Hansard debates

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (12:56:19) — The Andrews Labor government is overhauling Victoria's suppression orders to make it clear that suppression and closed court orders are exceptions to the principle of open justice and should only be made when necessary. The government is committing to ensuring that our courts are open and transparent and that the laws protect the public's right to information. This is a critical first point, but I do want to address some of the other issues that have been raised, because they go to the bigger picture issue of the politics of what is going on.

The opposition is trying to aggregate anxiety and fear, because that is all they have got. There is no big picture. Worse, they are doing revisionism; they are trying to rewrite what actually happened. The reality is that the Andrews Labor government is implementing Victoria's largest suite of legislative measures to crack down on serious offenders, toughen sentences for serious and violent crimes and increase consequences for young offenders. The raft of reforms is required to address the historic neglect and the failures of the previous administration — the one-term coalition government in particular — and baseline sentencing is the case that we should actually really examine, but let us do it according to the facts, not the alternate facts. They used to be dismissed as propaganda.

I will remind the house that the Court of Appeal in Victoria wrote off the Napthine government's baseline sentencing scheme and described it as — and I am quoting them — 'incapable of being given any practical operation'. They further remarked that it had an 'incurable defect'. Think about that: an incurable defect; it did not work.

Mr Pesutto interjected.

Mr McGUIRE — We can hear the member for Hawthorn still griping about it. This is the decision that was made.

Mr Pesutto — It was wrong.

Mr McGUIRE — Are you trying to say it was wrong? No, this was the decision, that it had an 'incurable defect'. I cannot remember a more damning verdict by the Court of Appeal in the state of Victoria. There is no use having an academic argument and saying we should have taken it to the High Court. The Andrews Labor government, under the Attorney-General, had to actually get something done that was practical and enforceable — and that is the difference. This is a whole raft of different legislative amendments and an agenda to actually address these issues; that is what this government has done. The crime stats are coming down, but the opposition wants this ultimate narrative, this proposition that is no more than propaganda. All they are wanting to do is beat the drum on this between now and the election on 24 November. Are we actually addressing these critical issues? That is really what I think we need to go to.

Baseline sentencing was seen as being overly complex in the modelling. It relied on comparative statistical analysis. Baseline sentencing was expressed by reference to an abstract future statistical point — to go to the detail — whereas standard sentencing is a legislative guidepost that courts must take into account when sentencing an offender. The baseline sentencing scheme did not provide a mechanism or guidance to the courts for the achievement of the baseline medium. In November 2015 the Court of Appeal held that it was 'incapable of being given any practical operation'; that is a direct quote. It did not work. It could not be enforced, so let us not have amnesia. Let us not accept the revisionism that the coalition has come with here today and is trying to reprosecute, because it was wrong and it was ruled out. It was dismissed.

Sitting suspended 1.00 p.m. until 2.01 p.m.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.