Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — In speaking to the Bail Amendment Bill 2013 I believe there are three points that are critically important. Certainty, consistency and clarity must underpin the basic principles associated with bail and the basic principles attaching to our justice system.

This bill not only fails to deliver on what the government when in opposition promised in its 2010 election commitments but it also fails to deliver on those three basic points: certainty, consistency and clarity.

In the lead-up to the 2010 election, the coalition made a range of promises about acting on bail abuse. As the lead speaker for the opposition has indicated, in this legislation those issues have been addressed only very marginally. In many ways the government is held to account by its own failure to honour its commitments to the community on its view on what constitutes a substantial addressing of bail abuse.

The first and most substantial commitment in the proposals of the coalition was that it would introduce tougher penalties for those who reoffend while on bail. It is substantial in the sense that it is the one that has some substance added to the coalition promise in the context of this bill.

Other promises made were that there would be clearer and stronger bail conditions, including electronic monitoring; making sure police, bail justices and courts know the history of bail applicants; and an end to bail shopping. This bill, so far as it deals with the provision of bail, fails to deliver on all but the first of those three promises.

While the bill provides a new penalty for those who offend while on bail, what it fails to do is adhere to the promise to provide clearer and stronger bail conditions. It is not only this failure of the government to honour its pre-election commitments that worries me; it is also the failure to provide certainty and clarity to the community about the direction in which the government wishes to go. We have heard much from this government about the tough-on-crime agenda, which, whilst it may well appeal broadly, has to be looked at in the context of whether it provides a better, safer community. That is ultimately the test that policy is judged by as being good.

I say that this government has failed in that test, by both this bill, which fails to meet the commitments that the coalition made to the electorate before the last election and also its inability to listen to and act upon the advice that has been given to the government.

A recent Sentencing Advisory Council report titled Reoffending Following Sentencing in the Magistrates Court of Victoria once again really highlights that the government’s law and order, pro-jails and tough-on-crime strategy does not work in reducing reoffending. Indeed, one does not need to look exclusively at the examples in this country to understand that. We need to take a much more fulsome approach to crime and the causes of crime. That of course is why you need to be tough on crime, but you also need to be tough on the causes of crime. That is where members of this government fail. They do not look in a multifaceted sense or societal sense at the problems that confront our lawmakers and law enforcers.

In so doing, they demean their efforts and in many ways undermine them.

As we saw from the Sentencing Advisory Committee report, law-and-order policies and pro-jail agendas do not work in reducing reoffending. Recidivism is a very complex social issue. If you are concerned about not only the societal effects of crime and its impact upon the community you would make some commitment towards addressing recidivism. The worrying thing is that if you are concerned about the economics of crime and the practical consequences of crime, you must listen to what is said in this report. It is clear from the response to the report that the Attorney-General is just not willing to listen because it challenges the fundamental principles that he has nailed to his ideological mast but which are in many ways a false hope and aspiration.

When it comes to sentencing we must make decisions that put the safety of the community first and foremost. There is absolutely no question about it and nobody in this chamber disputes that. When we get to the point where we actually do not care about the empirical evidence that is being put before us — if we simply demean, deride and reject the advice that has been put to us by the experts in this field — we go to the lowest hanging fruit in terms of political advantage. So much more could be done for this community in terms of the opportunities and being able to reduce the fear that the community feels in both a real and perceived sense. Governments have to be part of the solution.

We can make all the slogans we want about being tough on crime, but as we have seen in terms of what is happening with our crime statistics under a tough-on-crime strategy, this government is failing.

It is failing in an empirical and substantive sense. The Attorney-General’s response to the objective research that demonstrates this approach to sentencing is flawed. The real challenge for this government is to look beyond its predispositions and prejudices and start to think about what is ultimately best for this community. This bill fails to implement measures to make sure police, bail justices and courts know the prior history of bail applicants. Instead it simply proposes to codify existing practice where, if practicable, the same judge hears a further application for bail, including in instances where bail has been revoked. We get to this situation where neither police nor bail justices are provided with any further detail about the histories of accused people seeking bail or pursuing further bail applications or variations contained in the bill.

As the member for Lyndhurst indicated, the Law Institute of Victoria was not consulted about the proposals contained in this bill and it does not support them. It is important that we recognise that the views and input of law-makers and our legal community are a key part of this. It is hard to understand and reconcile in a situation where a government is committed to four principal courses of action, all of which ultimately depend upon some measure of consensus about the way forward in terms of dealing with these issues and avoiding an end to, for example, bail shopping. We must make sure that all facets of our judicial system are capable and have had some involvement in a determination about the way forward.

Certainty, consistency and clarity: those are the areas in which this bill has failed. More importantly, it has failed to provide Victorians with the idea that there has been an effort to achieve consensus. We can always pick away at our respective prejudices, but these issues are real.

They confront Victorians every day. They are real in that they impact upon their lives, welfare, sense of community, sense of belonging and sense of safety. That is where this bill fails. This government has consistently avoided taking the hard road of building a consensus for the future.

 See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.