Hansard debates

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) — This is an important piece of legislation because it is going to make Victorians safer. This is a critical priority of the Andrews Labor government, and this is another reform that addresses a key issue about how we deal with some of the state's most serious offenders. The Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Amendment (Governance) Bill 2017 goes to the proposition of creating a Post Sentence Authority. The authority will provide independent and rigorous oversight of the post-sentence scheme, which provides for the detention or supervision of serious sex offenders who pose an unacceptable risk to the community after prisons. This is the key proposition here.

The authority will also oversee the detention or supervision of serious violent offenders when the scheme starts this year. The authority will consist of up to 10 members, who will be a mix of former judges and magistrates, lawyers and community members with relevant expertise. To put this in context, the independent Adult Parole Board of Victoria (APB) deals with the supervision and detention of serious offenders. The new authority will allow the adult parole board to focus solely on parole.

Multi-agency panels consisting of Victoria Police, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice and Regulation will be created to reduce the risk of reoffending. The panels will have the responsibility for managing offenders subject to the post-sentence scheme, ensuring all relevant authorities are focused on reducing the risk of reoffending and keeping the community safe. So they are the key priorities. As has been stated by other speakers, the establishment of this new statutory authority is a key recommendation of the Harper review.

To go to some of the other issues that have been raised by the circulated amendments from the member for Box Hill, if I can provide some further detail to the house, the first proposition is to:

Make the Post Sentence Authority exempt from the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act … As you know, the authority will assume the current roles and function of the DSO division of the adult parole board. In his 2013 report, Mr Ian Callinan, AC, recommended at measure 8 that the APB be exempt from the charter.

So operating under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 will not in any way prevent the new authority from doing its job, which is to keep the community safe. Only the courts can decide who is subject to the post-sentence scheme and what conditions are imposed on the offender. The Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervisions) Amendment (Governance) Bill is about ensuring that the post-sentence detention and supervision system is supported by an independent, rigorous and accountable governance framework. The bill establishes a new independent body, as I have outlined, the Post Sentence Authority, to take over from the adult parole board. The new authority will be a public authority under the charter. This is consistent with the arrangements in place for other bodies and agencies under the post-sentence scheme. The paramount consideration for decision-making under the post-sentence scheme will continue to be the safety and protection of the community.

The second proposition that the opposition has put forward is to:

Amend the bill to require the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the authority have the same qualification requirements as the current chair and deputy chair of the adult parole board, that is a current judge of the Supreme Court or County Court or a retired judge of the Supreme Court, the County Court or their equivalents. The bill as drafted has a threshold requirement of five years as a lawyer.

The authority will be led by a chairperson and deputy chairperson. Only former judicial officers, former magistrates and Australian lawyers with at least five years' experience can be appointed to the chairperson and deputy chairperson positions. This is because they may be required to identify and resolve legal questions as part of their roles. The five years practice requirement for lawyers is consistent with the eligibility criteria for the appointment of judicial officers. It is a minimum benchmark. The APB is made up of sitting and retired judicial officers and magistrates and other full-time and part-time members and is chaired by a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme or County courts. Similarly, at least one of the members of the APB's detention and supervision order division must be a sitting or retired judge or magistrate. The key difference is that sitting judicial officers or magistrates will not be able to be appointed to the authority. This will enable members to focus on their key functions, monitoring compliance with supervision or detention orders made by the courts. So I hope that added detail helps in providing further information about how the system will work.

And the third proposition is:

Consistent with … approach of ensuring that the perspective of victims of crime is considered, amend the bill to require that at least two members of the authority are victims of crime or their representatives.

This is something that the member for Ferntree Gully has also emphasised. On a number of occasions I have heard him reference the McNamara family and the tragic circumstances that they went through. So to give the membership of the authority some extra detail, the authority will consist of a board with up to 10 members. Members will be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the responsible minister, the Minister for Corrections. They can be appointed for a maximum term of five years and can hold office for a maximum of nine years. The members will be a mix of former judges and magistrates, Australian lawyers with at least five years' experience and community representatives with relevant experience or expertise. This mix of people will provide a diversity of views — that is the clear-cut aim. On advice that I have been given, the membership requirements are broad enough to allow victims of crime to be considered for appointment. So that proposition is there.

There are already mechanisms in place for victims to be kept informed and consulted about certain decisions under the post-sentence scheme. That is obviously an important initiative to try and keep the lines of communication open so that people who have been victims and who have survived know and understand what is happening. Registered victims of an offender are informed about any applications for orders in respect of that offender and may make a submission to the court. The court must consider the victim's submission. That I think is a practical way of addressing any concerns that victims might have. In addition registered victims are notified about any directions to offenders currently given by the adult parole board and that will be given by the authority. These victims can make submissions about proposed directions that may be given to an offender that must be considered by the authority. So here is the direct link to the victims; here is how they can have a connection so that their voices will be heard and how that can be taken into account by the authority.

Hopefully that addresses some of the issues that have been put forward in the circulated proposed amendments and by other opposition speakers. This is an important reform by the Andrews government that overwhelmingly is in the public interest and will make people feel safer in the community. It addresses the issue about what we do with serious sex offenders when their time in prison has elapsed and how we actually try and get the balance right to make sure that in the public interest the community is safe and feels secure. With that, I commend the bill to the house.