11 November 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I am pleased to contribute to this discussion on the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Amendment Bill 2011.
The principal act is a significant act that has served the community well since January last year, and with the proposed amendments it will continue to serve the community well.
The minister pretty much summed up the mood and views of the house in his second‑reading speech when he talked about the need to protect the most vulnerable members of the community and went on to speak about not only the long‑term harm from sexual offences for the victims and their families — which is of course the result of trauma of a considerable and almost unimaginable nature — but also the impact on the emotional wellbeing of the wider community in terms of undermining the sense of public safety.
I am pleased the bill is likely to receive support from both sides. It contains some significant measures, which I will speak about in a minute.
A number of members on the opposition benches have raised the matter of GPS monitoring. I want to comment briefly on that. I understand that a GPS has been trialled by Corrections Victoria. The department is currently working on the implementation of the technology, and the government is committed, as our policy indicated, to introducing GPS monitoring for serious sex offenders. I just wanted to make those points.
I will return to the substance of the bill. The bill will do a number of things: it will modify the provisions applying to offenders who are subject to interim supervision orders; it will suspend the requirement to apply for a review if an application to renew an order has already been lodged; it will suspend the requirement to apply for a review if an offender is held in custody or is on remand; it will provide some clarity around the process of making interim orders and will increase flexibility and efficiency as well; it will allow a nominated senior police officer to dispense with the notice period that is required if an offender is to be charged with an offence of breaching supervision order conditions; it will broaden and clarify the information‑sharing provisions; it will amend the part of the principal act that deals with the earlier legislation, the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005; it will clarify when interim detention orders can be made; and it will clarify the relationship between the principal act, the Disability Act 2006 and the Civil Procedure Act 2010.
As I said at the outset, the principal act has served the community moderately well. It has had support. It is important that any process that is prescribed by the Parliament to grapple with this issue has wide support and that that support is communicated to the community. There is no room for half‑measures on this matter.
I turn to the specific provisions of the bill. Clause 4 inserts new section 58A into the principal act, which deals with the matter of amendments to interim supervision orders. Interim orders can be imposed by a court if insufficient time is available prior to the expiration of a sentence to conduct a full hearing.
The changes will apply if a person is subject to an interim supervision order, and they will ensure that for any offender who might be subject to an order, their time spent in custody on remand is taken off at the other end; that the conditions of a supervision order or an interim order do not apply to a person who is serving a sentence or is in custody on remand; that the conditions of an interim order will apply once the release occurs — that is, when the person is either released on parole or is at the end of their sentence; and that the conditions of an order will continue to apply when any community‑based order might be in place.
Clause 5 relates to periodic reviews of supervision orders. There is a risk, if I can put it that way, of duplication and perhaps unnecessary court proceedings when there is a requirement to conduct an order.
The changes will make sure that an application to renew an order will have the effect of suspending the automatic review. Of course if the review is withdrawn or dismissed, then the original provisions apply. There are requirements for the secretary and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to engage in periodic reviews. This process will avoid that happening unnecessarily.
In any discussion on these sorts of provisions it is important that offenders, no matter what the nature of their crime is, are not disadvantaged in terms of their rights. In this case they will not be disadvantaged, because during both a periodic review or any renewal hearings before the court, the court has to consider whether an offender should continue to be subject to an order or if any order should be made.
There is no diminution of rights in that case.
Clause 7 provides for some changes in terms of a periodic review if an offender is held in custody. Clauses 9 and 10 also provide for some changes, particularly in terms of disputed reports.
As I said earlier, this is about flexibility and improving efficiencies without diminishing rights. New section 113A will allow any party to file with the court a notice of intention to dispute all or part of a report which might be made to the court. It then sets in place an opportunity for the court to give the party that filed the notice the opportunity to lead evidence on any disputed matters and to cross‑examine the author of the report on its contents. It also provides that if a notice is not filed with the court, the court needs to take the report into account in its findings.
Clause 12 deals with the notice period required before a charge sheet can be shared. Clause 13 relates to the information‑sharing provisions. I make the point that the acts listed in the principal act under section 189(4) do not include a number of acts and persons with whom Corrections Victoria may have legitimate cause to exchange information.
A number of acts have been added, including the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, some state and commonwealth criminal legislation, the Bail Act 1977, the Sentencing Act 1991 and the commonwealth Migration Act 1958. It is worth noting that there are protections in place in terms of privacy and that those provisions are not affected by the inclusion of the additional acts. The inclusion simply gives Corrections Victoria the opportunity to act in matters in which it has a requirement to do so.
These matters are difficult, but so is the nature of the crime we are dealing with and so is the very real, very high risk of recidivism amongst some offenders. The targets of these offenders tend to be the most vulnerable in the community, and this legislation goes some way to addressing that problem.
Legislative Assembly 11 November 2011
Printer Friendly Version...