Bills

Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) (Additional High Risk Offenders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 November 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (12:28): I want to begin by acknowledging Andrea and Peter, who have shown extraordinary dignity in the face of an unbearable loss. No parent, no family, should ever endure what they have endured. Michelle Foster's death was a tragedy, and the Coroner's findings laid bare serious failures across multiple systems. It is because the subject matter is so serious that we must be precise about the laws we make.

The bill before us proposes a significant expansion to the definition of a high-risk offender under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act. It would allow extended supervision orders to be sought for any prisoner whom a court considers to be at significant risk of committing a serious, violent or sexual offence upon release. The intent is absolutely understandable. The question is whether this mechanism is the right legislative tool. Our view is that it is not. The threshold proposed here is broad and risks shifting the high risk offenders act away from its targeted response.

The act was designed for a narrow class of offenders whose past convictions and profile clearly justify exceptional post-sentence restrictions. This bill would substantially lower that threshold. The Coroner's inquest highlighted longstanding systemic issues of failures in discharge planning and communications between agencies across the treatment and follow-up care. Those issues sit squarely with the Mental Health Act and the framework for mental health orders both in custodial and community settings.

I know the government has already indicated that it is reviewing that act. The high risk offenders act is the appropriate vehicle for managing complex mental illness. The act is not designed to substitute for proper clinical pathways, nor can it repair the failures identified in this case. Using a high-risk offender regime to respond to shortcomings in mental health law risks expanding coercive powers far beyond what parliament originally intended.

In summary, the high-risk offender scheme, we believe, is not the appropriate place to deal with mental health issues: the Mental Health Act is. For that reason, the opposition will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (12:31): In place of the Hon. Mr Hanson, I want to give an indication to the chamber that for a number of the reasons the Hon. Nicola Centofanti just outlined the government will not be supporting this bill either.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:31): I appreciate the day and the time in bringing this to a vote. I did want to bring this issue to a vote today. I wish that we had had that contribution. I have obviously had discussions with the Deputy Premier about this issue and the sorts of commitments and at least undertakings that I was expecting to be placed on the record by the government in relation to this bill and what will happen with this issue going into the future. So, yes, I am disappointed that we have not got that on the record. The Deputy Premier can step in at any point—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: They could support clause 1. We do not introduce these bills lightly into this place. It is a serious issue. I apologise to the Hon. Mr Hunter, but I am sure you can appreciate my frustration at having this issue here.

Can I just say for the record—and I appreciate what the honourable Leader of the Opposition has just said—this is not my idea: this is the Coroner's recommendation. I did not wake up and think it is a good idea to introduce this bill and expand the scope of high-risk offenders: the Coroner did. The Coroner conducted an inquest into Ms Foster's death and killing, which took into account similar other incidents.

It is off the back of that inquest that the Coroner made the recommendation that, where somebody has a mental illness that makes them prone to this sort of violent behaviour—and it is not one isolated case; there are others—the 'high-risk offender' category ought to be expanded so that it captures people who pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the public, rather than just the categories that we capture now.

I take the government at their word that Minister Picton is looking at is. I have seen the response that was tabled in this place and understand that there is a difference of opinion with the Coroner in relation to this particular issue being dealt with under the high risk offenders act. But if it is the government's position, based on discussions I have had, that the government will consider this into the new year and that Minister Picton and the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General will continue to consider this issue and it will form part of a review into mental health that we know is being undertaken at the moment, then that is something that I would like placed on the record. It is important. It is important not just to me; it is important to the foster family. It is important to Michelle's mum and to her brother, and it is recognising not what I have said but what the Coroner has said.

We do not dream these ideas up. A Coroner does a lot of work, and I always say that that jurisdiction is the single most important jurisdiction in this state because they are the ones who forensically look at these issues and make determinations on the efficacy of our laws. In this instance, we have a Deputy Coroner who has said that the law does not stack up in this case, and there are other cases that fall into the exact same category. So if indeed that is the government's position, then I would like that placed on the record. I would like to know what the government's commitments are to addressing this issue going forward.

I am bitterly disappointed that that is not going to be placed on the record. I am happy, if we are going to clause 1, for that to occur and for this to be placed on the record, because I do not think the response we have had to date—and I mean no disrespect to the Hon. Ian Hunter—is enough. We can adjourn and go to clause 1 or have a position put on the record about how this will be handled in the new year. If the government's response is simply that they do not support this then that is fine, but that is not the response and that is not the discussions I have had with government. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.