Question Time

Youth Offender Bail Laws

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): My question is to the Premier. Did the police commissioner ask the government to undertake a review of bail laws for youth offenders and, if so, when did the commissioner first make that request? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: SAPOL data shows a 70 per cent increase in the number of youths charged with breach of bail offences since 2021. Only today did the government announce that the South Australian Law Reform Institute would undertake a bail law review, something that the opposition has been calling for for around the last two years.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Police) (14:13): Can I thank the leader for his question and his interest in this area. My understanding is that there has been ongoing engagement between the Attorney-General in the other place and the police commissioner, as well as of course, as you would expect, Mr Speaker, with the other justice agencies that the Attorney-General is responsible for in order to understand what the opportunities are for the government to further strengthen our strong stance on law and order.

Just as we have seen in the first three years of the term of the Malinauskas Labor government, what the Attorney announced today, along with the police commissioner, was yet another strengthening of the laws surrounding the powers of police, the DPP and our court system to ensure that we have the full toolkit available to protect the community. It comes on the back of what has been a very significant step-up in resourcing not just in police—as I have advised the house previously and as have the former police ministers in the chamber—but also across our other justice agencies.

Those opposite may claim that they have particular positions on legislative reform, but simply calling for something to be done with no specificity or details, not calling for specific changes to specific acts, does not constitute the sort of contribution that should be required of an opposition which pays sufficient attention to these issues in the public interest. Simply making noise does not constitute a firm position that a major political party in this state should have in the year leading up to a state election.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left will come to order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have thought, given the latest—

Mr Cowdrey: What are the specifics of your reforms?

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton, you are on your final warning.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I thank the shadow minister for the environment for his contribution on this matter. Maybe we will have one from the shadow attorney-general at some point as well. But that demonstrates—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Keep up with the changes to your responsibilities? We have, and we have all noticed. Perhaps we will have a contribution—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, to your obvious detriment. Are you not following this? Remember, you used to be shadow treasurer and now you're not, and whose responsibility is that? Is that our responsibility or yours?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left, with the exception of the member for Finniss, are all on your final warning.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I was pointing out, perhaps we will have a meaningful contribution from the new deputy leader on this issue, given that he is the shadow attorney-general, but we are still waiting to hear what a clear position is from the opposition on this because, despite having three years in order to suggest reforms, we still don't have one from those opposite. In the meantime it has been this government which has continued to toughen our laws and this government which has continued, budget after budget, to invest more resources in our police and in our criminal justice agencies to tackle crime.