Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Second Reading
4 December 2025
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
Could I just in opening commend the comments of Mr Limbrick and Ms Purcell, who preceded me, in terms of the outrageousness of legislation of this significance being dropped on us at short notice. The Premier announced this I think three weeks ago, yet suddenly on the last or second-last day of Parliament it is something we are expected to deliberate on, having had 72 hours to consider it, and of course we are considering other things apart from this legislation.
Dear me – another day, another piece of regressive legislation from a government intent on attacking young people in lieu of an effective justice policy. These cruel and ineffective new laws were cobbled together very quickly and basically commit children aged 14 to 17 to being tried and possibly sentenced in the County Court, where they will be treated like adults and receive adult sentencing. Stunningly, the government has also removed the principle of jail being a last resort for children, because for some crimes it should not be.
According to the Premier’s media release, the Children’s Court only sentences 34 per cent of children and young people to jail for home invasions and carjackings, compared to 97 per cent of adults who go to jail for these crimes. The Premier glibly talked about children needing ‘firm boundaries’, as if locking up a 14-year-old for life is going to teach them a lesson. What might these children learn while they are locked up, at a cost, I might add, of approximately $2.7 million per child per year? While TAFE is free, prison is most certainly not.
We know that the overwhelming majority of children jailed have already experienced disadvantage and trauma, with many also having been in out-of-home care. Neurodivergent children and those with mental health disorders are over-represented in the criminal justice system. I just want to pick up a point from Mr Limbrick. We are not suggesting that if people do crime there should not be consequences. The question is: what is the appropriate consequence that they should face? This bill does not meet that test.
What is the likely outcome for a 14-year-old serving a 25-year sentence? How is this 40-year-old going to cope once they are out? For starters, young people in long-term incarceration are isolated from their families and communities and may never reconnect. They are less likely to complete any sort of education, find stable housing, maintain employment or live independently. They will struggle to form healthy relationships and are far more likely to struggle with mental ill health and addiction. All of these factors are closely linked to recidivism.
We already know that our youth facilities and remand centres are filled to the brim. We are seeing more children – and they are children – end up in jail. Due to staffing shortages and overcrowding in our jails, these children are oftentimes kept in their cells for up to 23 hours a day – they get to walk around shackled for 1 hour in the yard for some exercise. And we expect these kids to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society? Is that really what is imagined by this government as an outcome of this legislation?
Seriously, do we really need to explain why a young offender should be treated differently to an adult? Do we really need to explain why locking up children is unjustified and immoral? Children are immature and prone to ill-considered or rash decisions. They lack the insight, judgement and self-control of an adult. They are not able to fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct.
I repeat: there should be consequences for criminal conduct – but life sentences? Children have a much better chance of being rehabilitated, and that should be the principal aim of our youth justice system, but jail is far more likely to hamper than improve a child’s prospects of rehabilitation.
The targets of this legislation are kids who have already been overpoliced, traumatised and unfairly targeted for most of their lives: Indigenous kids, out-of-home care kids, kids living with disability, kids experiencing homelessness or family violence – kids who have been failed by successive governments from a very young age. The government has basically given up on these young people: ‘Lock ’em up!’
It really calls into question the government’s commitment to treaty as well, because as this government well knows, Aboriginal and other children from marginalised backgrounds will be the most impacted by these punitive and harmful laws. To quote Nerita Waight, CEO of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service:
‘It is not possible for the Allan Government to profess a commitment to Treaty and self-determination while at the same time causing irreparable damage to the future leaders of our communities.’
At the same time the government is spruiking its plans to establish a violence reduction unit based on the groundbreaking Scottish violence reduction unit. Over 20 years that program has seen Scotland go from being the youth crime capital of Western Europe to seeing a 75 per cent decrease in youth crime, and they did not get it through locking up children. But we do not have time for long-term evidence-based initiatives to tackle generational problems, do we? There is an election on next year.
While we are at it, let us cut all those programs that mitigate the root causes of youth crime – disadvantage, trauma and family violence – even though they are far, far, far cheaper and far, far, far more effective. The government is sacrificing a generation of young people as political collateral, all for the sake of burnishing its tough-on-crime credentials in time for the next election. It is a spectacularly cynical move from a government who should know better – and in fact does know better but does not care.
The laws breach protected children’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires children to be treated by the courts in a way that is appropriate for their age. The Attorney-General in the other place has already admitted that the bill is incompatible with our charter of human rights, yet the government is going ahead and pushing this through.
You know it does not comply with our own charter, and you are going to push it through. The amendments also may breach section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 due to their disproportionate impact on minorities, including First Nations people. So it will be interesting to see how these laws hold up in the Supreme Court going forward, but in the interim, push it through, push them into jail. That is what this is about. This is the theatre.
It seems to go without saying these days that the government did not bother to consult on the drafting of this bill – no consultation with the Aboriginal community or the legal community or youth justice sectors. Apparently the Premier has been listening to victims of crime – or maybe she has just been listening to her campaign advisers – and yet according to the Justice Reform Initiative, who reviewed the Queensland Liberal government’s adult time for adult crime scheme, victims of crime are more concerned about the need for a justice system that reduces the likelihood of further crime or further harm being committed. Indeed, a victim of sexual violence made a moving plea for investment in evidence-based and community-led programs to prevent future offending. She said:
‘… it’s not just about accountability and justice, it’s also about putting evidence-based policies in place for community-led diversion programs that stop this before it starts.
It’s about justice programs that include historic injustice, and it’s about seriously tackling the societal issues that lead to people’s offences.
I don’t believe we can just jail our way out of this if we truly want a safe and just community. True justice goes beyond retribution.
It is about fairness, accountability, and creating a society where harm is not just punished, it is prevented.’
That is from a victim of a savage crime.
On an almost daily basis we are seeing rushed, flawed and damaging legislation that responds to whatever beat-up du jour the Herald Sun is hyping. Then we must sit through the deplorable spectacle of Labor members applauding and touting these regressive bills. We know those atrocious policies are supported by those opposite – and I take to heart Mr Limbrick’s ridiculing of the opposition for their hypocrisy in this approach – but we hope that something can be done to mitigate the inevitable harms this bill will have on vulnerable young people.
My colleague Ms Payne has moved an amendment to legislate de novo appeals to ensure children whose matters are uplifted to the County Court retain their right to de novo appeal, and we will be supporting amendments moved by our colleagues from the Greens and the Animal Justice Party.
This is a desperate government enacting performative cruelty on its young citizens. It is another serious erosion of civil rights that impacts all Victorians and, sadly, another shameful day for Victoria.
[Council divided on Bill]
Voted for: Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch
Voted against: Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell
[Bill passed 30 votes to 8]
