would expect after the introduction of a new scheme. The scheme in operation and practice has led to some learnings and identified some opportunities to reform the operation of the act in practice.

The bill makes changes to both the Corrections Act 1986 and the Serious Offenders Act to give the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety or delegates an explicit power to approve the publication of research and for further information sharing. The bill amends the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 to allow officers from the Department of Justice and Community Safety to communicate disclosed confidential information, including the information given to the Youth Parole Board that is not disclosed in the decision or reasons for a decision of the board to the Commission for Children and Young People.

There is barely an omnibus justice bill that goes past that does not include some information sharing provision, and it is important that they are updated and managed so that there is sufficient information shared between agencies to protect the community. That information is only shared when it is actually necessary to achieve that objective. The opposition takes on trust from the government that that is what these information sharing provisions do.

As I said earlier, I have some proposed amendments that I wish to discuss in committee so that the adult parole board has at least a member who is a victim or represents the interests of victims, and also a proposed amendment to the prisoner parcels management to create a new offence for a prisoner to directly communicate or attempt to communicate via letter or parcel with the victim without the prior explicit consent of the victim, with a penalty of up to six months imprisonment. We think it is important to put that statutory provision in the bill to give the general manager of any prison the legislative clarity about what is expected before a prisoner can communicate or attempt to communicate with a victim. We want to make sure that that is only done with the prior explicit consent of that victim. Now may be an appropriate time to circulate my amendments.

Opposition amendments circulated by Mr O’DONOHUE pursuant to standing orders.

Mr O’DONOHUE: In concluding my contribution on the second-reading speech, I just want to emphasise again my thoughts on those prison officers that were involved in the Metropolitan Remand Centre riot on 30 June and 1 July 2015. I have previously raised the situation of Mr Matt Kent, who I have come to know well, but also many others who I dealt with after the event. The injuries that many of those prison officers suffered in that riot have been and will continue to be long-term injuries. We have seen a spate of violence in our justice system and also in our prison system that continues to see prison officers and youth justice workers injured in the line of work. That is simply an unacceptable outcome. I would ask the government to redouble their efforts to ensure that the workplace for those men and women is safe and secure. That starts with maintaining the good order of the prisons and the youth justice system.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the service of His Honour Frank Shelton, who has been the deputy chair of the adult parole board since, I think, December 2013. I understand his period at the adult parole board will be concluding in the not-too-distant future. I want to congratulate him on his service to the adult parole board and through that to the safety of Victoria. He has been at the adult parole board during a very difficult period in the implementation phase of the Callinan reforms. This was a very difficult period and a very difficult process. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, and the transparency that was required as a result of the Callinan reforms is demonstrated in the most recent annual report of the adult parole board. If you think of the number of crimes committed by parolees, going back many years to that now, it demonstrates that those reforms have been a significant benefit to community safety. But the reforms themselves are little without good and capable people to make sure they are implemented and implemented well, and to that I say congratulations to His Honour Frank Shelton and also to His Honour Peter Couzens, and I wish Frank and his family all the best for the future.

 Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:02): I rise to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Offenders and Other Matters) Bill 2019. This bill is mainly to implement reform. The bill will amend the Corrections Act 1986, the Serious Offenders Act 2018 and the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. Specifically this bill will improve the administration of prisons, in particular by excluding the application of emergency management days. This bill will also improve the protection of victims of crime from prisoners who may send correspondence that may be distressing, traumatic or intimidating or that places the receiver at risk of exploitation and/or manipulation.

The bill improves the operation of the parole system, including modernising the membership of the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. The bill will improve the operation of the post-sentence detention and supervision scheme for serious sex offenders and other serious violent offenders. This bill enables the publication of research on offending-related issues in order to further reduce the risk of reoffending. This bill also reforms the information sharing regimes in order to strengthen information sharing to manage offenders for a range of purposes.

I would like to go to some of the provisions of the bill as just summarised. First of all, I refer to the prison reforms. The Andrews Labor government has been and is committed to making sure that our prisons remain safe and secure. We are also taking action to break the cycle of reoffending in order to keep the community safe and to create jobs in the process of doing so. This year’s budget of 2019–20 included more than $1.8 billion to meet the growing demand, including 1600 new beds and new prison infrastructure across the system and across the state. This project includes funding to expand the new Chisholm Road prison by 548 beds. It includes funding for the women’s prison system in order for further development, with $237 million for more than 100 new beds, and it upgrades infrastructure to keep staff and the community safe. This project will create thousands of local jobs, with apprentices, trainees and engineering cadets comprising 10 per cent of all new workers on the Chisholm Road prison build.

On the other hand, while we build and expand the prisons that grow to meet Victoria’s needs, we also know that we must keep investing in programs to break the cycle of reoffending and keep people out of prison in the very first place. That is why we have provided a total of $42.7 million for programs and services focused on keeping people out of our justice system, including women and Aboriginal people. Of the $42.7 million, $20 million is to reduce the incarceration rates of women and the other $22.7 million is being invested for diversion, rehabilitation and reintegration programs.

Moving to the emergency management days, we strongly believe that prisoners should not get reduced sentences when they are the cause of significant security incidents while they are in custody. The Corrections Act currently provides that the length of a prisoner’s sentence can be reduced by granting so-called emergency management days because they have demonstrated good behaviour during an emergency. This bill provides that emergency management days cannot be granted where emergencies, riots or other significant security incidents were caused by or contributed to by prisoners. This bill also operates retrospectively to ensure that emergency management days cannot be granted in relation to incidents during the 2015 prison riots at the Metropolitan Remand Centre.

In addition, the Andrews Labor government provided $95 million to fortify the maximum security facility and make operational management improvements in the wake of the widespread damage which the rioters caused. These works were completed last year in August. Further to that, on the point of requests for delayed releases, this bill will make minor amendments to allow prisoners who are released, granted parole or granted bail to request to stay in prison until the next working day to ensure that they will have somewhere to go and they will have access to services and accommodation if they need. This is because in some cases prisoners are released on the weekend, when a lot of services are closed down, or late in the day if they are released on bail from remand and are unable to arrange accommodation or appropriate services. The Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety will have the power to grant or refuse the request to ensure that these requests are not made frivolously. This is in agreement with other jurisdictions such as New South Wales and Western Australia.

Another point of the bill is about victims of crime. The Corrections Act establishes the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund for the purpose of holding certain damages awarded to prisoners in trust to provide an opportunity for victims and creditors to make claims for compensation against those trust funds. When damages of $10 000 or more are awarded to a prisoner following a successful civil claim against the state or a private prison operator, the money must be paid to the fund. The money is then quarantined for an initial period of 12 months so that victims and creditors can be notified and may commence legal proceedings against the prisoner to initiate a claim against the payment. Eligible registered victims are notified directly by the victims register. This bill will improve access to the Prisoners Compensation Quarantine Fund for victims of crime where an offender is on remand at the time of the incident and is subsequently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

Also under the Corrections Act there are protections that enable Corrections Victoria to control letters and parcels that come in and out of prison. It is a well-known phenomenon that prisoners sometimes receive unsolicited mail from members of the community who are seeking a penpal. The reform proposed in this bill will increase protections for members of the community that may not be aware what the prisoner’s offences are and may be manipulated as a result by the prisoner for material gain or for other purposes such as requesting that they contact the victims of their crimes.

In another context, given the rise of online shopping and delivery to prisons in society, there is an increased delivery of parcels into prisons, which is presenting challenges for Corrections Victoria in the management of prisoner property. This bill will enable these items to be managed as prisoner property, which can be stored until the prisoner is released, or inspected and disposed of if there are any security concerns.

In the last few minutes, in order to clear the floor for other contributors, I would like to touch on an issue raised by a member opposite about the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. This bill would reform the membership of the adult parole board. Under the Corrections Act, the current chairperson and deputy chairperson, must be a judge or a retired judge of the Supreme Court or the County Court. The bill would broaden the category of a person who can be appointed as chairperson and deputy chairperson to include Australian lawyers of at least 10 years experience. These changes will ensure that the roles attract a greater pool of senior, skilled and experienced contributors to the board.

In terms of the amendment put up by the opposition across the chamber, it is about the change to the correspondence offence. The Corrections Act currently includes protection for victims of crime or members of their families from being sent distressing or traumatic correspondence from prisoners. The coalition’s amendment would make it an offence for prisoners to send correspondence to victims:

… if the prisoner knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the victim, or any other victim who might reasonably receive the letter or parcel, has not explicitly consented …

In the view of the government, if any changes need to be made to the offence to ensure that it better protects victims, the government will consider this in consultation with the victims of crime consultative committee, the victims of crime commissioner and any other relevant agencies. In summary of my contribution, this bill makes minor and technical amendments to improve the operation of prisons, parole and the post-sentence scheme and to improve protection for victims of crime. I therefore commend this bill to the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Elasmar): I call Senator Maxwell.

 Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (15:16): I have been called many things, Acting President, but that is not one of them.

In my contribution on this bill I intend to concentrate mainly on a few very specific aspects, but as a starting point I will indicate that Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party broadly supports this legislation. When reforms are proposed that genuinely strengthen and/or improve the administration of the justice system, we will support them. In this case that is true for the overwhelming majority of this bill, including elements such as those that tighten the sanctions in respect of prisoners who cause or contribute to emergencies, riots and/or other security incidents inside a custodial facility, or strengthen the powers relating to the monitoring of prison contraband, especially given the increasing number of parcels being sent to inmates, increasing protections for victims of crime, improving aspects of post-sentence supervision and detention, management of serious sex offenders and serious violent offenders and of course enabling greater information sharing and the provision of more publicly available research and data about crime and indeed crime management.

I am pleased to see such changes because, as a search of Hansard would show, I have spoken directly on all of those issues here in Parliament across the course of this year. I am very gratified that Minister Carroll, the government and its departments and I all seem to be on much the same wavelength on those kinds of reforms, and I can only hope that continues.

With that said, we in the Justice Party would still like to see further and continued movement on a number of these fronts and indeed much more widely across the whole justice system. We also note that there are still quite different approaches including in the way of penalties in some of the areas covered by this bill between Victoria and some of the other states. In a reflection on that in the area of contraband, for example, South Australia enforces up to five years rather than two-year jail terms for trying to introduce contraband in a prison. Similarly, Queensland has put in place a potential 25-year rather than a two-year sentence for smuggling drugs into correctional centres, although I have to say I consider that to be an absolutely extreme measure.

Mr Grimley and I have also certainly spoken in here a number of times previously about the need in Victoria for additional parole and post-sentence management reforms that go well beyond the scope of this bill. Above all we have a very clear focus on the welfare and needs of victims of crime and would still like to see far more done to support them. Far too often over far too many years in this state there has been more emphasis placed on the so-called rights and considerations of offenders than on the rights of victims themselves. It is long past time that the balance changed. As one part of that, we certainly intend to hold the government to account if various recommendations from the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 are not enacted.

Today it is also our intention to propose a small set of amendments to this bill which is now before us. We do so in the name of trying to make what we regard as very genuine improvements, improvements that were made in New South Wales over 14 years ago. Queensland also has this implemented, and South Australia is in the midst of making relevant changes similar to ours. I would ask if this is an appropriate time for the amendments to be circulated.

Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party amendments circulated by Ms MAXWELL pursuant to standing orders.

Ms MAXWELL: These amendments are aimed especially at trying to deliver better outcomes for victims of crime in one very specific area. Specifically, we are suggesting that revisions be made to clause 38 of the bill, and through that clause ultimately to section 104 of the Corrections Act 1986. This is in some respects quite a technical area, and it is not an easy one to enlighten you all on in this short amount of time. However, perhaps the best way to begin explaining it is by taking the approach of quoting from the opening paragraphs of a Herald Sun article of 9 March 2019, which reads as follows:

A killer who opened fire in a university bar and a martial arts enthusiast who bashed a backpacker to death each stand to reap tens of thousands of dollars in compensation …

… after they successfully claimed guards used undue force—

against them in prison. Please may I make it very clear that we in Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party do not condone violence against anyone at any time.

Now, whilst that is not a perfect summary of all that is covered by our amendments and it only refers to two of a much larger number of these cases, it is a good short insight into this basic problem. The problem is that under the current operation of section 104 and particularly part 9C of the Corrections Act, some prisoners in Victoria, including the likes of murderers, are receiving very substantial compensation payouts from taxpayers for adverse incidents involving them, including injuries they sustained whilst in jail.

It happened for four separate prisoners in the first five months of 2019, for example. Where the compensation figure is ultimately less than $10 000, they essentially get to keep it, but even where the figure is more than $10 000, after any deductions for creditors and the like, they often get to keep all of that too. Indeed in the case of one of the two individuals identified in the Herald Sun article, a criminal by the name of Luke Wentholt, he was reportedly awarded a final payout of around $140 000 after a physical clash with a guard. That settlement would have likely completely dwarfed any money that was made available by the state of Victoria to compensate the family of David Greene, the man he viciously bashed and killed.

Relating it to a situation in my own home town of Wangaratta, it is also more than a mother whose child was murdered received from the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, or VOCAT as we know it. In fact the average amount of financial assistance paid to victims by VOCAT is currently less than $8000. I imagine that the overwhelming majority of Victorians would agree with me when I say this is an outrageous situation and a completely perverse set of priorities.

To exacerbate the issue, the only obvious way that victims get to know about these compensation payments to prisoners, and therefore even get the opportunity to potentially make a claim for a share of the compensation themselves, is if they have proactively asked at some time before such a payment is made to be placed on the official victims register. However, that also poses real problems of its own because some victims perfectly understandably do not ever want to be on that register—that is, they do not want to be reminded or informed about things associated with that prisoner’s time in incarceration or indeed details about their departure from incarceration.

The basic purpose of being on the victims register is to be notified of all these individual things. Unfortunately the way it operates now, the victims register works on a catch-all basis, so you either opt in and get all the notifications about a number of different matters to do with the perpetrator’s time in and out of prison or you opt out and you get none of those notifications, including about the potential eligibility for significant financial payments. There is no real middle ground about that, and we argue that there should be.

We know that when a victim is traumatised, they find themselves in the position of having to make difficult choices and decisions which they may not fully comprehend at the time. Victims who have loved ones murdered find it difficult to move forward, let alone make serious decisions which could potentially impact the rest of their lives. Victims may not realise at the time of a tragedy what their entitlements are. With the minimum amount of compensation offered, we believe victims should have the right to access a perpetrator’s compensation.

We believe in not retraumatising a victim and doing no further harm, but we also believe that reading on the front page of a newspaper about an offender’s compensation retraumatises that victim. To those who say these amendments do create further trauma, I disagree. I would say that we should allow victims to make that decision and be contacted regarding compensation. If they themselves do not want to be contacted, they should be allowed to nominate somebody who can be contacted on their behalf. I received a beautiful message back from a victim today when I told her what my amendments were. She wrote back to me and said, ‘You are our angel. You are our voice. We support you’.

We say that notifying any victim of their potential eligibility to a single amount of financial compensation, or to put it in another way, the chance to recover a significant sum of money directly from the relevant prisoner, should be placed in quite a different category to being notified of many other things associated with someone’s incarceration. By this I mean things like the notification of their earliest possible release date or information about whether they have been transferred to a prison across an interstate border and so on and so forth. If you have a potential claim on a $140 000 payment, it is clearly quite a separate development to a run-of-the-mill event during a person’s experience inside the prison system, and it should therefore be treated and communicated differently.

I return to the Herald Sun story to quote a relative of Leon Capraro, a man murdered by the other criminal identified in that story, 1999 La Trobe University shooter Jonathan Horrocks. The first that a relative of Mr Capraro knew of a compensation payout to Horrocks was when he was approached by the Herald Sun. Their reaction was reportedly one of shock, and they said, and I quote:

How does a prisoner in jail for murder apply for anything … These people deserve nothing. The more I think about it, the more angry I get.

That is a direct quote from a victim’s family. I would say that is a perfect encapsulation on its own of why our amendments should be supported by every person in this chamber and why this problem should be fixed once and for all.

If that is not enough, let me also quote the Victorian government’s own immediate past victims of crime commissioner, Mr Greg Davies, who said the following:

You should be on the register unless you opt out … All of these little-known benefits for victims of horrendous crimes should be made automatically available.

It is that very problem and that completely justifiable reaction from victims and from representatives of victims about this error in the current legislation that needs to be addressed immediately. That is at the heart of our amendments today. These amendments would simply change the current situation so that victims with a potential claim to large financial payouts made to criminals, and now people on remand, are proactively opted in and therefore informed by the government of it. We prefer that model to one where they are automatically opted out and therefore either never learn about it or have to learn about it later by chance for themselves.

I will close my contribution here. I congratulate the government on bringing this bill to the Parliament because it will make a number of important enhancements to the operation of the corrections system in this state. I also commend the Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party amendments to the house, particularly in recognition of the principle that we should, in every justice-related bill that comes before us, always place the interests of victims and their families ahead of the interests of offenders.

 Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (15:31:261:): I did not get quite the warm welcome that my previous colleague got, but thank you anyway. Thank you, Ms Maxwell, for that contribution.

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Offenders and Other Matters) Bill 2019. I want to begin my contribution by congratulating the minister and member for Niddrie, Ben Carroll, in the other place, who is the Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Victim Support, for bringing this bill to the Parliament. And of course thanks to his hardworking staff and the department, who have a very, very difficult job. This is not a particularly easy area of public policy, and it is a very demanding area. All of those people involved take up the challenges of their particular tasks with a sense of great responsibility and expectation, both politically and from the community, and they do their level best to provide the system that Victorians would expect and certainly the sort of system that is demanded by this place.

My colleague Dr Kieu went through a number of aspects of the bill. I do not propose to go over all of that ground again, and I am conscious of the time. I understand that this bill will be going into the committee stage, so I will address just a few things. I did want to touch on a couple of things, particularly the investment that this government has made since it has been in office. We are committed to making sure that our prisons remain safe and secure, and we are taking a lot of action to break the cycle of reoffending to keep the community safe and to create jobs in the process.

Before I continue I want to thank Ms Maxwell for her contribution. I know that this area of public policy is something very near and dear to her politically. She and Mr Grimley both work tirelessly in this area of public policy, and it is important that this place puts on record its thanks for that work. We have all got particular interests in various bits of public policy, and yours in this area has certainly been very demonstrable since you have been here throughout 2019 following the election.

In recognising the contributions of Ms Maxwell and Mr Grimley in this area, I want to acknowledge the work that has been done by this government and the budget investments that we make. You do not just throw dollars at a problem; we know that. You can throw dollars at any problem, but unless you support it with a proper policy framework, that money can be very, very quickly wasted.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, as the Andrews Labor government we are committed to making sure that our prisons remain safe and secure. Our budget investment supports that. This year’s budget, for example, includes $1.8 billion to meet the growing demand, including 1600 new beds and new prison infrastructure across the state. This includes funding to expand the new Chisholm Road prison—I think Dr Kieu touched on this—by 548 beds. It will be the largest maximum security prison in the state. Our women’s prison system is also undergoing significant redevelopment, with $237 million for more than 100 new beds and upgraded infrastructure, again to keep staff and the community safe. As a spin-off, there is also the added outcome that these projects will create local jobs as well, with apprentices, trainees and engineering cadets et cetera working on that new Chisholm Road prison build and providing locals with those opportunities.

While we build and expand the prisons that a growing Victoria needs—and we know that we do have population growth in this country—we know that we must be investing in programs that break the cycle of offending and keep people out of prisons in the first place. That is why we have provided $42.7 million for programs and services focused on keeping people out of the justice system, including women and Aboriginal people. We know as a Parliament that Aboriginal people across the board are overrepresented in our prison systems, much more than anyone would welcome. It is a significant ongoing challenge for the government, for the Parliament and for the community in general. We are particularly focused on that. Of the $42.7 million that I referred to, $20 million of that investment will be to reduce the incarceration of women, including programs targeted at women in prison with a mental illness, intellectual disability or cognitive impairment. But it also goes towards reducing incarceration rates of Aboriginal women, who, as I say, remain way overrepresented in our justice system.

I want to touch briefly on parole before I come very quickly to a couple of the amendments that have been circulated. Again, we have strengthened our parole system with the objective of keeping our community safe, and we continue to stay vigilant to make sure that the system works. We engaged High Court Justice Ian Callinan to carry out a review. That was in 2013. The Callinan review made 23 recommendations, all of which have been implemented. Our reforms to the parole system in Victoria mean that we now have the toughest parole system of anywhere in this country. The number of prisoners on parole in Victoria has halved, demonstratively evident of the work that we have been doing over the past five years. It does not stop there, but it is important that we are recognising the advances that we are making in this particular area of public policy. Parole is now granted for shorter periods in this state than was previously on offer and more parolees are actually successfully completing their parole, again going back to that objective of trying to minimise and change behaviours and habits that would see people reoffending.

I refer to the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. Dr Kieu touched on this, and I think Mr O’Donohue also mentioned in his contribution that the opposition will be moving some amendments during the committee stage around this. I just want to very quickly say that what we are proposing are some changes to the parole board. Under the current act the chairperson and the deputy chairperson must be judges or retired judges of the Supreme Court or County Court. This bill broadens that category of persons who can be appointed as chairperson and deputy chairperson of the adult parole board to include Australian lawyers with at least 10 years experience. Importantly for the house, senior lawyers with at least 10 years experience are actually qualified to be judges. Therefore they can provide the board with the necessary skills, experience and leadership to undertake the task.

We think the coalition’s amendment would require a victim of crime to be a member of the parole board. In August 2018 there was a private members bill introduced in the Council. It would make a victim of crime or a representative of all victims of crime a required member of the board. Parliament is yet to debate that bill, so this precipitates that debate. We believe that during consultation earlier this year with the parole board their advice was that mandatory membership requirements for victims of crime are not necessary because the views of victims are already considered in the parole process, including the consideration of submissions from victims to the victims register, and there are already members of the board who are victims of crime.

Dr Kieu touched on the areas in relation to changes to the prisoner correspondence offence, and I understand that during the committee phase Ms Maxwell will in all probability pose a question to the minister about notifying victims regarding the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund. In the interests of time, I will wind up there. I am sure the minister will adequately respond to Ms Maxwell at that time. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (15:44)

Ms MAXWELL: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 21 insert—

“(iva) to require the Secretary to notify victims of a crime committed by a prisoner after an award of damages is made to the prisoner; and”.

As I outlined in my speech earlier, the purpose here is really quite simple, I am merely seeking to ensure that the government takes the step of proactively advising the relevant victims of crime of their right, a right already enshrined in law, to receive a share of a compensation payout. That is, I am asking that a relevant victim or victims are notified by the government as soon as a compensation payment of $10 000 or more is awarded to a particular current or former prisoner or person on remand. Under the way this presently operates, some victims are never told about such a thing at all.

Through this amendment I am not objecting to the reasons for these compensation payouts, nor am I seeking to disrupt or even amend the fundamentals of the government’s existing policy on the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund itself. What I am doing is trying to improve the way it is administered. One thing that I did not do in my speech earlier, which may be appropriate for me to do now, is to quickly cite some of the words of the relevant Labor minister at the time when the relevant parts of the Corrections Act 1986 were first introduced into the Parliament in 2008. The then Minister for Corrections, Bob Cameron, said on 31 July 2008 that the Brumby government was:

… committed to empowering victims to exercise all of their available rights and remedies to seek compensation …

He also spoke of the need to:

… address the situation where an offender receives an award of damages from the state and therefore has a much improved financial situation. Victims can then choose to take advantage of that improved financial situation …

And he spoke of:

… the perceived inequity when offenders are seen to use the law for their own purposes through pursuing compensation arising from their circumstances in custody.

In many respects I could not put it better myself, given that I think those sentiments would be best honoured in practice by making sure that victims know of this entitlement each time it arises. I commend this amendment to the house.

Mr O’DONOHUE: The opposition will be supporting Ms Maxwell’s amendment.

Mr GRIMLEY: I rise to speak on Ms Maxwell’s amendment to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Offenders and Other Matters) Bill 2019, which makes a number of necessary amendments to the corrections system. Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party prides itself on taking a commonsense approach to decision-making, and I believe this amendment is simply common sense.

Most Victorians would agree that, when a prisoner receives compensation from the state, that compensation should initially be used to pay off genuine existing debts and then be distributed amongst the perpetrator’s victims. This may sound like a very specific set of circumstances which lead to this situation; however, Ms Maxwell accurately cited four separate prisoners in the first five months of this year who have been awarded compensation from the state. In the interests of an efficient debate, I will not recount those individual examples.

This proposed amendment ensures that all victims, regardless of their status on the victims register, receive a notification if their perpetrator has been awarded compensation from the state. I note that money alone cannot compensate for the crimes which have been committed. However, all victims should at least be empowered to make that decision. It is victims who have to relive traumatic experiences time and time again, while their perpetrator resides in prison and receives compensation from the taxpayer.

I understand that the government argues that some victims do not want any interaction with their perpetrator under any circumstances once they have been convicted. This is understandable, but the corrections system should become somewhat flexible in terms of allowing victims to be notified of some matters and not others.

I have discussed many times in this place that the justice system should not be viewed purely as a legal system; the rights of genuine victims must continue to be prioritised over the rights of criminals. I believe this bill addresses a lot of existing issues in our prison system, and it is definitely a step in the right direction. However, I hope that all sides of the chamber will support Ms Maxwell’s amendment, which aims to bring our corrections system into line with community expectations.

Ms SYMES: I thank Ms Maxwell for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. The government is not in a position to support the amendment. I would like to put some comments on the record in relation to that.

In relation to how we currently notify victims, as well as directly notifying any victims of the prisoner who may be on the victims register, the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety also publishes a notice advising of an award of damages to the prisoner. This is published in the Victoria Government Gazette, and the Herald Sun and the Australian newspapers. The notice is also on the Victims of Crime website for the duration of the quarantine period. It is possible that enhancing public notification would ensure more eligible victims know about a payment, whilst still allowing them to retain control over being contacted.

I think what is also important to note is that any payment under the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund does not automatically entitle victims to a payment. Rather, it quarantines the compensation. Victims still need to go to court and make their civil claims. So it is not just an opt-in for an opportunity to obtain money just because your perpetrator may get a windfall in prison and the like.

Of course, this government is committed to putting victims first, and it provides trauma-informed support to victims of crime that prioritises their needs. In Victoria the victims register manages communications with victims regarding the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund and a range of other matters—for example, the parole hearings of the perpetrator. The victims register uses a trauma-informed case management approach to contacting victims and does not contact victims without their consent. Victims opt in to the register, as not all victims wish to be contacted. This is in line with best practice standards that seek to maximise victim involvement in decision-making, and it recognises that some victims may not wish to be informed about an offender as this can be distressing and cause further harm.

While we certainly acknowledge the importance of maximising access to the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund, we do not support this amendment, which will ultimately remove the victim’s right to consent to be contacted. Under the proposed amendment that Ms Maxwell has put forward, there is no way of checking for consent before contact. This means that victims would receive an unsolicited letter about a potential opportunity to pursue a payment.

The proposed amendment purports to enable victims to object to being notified. However, in reality victims would not have the opportunity to request that they not be contacted unless they are on the victims register. Rather, we support improving victims’ awareness of a prisoner receiving compensation through the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund through improving public notification—for example, through the use of social media.

Also I would note that the victim support services are being reviewed. Some of the notification provisions that Ms Maxwell is ultimately trying to get to may perhaps be a matter for that review and not require legislative change, but mainly for the reason of not wanting to remove a victim’s right to not be contacted, we are not in a position to support Ms Maxwell’s amendment today.

Ms MAXWELL: Before I ask my questions, Minister, I would just like to place on the record my genuine thanks to Minister Carroll and his office, particularly to Lara Freidin, for providing me, in the lead-up to consideration of this bill, with the opportunity to ask numerous questions and to clarify a range of details related to it. It has been sincerely appreciated, and it has certainly considerably reduced the list of questions I was originally intending to ask at this point.

That said, I still have a few things to ask, starting with this: Minister, the corrections minister in his second-reading speech referred to section 77(3) of the Corrections Act 1986. I realise it has been in that section for quite a few years now, but I am keen to know why there is still a provision in there that allows for the possibility that a serious violent offender charged with a sexual offence, violent offence, terrorism or foreign incursion offence can remain on parole—that is, it still allows the parole board to keep that person on parole if it is satisfied that—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Maxwell, is this on your amendment or something separate?

Ms MAXWELL: Actually, no, these are just committee questions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will put your amendment first and then go to general questions on clause 1.

Committee divided on amendment:

Ms MAXWELL: Minister, the corrections minister in his second-reading speech referred to section 77(3) of the Corrections Act. I realise this has been in that section for quite a few years now, but I am keen to know why there is still a provision in there that allows for the possibility of a serious violent offender charged with a sexual offence, violent offence or terrorism or foreign incursion offence remaining on parole. That is, it still allows the Adult Parole Board of Victoria to keep the person on parole if it is satisfied that circumstances exist to justify the continuation of the parole. Are you able to tell me how many times the parole board has been satisfied that there have in fact been such circumstances and why even as a basic precaution parole would not be cancelled in every such case?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Ms Maxwell, for your question. My advice is that in almost all cases where a sex or violent or terrorism offender is charged with a sexual offence, violent offence or terrorism or foreign incursion offence parole is cancelled by the Adult Parole Board of Victoria. Section 77(3) recognises that while a serious violent offender or sex offender being charged with a sexual offence, violent offence or terrorism or foreign incursion offence is a serious allegation, it is not yet a conviction. Charges may be changed during a case, including being downgraded or withdrawn. The adult parole board may exercise its discretion if it is satisfied that circumstances exist to justify the continuation of parole, such as in cases when charges are withdrawn.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. Minister, there are overall figures, rather than case-by-case figures, provided in the Department of Justice and Regulation annual report each year about the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund. Are those numbers reflected in real time or does there tend to be a lag—that is, do all of the cases for which there is a payout during a particular calendar year always correspond with the annual report figures for that calendar year?

Ms SYMES: I will just seek some advice.

Ms Maxwell, there may very well be a lag because often the reason for compensation might be subject to a court case in itself. There are often two proceedings that have to take place, so it is not always real time because it has not been proven yet.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. Minister, I realise you and the advisers may not have these numbers at your immediate disposal, but even if it is on notice, are you potentially able to give me any figures on how many people in prison in total—that is, for both successful and unsuccessful cases—have launched legal action against the state in each of the calendar years since 2015 inclusive? Further to that, what has been the accumulated cost to Victorian taxpayers of all of those actions in total?

Ms SYMES: I do note that you looked squarely at the box when you asked that question, so let me go over and check with them.

Ms Maxwell, there is certainly a willingness to attempt to try and get you that information, but we will have to take it on notice at this stage.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. I would appreciate that. Does the government have a position on the potential merits of widening the scope of the relevant parts of section 104 of the Corrections Act to enable recovery of some or all of these compensation amounts of more than $10 000 that are paid to prisoners or people on remand in those cases where there is no immediately identifiable victim or creditor to make claims against the amount? As you would know, Minister, the South Australian government announced in late September that it was planning to pursue changes there, particularly in relation to crimes such as drug trafficking that do not have directly affected victims who are able to make claims against any compensation paid to an offender.

Ms SYMES: I thank Ms Maxwell for her question. I am advised that to achieve the purpose of the proposed South Australian amendment the following issues would need to be considered: a quarantine period to enable any creditors or individual victims to make a claim against a compensation payment; the establishment of a mechanism for transferring the relevant Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund funds to victims services; and the types of offences to which the scheme may apply. Such a proposal is unlikely to provide a substantial funding stream given the low amount of funds currently in the Victorian Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. Section 104Y(4) relates to the secretary of the department publishing details on the internet of the awarding of damages to a prisoner. Firstly, who is responsible for actually publishing those details on the internet? I assume it is a web team of some kind in the department.

Ms SYMES: I will find out.

Ms Maxwell, I am advised that the victim support services staff are responsible for that and they are delegated the power to do so.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. My next question is still in relation to that answer. Why are just two cases of these payouts published on the internet when there have been many more cases than that in total in the past 12 months?

Ms SYMES: Ms Maxwell, I am advised that any discrepancies that you may perceive may be a result of cases that have not met the $10 000 threshold. Also, one of the things that this bill is seeking to remedy is the fact that those cases that have impacted prisoners while on remand would not be captured either.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. Minister, since the Andrews government was first elected in late 2014, how many cases in total—and I understand that you do not like to give individual cases, and that is not what I am asking—have there been of people on remand receiving compensation payments of more than $10 000?

Ms SYMES: I will see if they can get an answer for that.

Ms Maxwell, in the time frame that you have outlined there have been approximately six cases of compensation payments made to prisoners for injuries while on remand. The details of compensation of more than $10 000 paid to prisoners on remand at the time of the incidents are not available as these compensation payments are outside the current scope of the legislation and administration of the scheme. But obviously, as we have just discussed, this bill will address those concerns by extending the operation of the fund to those that are on remand.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. Since the Andrews government was first elected in late 2014, how many cases in total have been of people on remand launching legal action against the state?

Ms SYMES: I will see if I can find out.

Ms Maxwell, we do not have those figures on hand, but we are happy to take that on notice for you.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. Minister, I have been asked if you could please simply provide a basic outline to the house, so it is therefore on the public record, of the process that occurs when a victim of crime has their first interaction with the department or anyone else representing the government about potentially being placed on the victims register, including what is generally discussed in those conversations and their timing—for example, how long after the crime has been committed would the conversations typically occur?

Ms SYMES: I used to be across this as an adviser. Let me go find out if the practices have changed.

In relation to how the victims register operates, there are quite a few ways or avenues to get referred to it. The Office of Public Prosecutions has a victims assistance service that will be able to connect you. There is the Victims of Crime Helpline, which would also be able to connect you to the victims register. It is on conviction, so obviously you are not eligible to be on a victims register until there is a guilty offender and you are alerted to the personal issues. As you would be aware, the victims register is managed by the Victims Support Agency and there are case managers within that unit to deal with individuals who wish to either be on the register or seek information about being placed on the register.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. If I can just go back briefly, you stated that since the government was elected in 2014 there were actually six cases in total of offenders receiving compensation of more than $10 000. Of those six cases, Minister, how many victims received money from those six cases?

Ms SYMES: My advice is that those are six cases of compensation payments.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 (16:17)

Mr O’DONOHUE: I invite members to vote against clause 27. This will be a test for my amendment 2 to insert a new clause to provide that it be an offence for prisoners to send letters or parcels to a victim without their consent. Again, we have had multiple changes to the Corrections Act in recent years that have sought to provide legislative clarity for general managers of prisons about their powers. We see this as an opportunity to improve this bill by providing that clarity to prison general managers and to provide protection to victims of crime by ensuring they cannot be contacted by a prisoner without their consent.

Ms SYMES: I thank Mr O’Donohue for his proposed amendments. Whilst well intended, it is not the government’s intention to support those amendments at this time. The Corrections Act currently includes protections for victims of crime and members of their families from being sent distressing or traumatic correspondence by prisoners. It is currently an offence, with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, for a prisoner to send a letter to a victim that may be regarded as distressing or traumatic by the victim or any other victim who might reasonably receive it.

The coalition’s amendment would make it an offence for a prisoner to send correspondence to a victim if the prisoner knows or ought reasonably to know that the victim or any other victim who might reasonably receive it has not explicitly consented. We are always continually consulting with victims groups, the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, the victims of crime commissioner and relevant agencies about areas of improvement in the system, and I note that these bodies have not identified any current changes to the prisoner correspondence practices as suggested by Mr O’Donohue.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that clause 27 stand part of the bill. To explain to the house, Mr O’Donohue is voting against the clause. If this is carried and the clause is omitted from the bill, we will then consider a new clause, Mr O’Donohue’s amendment 2. Amendment 1 is a test for amendment 2, and anyone supporting Mr O’Donohue should vote no at this stage.

Committee divided on clause:

Clause 31 (16:27)

Mr O’DONOHUE: I move:

3.   Clause 31, page 22, after line 10 insert—

“(5A) Before section 61(3) of the Corrections Act 1986 insert—

“(2B)   At least one of the members of the Board appointed under paragraph (2)(d) must be a person representing the interests of victims.”.”.

I am happy to speak briefly on my amendment as I addressed this issue in my second-reading contribution. Mr Gepp referred to the private members bill that I moved in the last Parliament that also sought to do the same thing—that is, to have victims of crime represented on the Adult Parole Board of Victoria as a legislated requirement. Currently it is a matter for the minister to determine the composition of the board, and victims from time to time are appointed. We believe that victims should be there as a legislated guarantee that their voices are heard, notwithstanding the fact that victims obviously are part of the parole process. Mr Gepp says he has been waiting for me to debate the bill. For his information, when the Parliament was prorogued last year the bill lapsed.

Ms SYMES: I thank Mr O’Donohue for his amendment. We will not be supporting the amendment. Matters such as these were considered in the development of the bill. Victims and representatives of victims of crime have already been appointed as community members of the adult parole board as recently as 2017. During consultation this year the adult parole board advised that mandatory membership requirements for victims of crime were not necessary because the views of victims are already considered in the parole process, including the consideration of submissions from victims on the victims register and there are already members of the board who are victims of crime or representatives of victims of crime. They suggested that flexibility is best in this instance as requiring a mandatory requirement—putting pressure on victims to be involved—is not something that they view as an ideal situation.

Committee divided on amendment:

 Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (16:34): I move:

That the report now be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (16:34): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.