Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:50): My constituency question is for the Minister for Health and relates to a new northern hospital. The Northern Hospital has only 400 beds. It has the busiest emergency department in the state, treating approximately 100 000 patients each year.

The Northern Health catchment includes three of the state’s six largest growth areas—Hume, Whittlesea and Mitchell. The swift development of new suburbs in the north will see our population grow by 17 per cent, or 85 000 people, in the next five years alone and over 50 per cent by 2036.

The Northern Metropolitan Region needs more than an expanded Northern Hospital. It needs a new hospital to meet demand. So I ask: what steps has the minister taken in considering the development of a whole new hospital for Melbourne’s northern growth suburbs?

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Constituency question 21/9/22

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:04): My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Health and relates to the parliamentary inquiry into the use of cannabis in Victoria. It was my referral and an inquiry that I indeed chaired. The report tabled on 5 August 2021 made 21 findings and 17 recommendations and laid the foundations for broad reform of cannabis-related policy in Victoria. Under the rules of this Parliament, the government must respond within six months of a report being tabled, but it has failed to do so, even though that response was due seven months ago. So my question to the minister is: is she being deliberately contemptuous of parliamentary rules in failing to respond?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:05): I thank Ms Patten for her question, and I will let the Minister for Health provide her with a response to her question.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:05): By way of supplementary, when almost every country in Europe, most of the jurisdictions in the Americas and many countries in Asia are contemplating law reform around cannabis, I ask: will the minister honour the 1475 people who made submissions to the inquiry with a response, or will she instead disrespect this important accountability mechanism of the Victorian Parliament?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:06): I am sure the Minister for Health will respond to your supplementary question as well as your substantive question.

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Question without notice 20/9/22

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:50): (1969) My constituency question is for the Minister for Health and relates to robot-assisted surgery in public hospitals in the north of the electorate.

Surgical cancer margin rates are consistently better where a robot is used. This has resulted in a progressively greater discrepancy between the public and private systems in Victoria, to the point where margin rates are approximately 300 per cent worse in the public system compared to the private sector. Multivariate analysis suggests that this is largely related to the non-use of surgical robots.

Currently there are surgical robots being installed in public hospitals in Victoria in areas such as Ballarat but not in hospitals in the northern suburbs of Melbourne.

My constituent, who is a clinical surgeon, asks: will the minister outline when and where surgical robots will be installed in Melbourne’s northern public hospitals?

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Constituency question 1/9/22

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:19): My question is for the Attorney-General. A recent Fitzroy Legal Service and Latrobe University research report documented how women experiencing domestic and family violence are policed and criminalised.

Amongst its various findings, the report highlighted police misidentification of victim-survivors as predominant aggressors as a problematic issue in the criminal justice system that needs to be addressed. It is, I guess, one more matter on this list that I have raised in this forum around women and the justice system.

So my question is: will the minister consider a Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) referral in relation to women in the criminal justice system?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:20): I thank Ms Patten for her question, which ended up being a very broad question. It started with a particular issue that I would not mind picking up on, though, and that is the misidentification of perpetrators in family violence situations and the impact that it has particularly on marginalised women.

It is an issue that has come to my attention through a lot of community legal centres and the conversations that I have. I have a regular round table with all of the CLCs, and it was actually a feature of a recent conversation.

I have asked for feedback from CLCs in relation to their experiences about this, because until you get the case studies you do not realise how horrific this actually is, how complicated it is and how much time it takes to unpick in the legal process. Very often there are children involved that can be removed, and then they all get to a point where they are like, ‘Oh, hang on’.

It is a real issue and can compound people’s legal issues. It is an issue that I am aware of. We have a working group that has commenced to look at this issue, and I have invited continual feedback, particularly from CLCs and the broader legal sector, on this issue because I would like to come up with solutions in relation to that.

It has not been my intention to prematurely make a referral of this matter to bodies such as the VLRC, because I am in the early stages of collating experiences directly from those that have lived experience or are dealing with clients in that regard.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:21): Thank you, Attorney, and I would commend the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s report on the inquiry into the criminal justice system, which did considerable work in this area and went to this issue.

The misidentification of victim-survivors is a policing issue in many respects, as I am sure you have heard at the round tables, but it is also one that could be remedied by criminal procedure.

So by way of supplementary: if the minister is not minded to consider a VLRC referral, would she contemplate a change in criminal procedure law to address this systemic issue?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:22): I thank Ms Patten for her question. I have not closed my mind off to any reform in this regard. I think reform is needed.

I am yet to be convinced of exactly what is best, and that is why it is actively under consideration and indeed detailed consultation.

Hopefully it is something I have the honour of being able to pick up next year.

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Question without notice 1/9/22

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:43): My question is for the Minister for Health. My constituent is a member of the Bars of the North, a collective of nightspot operators in Melbourne’s inner north. With the dangerous seizure of a huge quantity of fentanyl at our borders recently, Bars of the North have recommended that their members keep the naloxone nasal spray in their first-aid kits so that they can act in the eventuality of an overdose in the streets near their venues.

I think it is a wonderful community-minded idea worthy of support. On this important day, International Overdose Awareness Day, and noting that the government is currently piloting a program to get naloxone into homes, my constituents ask: will the minister extend that program to get naloxone into bars and other venues where there is a known risk of overdose in surrounding areas?

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Constituency question 31/8/22

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:33): My question is for the Attorney-General and relates to sentencing. Victorian women prisoners are growing at the fastest rate in the Western world, with Aboriginal women being the most incarcerated group on the planet by population.

As we heard in the justice inquiry and from organisations like the Health and Community Services Union, the vast majority of female prisoners are victims of family violence, and women tend to have shorter stays in prison for non-violent offences.

However, short prison stays hugely impact health and mental health treatment and disrupt important stabilising factors like accommodation, family and employment. So my question to the Attorney-General is: will you amend the Sentencing Act 1991 to mitigate this trend?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:34): I thank Ms Patten for her question and her ongoing interest in these matters.

I agree with you, there are too many women in our custodial settings. A lot of them are on remand. We know that this is a growing concern, and we are continually looking at programs of diversion and support services for women, particularly as we know many women who are incarcerated are victims themselves, predominantly.

So many of them have been subjected to family violence and the like and have housing issues and a lot of underlying causes that lead to them coming into contact with the justice system. So there are a range of responses in relation to preventing women going into custody.

In relation to sentencing reform, you have made recommendations in this chamber before about someone’s gender being a factor of consideration in sentencing. It certainly something that I do not dismiss out of hand, but you have asked a very specific question about whether I will be amending the Sentencing Act specifically.

I will not this term in relation to the legislative program, but with sentencing more generally, the Sentencing Act of Victoria is certainly something that I am interested in exploring, but I am not in a position to give you guaranteed commitments around what that would look like.

I have made it quite clear that when it comes to matters such as that I am very interested in people’s views—victims’ views, justice stakeholders’ views and the like—and I would welcome any of your feedback. Indeed some of the work in relation to the justice inquiry has merit.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:35): Thank you, Minister. I do want to acknowledge that we are starting to see a reduction in women in prison in Victoria, but they are still so over-represented.

But by way of supplementary, imprisonment is a sanction of last resort, and it is inherently punitive. Community correction orders are also punitive but might be better at addressing all other sentencing purposes. CCOs are not necessarily used by the courts as creatively as the Sentencing Act permits.

For example, restriction, exclusion and curfew conditions could be used in combination to effectively home detain.

Short of amending the Sentencing Act, will the Attorney-General advocate in the sector for more creative use of CCOs as an alternative to short terms of imprisonment?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:36): I welcome your comments, but we are skating perilously close to separation of powers issues in relation to dictating to the courts how I think they should apply their sentences and the like.

But your comments and the issues that you have identified are something that I am particularly interested in. We have ongoing conversations about this between me, the Minister for Corrections and the other ministers that have interrelated portfolios, whether it is housing or whether it is family service support and the like.

It is something that we need to get better at. I think, as you have identified, we are seeing some positive trends, but there are still some of those cohorts that are over-represented, and that is not a trend that we want to see. We want to see that going backwards.

I take on board your comments, and there are certainly alive discussions amongst government on the same themes that you have raised.

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Question without notice 19/8/22

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:38): My constituency question is for the Minister for Education. My constituent is a resident of Oak Park and a mother of two.

She highlights that Glenroy College, John Fawkner College and Pascoe Vale Girls College are under-utilised, underperforming and have been that way for some time.

She is one of many who believe that schools in this area need a strategic plan and a long-term vision to examine and improve enrolments, attendance, achievement and wellbeing outcomes.

She asks: can the minister provide details of a combined education plan for these schools?

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Constituency question 18/8/22

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:52): (1919) My constituency question is for the Minister for Planning. As I mentioned previously in this place, the Preston Market is a gem of the northern suburbs. It has diverse stalls, great-priced produce and an incredible cultural mix in a COVID-preferred open-air environment.

It is bustling and diverse and a joy to visit. As the minister is aware, the market is subject to Victorian Planning Authority plans for the redevelopment of 80 per cent of the site and construction of in excess of 1000 new apartments.

My constituent, a member of Save the Preston Market, a community action group, asks: will the minister respond to the ultimate community vision master plan that would see the market itself remain where it is?

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Constituency question

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:47): My question is for the Attorney-General. Only minutes ago on the steps of Parliament I received a petition of 65 799 Victorians, and this was from the Smart Justice for Young People coalition, calling on the government to raise the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years.

This is a proposal that is largely consistent with the findings and recommendations of the inquiry into Victoria’s justice system that was undertaken by this house’s Legal and Social Issues Committee.

Previously, Attorney, you indicated a federally consistent approach was your focus, so with the Meeting of Attorneys-General occurring just a few days ago, can you detail what progress was made on this issue and when we might expect a report from the working group and action in Victoria?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (11:48): I thank Ms Patten for her question. Of course the conversation around the age of criminal responsibility is very important, and I do welcome continued advocacy from groups. Of course no-one wants to see young people caught up in our justice system, let alone in our custodial system.

What we know is that those numbers are very, very small here in Victoria, and I am very proud of the work that the government continues to do, particularly in the youth justice space, to continue to drive down those numbers. The Meeting of Attorneys-General last Friday was really positive—a really, really welcome conversation about raising the age, about diversion and about alternative pathways for young people to keep them out of the custody system. We have had a change of federal government, which has meant a change of focus—an actual interest in this issue, which was very forthcoming.

But to have every state and territory interested in this issue cannot be understated. I think the conversation at the national level is important, particularly for those of us that have electorates that border other states. I think national consistency in this space is really good. I have always said raising the age, for me, is not about a number, because I want it not to matter.

I want to make sure that, as a government, in a whole-of-government approach, we have the services, the support and the programs in place so that kids that are currently caught up in the justice system have somewhere else to go. I do not want to be in a situation where we raise the age to an arbitrary number and all we are doing is deferring the date that those children come into contact with the justice system.

What we want to do is make sure that any changes to the age of criminal responsibility involve careful consideration about what happens to these kids. Right now in Victoria we do not have any kids aged 11 or 12 in custodial settings, for example. We have not for a while, and we hope we will not have that. We have the Children’s Court and services that are really focused on making sure that any of the kids that are at potential risk of entering the justice system in that age cohort are wrapped around and making sure that there are alternatives for them.

We do have some 13-year-olds—small numbers again. I know that there is an argument for raising the age to 14 or 12. We are all having these conversations, but for me the importance is making sure that those support services—the safety net, for example—are put in place before a number is changed.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:50): Thanks, Minister. You are right, we do need those services, and when we are spending $3000 a day for children in our justice system that is $3000 a day that we cannot be spending to support those families. As you said, we know that this is largely around disadvantage—and families in intergenerational disadvantage many times.

So I agree with you that there are better ways to deal with children at this age, and I am pleased that you are welcoming this advocacy. By way of supplementary: would you be prepared to receive from me directly the petition from Smart Justice for Young People and respond directly to the organisers of that petition?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (11:51): Ms Patten, I am sure if you would like to present anything on their behalf that is fine, but I can guarantee you that most of the signatories and all of the organisations that are signatories have personally met with me in a range of forums or at least had contact with me, my office or the department.

If you wish to double that advocacy by personally representing them, then I welcome that, but that is not to say that I do not have personal contact with many of the people that are represented by that petition.

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Question without notice 16/8/22

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:49): (1896) My constituency question is for the Minister for Planning. The Preston Market, established in 1970, is the heartbeat of the northern suburbs and is known for the open-air atmosphere, cultural mix and fresh produce at great prices.

It is a defining feature of Preston, and its bustling atmosphere and diverse outlets are loved by the surrounding community. As the minister will be aware, the market is subject to Victorian government planning authority plans for the redevelopment of 80 per cent of the site and construction of in excess of 1000 new apartments.

My constituent, a member of Save the Preston Market, a community action group, asks: will the minister visit the market and meet with the members of the group to understand their perspective on this wonderful asset?

Fiona Patten MP
Leader of Reason
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Constituency question 4/8/22