TRANSCRIPT:
I rise today to speak on the Bail Amendment Bill 2023, a bill that we do not oppose, although we urge some amendments that will benefit and protect our communities further. This is a bill that proposes a series of amendments to the Bail Act 1977 to make changes to the requirements which determine bail. These amendments are proposed in a few different ways, including providing that certain offences are no longer to be schedule 2 offences to which certain two-step tests apply, providing that bail is not to be refused in respect of certain offences which are subject to exceptions, providing that two-step tests apply to children in fewer circumstances, making changes to what a bail decision maker must take into account, including determinations relating to an Aboriginal person or a child, repealing the offence of contravening certain conduct conditions while on bail and repealing the offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail. There are also some technical changes, including various changes to update language used in the act and expanding the circumstances in which a court must hear a further application for bail.
This bill follows further amendments to our justice system this week, with the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 being thoroughly debated in this place yesterday. While that bill was primarily focused on making several fixes to the wording and clarity of various pieces of justice legislation, this bill has a more direct impact on how one area of our justice system operates. Yesterday we spoke in depth about courts, criminals, coroners, police, lawyers, firefighters, juries and tribunals. This bill has a primary focus on the processes and determination of granting bail and the criminal offences adjacent to this process.
When it comes to this bill we are debating today, there are several new considerations that I believe are really important to go over. The bill differentiates adults and children in the way in which tests for bail are applied. Previously there was no distinction. This removes the two-step test for children, except for specified offences. Where a child is accused of murder, attempted murder or a terrorism-related offence or has previously been convicted of a terrorism-related offence, the exceptional circumstances test will continue to apply, as it does for an adult, as will the unacceptable risk test. There are further considerations for children within this bill, many of which fall on the bail decision makers. This includes the child’s age, maturity and stage of development at the time of the alleged offence; the need to impose on a child the minimum intervention required in the circumstances, with the remand of the child being a last resort; the presumption at common law that a child who is 10 years of age or over but under 14 years of age cannot commit an offence; and the fact that time in custody has been shown to pose further criminal risks for children, including being harmed.
Updating the laws regarding bail is nothing new and something that has been brought forward by both sides of the chamber. It is also quite clear that Victoria’s bail laws are once again in need of reform. Bail laws were tightened by the former coalition government in 2013 through a series of reforms. These reforms included introducing specific offences for contravening certain bail conditions or committing an indictable offence while on bail. Another timely review of our bail laws was encouraged following the Bourke Street tragedy in 2017, and as a consequence bail laws were further tightened in 2017 and 2018. These changes were made with the clear intention of making bail more difficult to attain, preventing further crimes by those on bail, as was seen in the Bourke Street tragedy.
In the 2017 changes we saw a purpose and guiding principles section included in the act, including maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible. There was also work done to clarify and expand the list of offences for which the accused must show exceptional circumstances in order to receive bail, known as schedule 1 offences. Similarly, there was clarification and expansion of the list of offences in schedule 2 offences, making the accused show a compelling reason to receive bail. These categories both operate to reverse the onus so that the accused bears the burden of satisfying the decision-maker that bail should be granted. There was also clarification that only a court has the power to grant bail in relation to a schedule 1 offence.
In 2018 more amendments followed to further tighten the bail system in our state. A police remand system was introduced which allowed police to remand a non-vulnerable adult accused of serious crimes for up to 48 hours until a court was available. The tests for bail were again changed, much as this bill today aims to do. This included setting out when each of the unacceptable risk, show compelling reason and show exceptional circumstances tests would apply as well as rewording the unacceptable risk test to emphasise the importance of community safety.
Simply put, since these changes were introduced, the number of Victorians charged with criminal offences and refused bail has significantly increased over recent years. The significant number of people held on remand comes at a cost, both financially and to the person involved. It can be hard to justify some of the circumstances surrounding the remand of an individual when it is clear they do not pose any material danger to the community. The important thing to consider is whether or not this bill gets the balance right.
I would like to explain our proposed amendments expertly spoken about in depth earlier today by the member for Malvern. These include retaining the offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail, the addition of a further eight serious offences to the list that requires a compelling reason bail test for children accused of these offences and, lastly, the mandate of a statutorily required review of the effect of the amendments after 24 months of operation to be completed and publicly released within six months. Based on this government’s track record of managing criminality, policing and the justice system, it is hard to put all of my trust in their decisions. Our justice system has suffered in recent years with backlogs in our courts and tribunals and difficulties with increasing crime in regional areas. Through this we are seeing more and more people remanded, yet further criminal activity continues on our streets. Recent data from the Crime Statistics Agency has shown a rise in both criminal incidents and the number of offences recorded in my region during the past year. In the Mitchell shire, which includes many towns in the Euroa electorate, there has been a 10 per cent rise in criminal incidents and a 13.5 per cent rise in offences recorded. Family violence continues to rise at alarming rates with another 4 per cent increase in the Mitchell shire this year following further rises the year prior. Victim reports continue to surge too with 10 per cent more offences being reported by victims of crime in this region. It is particularly worrying how many of these cases relate to breaches of family violence orders, while there are also an array of theft, assault and drug offences.
Other areas in the Euroa electorate are facing similar issues. Benalla has had a similar jump with criminal incidents well above the state average and alarming news reports in recent weeks. Just two weeks ago the same page of the Benalla Ensign was covering a fatal hit-and-run, a shooting, drug-affected behaviour and break-ins. Some of the bail decisions for these local cases have been wildly inconsistent too. The driver involved in the fatal hit-and-run was granted bail this month after being charged with several offences, including failing to stop and render assistance, perverting the course of justice and driving while disqualified. His actions tragically killed a 16-year-old boy named Caleb Puttyfoot, yet the driver remains on bail and is not expected to be in court again until January. My heart goes out to Caleb’s family and the entire Benalla community who are grieving this tragic loss of a beautiful young man. Earlier this year a drug-affected couple stole a tractor and crashed into the perimeter fence of Puckapunyal military base following a low-speed chase with police. They were denied bail and immediately remanded. These cases relate to just a small part of my electorate. Across the state I am sure there are several cases with similar scenarios.
What we hope to see with these amendments is some consistency in the bail decision-making process. Unfortunately, while all these crimes continue, this government is making a push to remove our towns’ one-person police stations. My electorate is home to some of these in Violet Town, Stanhope and Pyalong, which are among the 98 one-person stations set to be disbanded in favour of hubs in larger regional areas. These small country towns are often too far away from any major centres for a response within a reasonable time, and removing local police puts residents at unnecessary risk. A focus on police recruitment and retention in our towns would go a lot further than gutting our single-officer police stations in rural areas. While we are trying to fix our justice system through these amendments, I want to make it clear that we need more police in our towns and not less.