The Victorian Opposition wants to scrap concurrent jail sentences for people who commit serious offences while on parole or bail, as the state continues to debate law and order ahead of this year's election.

Key points: Law and order has become a key election year issue in Victoria

Law and order has become a key election year issue in Victoria The Opposition's proposed changes to concurrent sentences would apply to 11 serious offences

The Opposition's proposed changes to concurrent sentences would apply to 11 serious offences A criminologist said the changes would lead to longer sentences rather than reduce crime

Concurrent sentences allow offenders who have committed more than one crime to serve multiple sentences at the same time.

Under Victoria's sentencing laws there is already a presumption against concurrency for offences committed while on parole, with the defence having to argue exceptional circumstances to have the sentence served concurrently.

For bail there is more discretion for the court to impose a concurrent sentence.

Shadow Attorney-General John Pesutto said, if the Coalition wins government, the new rules will apply to 11 different types of crimes, including rape and aggravated burglary.

"Concurrent sentencing is far too lax in this state and too many people who offend on bail or parole just really serve a sentence that doesn't take into account the consequences for the offending while on bail or parole," Mr Pesutto said.

He said the changes would act as a stronger deterrent against crime.

"The reason we're doing this is not because any of us have a desire to see prison numbers go up, our desire is precisely the opposite," he said.

"We want to start sending signals in our justice system that are telling people to resist the temptation to commit an assault, or resist the temptation to break and enter someone's home. We're trying to stop that offending."

Mr Pesutto said the policy was driven by a significant rise in re-offending by people on parole or bail — particularly by young people — as reported by Victoria's Sentencing Advisory Council last year.

But the latest crime data, released by Victoria's Crime Statistics Agency, showed a decrease of 3,419 in breaches of bail conditions in the year ending in September 2017 — from 17,218 to 13,799.

The statistics show the most recent significant increase in bail breaches happened in 2014, when the number more than doubled from 7,622 to 15,432.

That increase followed changes the then-Coalition government made to the Bail Act in 2013, to create new offences for those found to have breached their bail conditions. Those changes were relaxed in 2016.

Breaches of orders: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Family violence order 10,094 12,435 17,782 23,278 29,405 37,094 39,278 Intervention order 363 909 1,450 2,693 2,873 3,035 3,437 Bail conditions 5,562 6,803 7,622 15,432 17,997 17,218 13,799 Other 597 799 782 885 1,124 1,072 1,008 Total 16,616 20,946 27,636 42,288 51,399 58,419 57,522

The policy has been questioned by legal experts who say it won't improve justice or deter people from criminal behaviour.

A Law Institute of Victoria spokesman said the current approach provides judicial officers with important discretion to ensure sentences are appropriate.

"Proscriptive sentences do not make the criminal justice system more certain, nor do they protect the community," the spokesman said.

"The institute also believes that any further legislative restriction on judicial discretion is unwarranted and poses a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary and a risk to the ability of courts to ensure the interests of justice are served."

A senior criminology lecturer from the Monash School of Social Sciences, James Roffee, described the proposed policy as a "really bad idea".

"I absolutely understand the community's concern here — they want to make sure that people who are committing violent crimes and continue to commit other violent crimes are going to serve longer sentences," he said.

"It does sound like it makes sense, but unfortunately it's going to disproportionately target a number of people in very difficult circumstances … these individuals need to be shown the right way to live their lives.

"They need to be given education and sent back out into the community with purpose rather than left in prisons for presumably even larger sentences."

At a press conference, Opposition Leader Matthew Guy said more needed to be done for victims of crime.

When asked what experts he had consulted, or in which other states or countries the policy had been successful, he said the evidence he had heard from the Coalition's Victims of Crime committee was enough.

State Attorney-General Martin Pakula dismissed the policy proposal, accusing the Coalition of "making things up as they go".

"Their latest idea of the day is completely irrelevant to our plans for Victoria's future," he said.

"We've already put in place tougher sentencing, we're overhauling our bail system, our parole system is now the toughest in the country, and we'll continue to make the changes necessary to keep Victoria safe."

Law-and-order election year

Entering its fourth year in power, the Andrews Government has faced pressure over its handling of law-and-order issues, following riots in the state's overcrowded youth justice system and concerns about gang crime.

The Government introduced legislation to overhaul the bail system after a review by Supreme Court Justice Paul Coghlan prompted by Melbourne's Bourke Street tragedy.

As the state heads towards an election in November, the issue has dominated political discussion, spearheaded by Federal Government MPs' assertions that the state was seeing an "African gang" crisis.

Last week, federal Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton criticised Victorian judges for being too soft on young offenders.

The comments have been criticised by Law Council of Australia president Morry Bailes, who told RN Breakfast this morning that they were unwarranted and ill-informed.

"In our country, where we have expert, experienced and independent judges, every word that falls from their lips is subject to public scrutiny," he said.

"The point that we make is scrutinise, make informed comment, don't make remarks that are politicised and ultimately are going to be seen as eroding the independence of judges and eroding public confidence in them."

Assistant Minister for Home Affairs Alex Hawke stood by Mr Dutton's comments, saying he had heard from his Victorian colleagues that people were afraid to go out to dinner in some parts of the state.

But when pressed on specifically where the problem existed, the NSW MP would not identify any locations.

"I'll confess that I'm a bit of a native Sydney boy, and I'm not across all my Melbourne suburbs as well as I might be," Mr Hawke said.

"[But my] federal parliamentary colleagues who represent the communities of those Victorian seats, they're not ringing and making up these stories, I could point you to a million media reports.

"[Communities are] very concerned and they're raising with the Government the need for more action from the Federal Government level, so certainly that's what we're doing."

Mr Hawke also criticised Victorian Supreme Court judge Lex Lasry, who recently posted a tweet poking fun at the claims that Victorians were afraid to go out to dinner.

The tweet — which said, "Breaking: there are citizens out to dinner in Mansfield tonight and they're not worried" — appears to have been deleted.

"It's all well and good for the Law Council to say [what] we shouldn't be doing, but they should also make sure those rules or protocols are in place and not take advantage of new technology to say there's no rules for judges online," Mr Hawke said.