Bills

Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:29): I rise in support of the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill 2025, introduced into this parliament on 29 October 2025. This bill represents a vital step in addressing the very serious issue of repeat youth offending in South Australia by a small cohort of young people who have not, despite previously appearing before the courts, been dissuaded from continuing to commit serious offences.

As the bill defines repeat offenders 14 years or older at the time of offending as recidivist, it will enable special consideration and modified considerations that reflect their repeated criminal activity. Importantly, it also provides the police with better capacity to address the small number of repeat offenders who are responsible for many of these youth crimes.

There is merit in a focus, clearly, on serious repeat offending, not minor or first time infractions, and in giving courts, police and the youth justice system the tools they need to act. The safety of our communities matters, and it is important that we have a justice system in which victims are respected and the rule of law remains strong. It is important that there is a strong deterrent from criminal activity, in particular with young and impressionable people. It is vital that they are firmly directed away from heading down a path that may lead to ongoing criminal activity as an adult.

This bill strikes a balance between supporting young people to reach their potential and ensuring public safety when young people repeatedly engage in serious criminal behaviour. There is benefit in more effectively defining and managing cases where a youth is a repeat offender and yet retaining the ability for the court, if special circumstances exist, not to treat the youth under the recidivist scheme if there is a clear case that this should not apply.

However, there is a case that those committing serious offences between the ages of 14 and 17 should have a conviction recorded in the case of serious offences such as those involving firearms, commercial drug offences, arson, robbery, serious criminal trespass or offences against a person that carry a maximum penalty of at least five years. Serious offences such as these should be subject to strong sanction without waiting for the youth to offend twice more.

The opposition views these as serious crimes and is of the view that South Australians should be protected from the damage and suffering of additional crimes before proportional sentencing is meted out. There is a risk that young offenders, if aware there was a three strikes policy before the recidivist provisions come into force, would not be dissuaded from offending until they have appeared before the courts two or three times.

I also note that we have heard some concerns that the effect of applying these amendments to youth offenders aged 14 to 17 years might have the impact of raising the age of criminal responsibility. We would hope that would not be the case. It is clear that South Australians expect and deserve to be safe in their communities and in their homes, and that is consistent with the position of the Liberal Party in being tough and effective when dealing with criminal behaviour.

While this bill aims for targeted and effective punishment for repeat youth offenders, there is so much more that should be done to address the level of crime in South Australia. I agree with the Attorney's words on 29 October: 'This is not the time for complacency.' That is why the Liberal Party is committed to punishing criminals who break bail conditions and has also committed to early intervention and rehabilitation programs for high-risk youth and repeat offenders.

There has been a 50 per cent increase in youth crime since Labor took office and an increase in bail breaches since 2021. This is a worrying trend and deserves serious focus, and that is what the opposition is offering the people of South Australia. The opposition supports this bill but noting the additional issues raised.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:33): I rise very briefly to speak on what is actually quite a complicated scheme around recidivist younger offenders. I think my previous contributions in relation to this issue should signal to the Deputy Premier, and indeed everyone else, that I do have concerns around what is being proposed, not because, in principle, there may not be things in here that could be supported or because there are things that are particularly offensive, but because of our protracted failure to deal with these issues in any meaningful and genuine way.

I say that off the back of some hope. When we came to this parliament and this government came into power, I remained hopeful at the time that we would also consider raising the age of criminal responsibility, a policy which has well and truly absolutely been removed from this government's agenda and that they do not stand by.

On that front, I just wish to address some of the points that have been raised. I note that in this place and externally the opposition keeps talking about youth crime and crime being on the rise and on the increase, when in fact we know from the statistics that have been provided to us—I think Grant Stevens was on the radio confirming and reiterating those statistics just a day after the opposition released its policy position on, what was it? Breach bail, go to jail? I think it was the very next day that—

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: Excellent policy.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Excellent according to the Leader of the Opposition, and her alone in this instance. The sort of commentary that went along with that policy talked about youth crime being on the increase. We are all concerned about crime, but I think it is really important that we stick to the facts. The facts are that in this instance we know that crime is not on the increase but rather that there is a small cohort of individuals who are committing the majority of those crimes that we are referring to. There is a small cohort who have actually been pretty clearly identified, even based on what the police commissioner has said: 20 young people responsible for 11 to 13 per cent of the matters before the Youth Court.

So I do take some exception to this fearmongering amongst the public that all young people are out committing crimes, the numbers are exploding and we need to do something about them. I do fear that we are falling into what we know does not work around the old rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em policies by trying to be seen to be tough on crime as opposed to genuinely investing in those underlying root causes of this sort of behaviour in the first place.

There is a good initiative in this bill, the intensive intervention program, which I do wholeheartedly agree with. We know that for the first time now we have a real concerted effort being made to address those individuals—probably the 20 young people who we know have committed the most crimes on the Youth Court's list—and get them the early intervention that, frankly, they probably should have had from a much younger age to prevent them from ending up in this situation in the first place.

What I have said about this issue time and time again is, if we maintain the status quo and we keep doing the same, nothing is going to change. We set kids up for failure from the child protection system right through to youth detention and send them on a one-way trajectory to adult detention. That has not worked for time immemorial in this state and we need to do something different.

Given the concerns that have been raised, I am not going to suggest by any stretch that, as reasonable as these changes may appear to some people, this is the solution or the silver bullet, because it is not. In fact, anyone who still stands by raising the criminal age of responsibility to 14 in this jurisdiction would argue that instead of locking kids up, how about providing them with the early intervention they need at that point in time in their life when they need it. Provide them with the sort of services and wraparound supports that they and their families need before we get to this point in time—before we are left with the only option of locking kids up in cells, which we know serves absolutely no therapeutic purpose whatsoever in the absence of any sort of intervention.

Of course, anyone who supports that policy would also know that this is not just a matter of being soft on crime and supporting raising the age of criminal responsibility in the absence of anything else. As I have heard the police commissioner and even the Chief Justice say publicly, any such policy needs to come hand in hand with all the sorts of social supports and structures and systems underpinning it that would actually help those kids move away from a life of crime and become a well-adjusted person in the community.

You do not raise the age of age of criminal responsibility and say there is nothing in its place. Of course, there have to be things in place. Of course, there are always going to be those cases where there is no other option as well. We all acknowledge that. This is not a case of saying, 'Well, that's it, raise the age and do away with everything else'—no. But if we are going to do that, then we have to be committed to actually investing in and resourcing the sorts of structures that underpin that approach. Clearly, this government and the opposition are not committed to do that, and that is fine. That is absolutely their choice, and that is absolutely fine.

In this instance here, though, what we have before us is a proposal that obviously has raised concerns. We have submissions from YACSA, from the Law Society, from the Commissioner for Children and Young People and from SACOSS, and not all of them are going soft on crime or saying we do not need to do something: they are just identifying things that are problematic. My biggest problem with this scheme is how convoluted and complex a solution it is to a problem that needs addressing. It is an extraordinarily complex scheme to address an issue with recidivist young offenders.

We are effectively adopting a scheme that applies in the adult jurisdiction and tailoring that to the youth jurisdiction. Anyone who has had any dealings with the youth jurisdiction would know that, in effect, the way it works at the moment is that for young offenders—probably not the ones that are the subject of the majority of the crimes that we are talking about, but in the main—the Youth Court takes an approach whereby it is a different approach when a child is aged 14, a different approach when they are aged 15 and a different approach again when they are aged 17½, and there are concerns on the part of that jurisdiction that this child is certainly headed to adult detention.

When I say that this scheme is complicated, I am not going to sugar-coat it. It took me a few explanations to get my head around the fact that you have to have two serious sexual offences, or three serious offences overall, which effectively equate to a second strike or a third strike. The sorts of offences that we are talking about carry sentences of at least five years. It is only on those third and fourth strikes of serious sexual offences or serious offences, respectively, that the declarations would kick in.

The reason I say it is complicated is that there are also other provisions in the bill that deal with the four-fifths rule. It took some time for the advisers to break this down for us in terms of understanding that those things can still apply in relation to the offending that I have just outlined. There is nothing easy about this. There is nothing easy about what is being outlined. Frankly, as good or bad as it may be—and I have certainly been contacted to say, 'I hope you are not supporting this'—it is not the solution to what is fundamentally a broken systemic issue that we have had to tackle in this jurisdiction and elsewhere in Australia for decades, and we have not been willing to invest in doing so.

I think you can take from that that I have serious concerns also about the opposition's 'breach bail, go to jail' scheme that it will be running at the election, but that is not because any of us are suggesting that the alternatives are soft on crime. What we are talking about is intervening in the lives of young people appropriately and providing them the sorts of supports and rehabilitation they need to make their way out of the youth criminal justice system and ensure that they do not end up in the adult criminal justice system. Maintaining the status quo has not worked up until now, and I doubt that it will work into the future.

I have asked whether the Attorney can provide some clarity around one measure. I was probably the only one, certainly on the crossbench, who took to the election, when I was elected to this place, a policy around mandatory drug treatment orders. I know that the sectors probably for the first time were very disappointed in me for that, but it is one that I still to this day maintain in terms of its importance. That is because when that policy was first raised it was raised off the back of the concerns that were raised, particularly by the Youth Court, which said that at some point kids, families and courts alike need a circuit breaker for kids.

You may not want to do it to adults, but we need circuit breakers for kids, because the biggest fear of the courts and their families and the lawyer representing them is that they are going to be found dead in a gutter if someone does not step in and do something—they are going to go on a crime spree and commit atrocious crimes and do things that they will regret for the rest of their lives. It is on that basis that we said that mandatory drug treatment orders should be used to provide at the very least a circuit breaker to be able to step in mandatorily and divert one of those children to some sort of service.

I do want to ask the Attorney, when we are talking about the therapeutic intensive intervention programs, what has happened to the mandatory drug treatment orders and what kind of numbers we have around, if any, the diversions that have occurred in the Youth Court jurisdiction, the number of people who have been referred to a mandatory drug treatment order, remembering, of course, that the only reason anyone in this place pushed for mandatory drug treatment orders was the absolute lack of investment in voluntary drug treatment orders programs for youth in this state.

I appreciate that this bill is going to pass this place. I will not spend time outlining all of the concerns that have been raised in relation to this. None of this should be seen as a suggestion of being soft on crime, and I think it is worth again reflecting on what we know is fact, based on numbers that have come up through government data and backed in by the police commissioner, when he says, and that data says, that youth crime is not on the increase, but rather there is a small cohort of youth who are committing the overwhelming number of crimes that end up on the Youth Court list.

I am hopeful that the Deputy Premier can also confirm that I have not plucked that out of the sky and made that up, that it is based on government data and it is at least one of the intentions of the justice rehabilitation youth targeted intervention programs. I am hoping that the Attorney can also confirm that SAPOL, as I understand, does have regular contact with and knows probably quite intimately the kids who are going to be subject to those programs and intervention to ensure that we are providing them with an alternative way out of crime and ensure that they receive the sort of intervention they need to make their way out of that crime. With those words, I look forward to the committee stage debate of this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:49): I rise to indicate my opposition to this bill on behalf of the Greens. The bill before us today is yet another example of the Malinauskas government politicising the so-called youth crime epidemic, an epidemic that we know has been confected by the media. This bill seeks to treat children like adults by removing the presumption against bail for serious repeat offending. While the government offers a 'special circumstances threshold', it will be a high bar to reach, resulting in more kids being locked up. This is a costly and ineffective approach to crime prevention.

They have yet again been tone-deaf to the many voices on this issue. There were numerous submissions that were made in opposition to this bill, including from the Law Society of South Australia, SACOSS, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, the Guardian for Children and Young People and many other community sector organisations.

Indeed, data released by the Attorney-General's own department this year has revealed that South Australia has the second lowest rate of youth offenders across Australia after the ACT. The Attorney-General's Department states on its website:

…over the past financial year, 20 young people were responsible for roughly 11 per cent of all matters before the Youth court, and responsible for a disproportionate rate of offending.

Yet again, there is disconnect between the evidence and these proposed laws which will remove the presumption of bail for young people. If enacted, this will set many more kids down the path of adult offending without addressing the underlying causes that could help prevent a child or a young person who has been in the youth justice system from becoming a serious repeat offender.

This is the fundamental problem with Labor's approach to this issue over many years now. I started my working life working in the youth affairs sector, at YACSA. One of the issues that we were dealing with at that time was the then Rann government's approach to youth crime. Well, fast-forward nearly 20 years, and the spokesperson has changed—the Premier, might I say, looks a lot better in a pair of bathers than Mike Rann ever did—but the politics are equally as toxic when it comes to this issue. The spokesperson has changed, but it is the same disappointing, populist, rack 'em, pack 'em, stack 'em approach from the Labor government, rather than them actually getting serious about the causes of crime, having a serious conversation about what leads these young people into offending.

Why are we not talking about the causes of this criminality—social exclusion, disadvantage, economic inequality, lack of affordable housing, lack of affordable food, poor employment opportunities? But no, instead we have this ridiculous populist politics that is being aided and abetted by the opposition. I share the concerns of the Hon. Connie Bonaros about the ludicrous 'break bail, go to jail'—what a fail! That is really a ridiculous policy proposition. It does nothing to advance the nature of the political debate in our state. Instead, it just drags those further down into this race to the bottom, which is not based on any evidence at all. So shame on the Malinauskas government for following the Liberal Party down in the ditch in their approach to this issue.

I would like to quote from the submission provided by SACOSS to the Attorney-General, dated August 2025:

SACOSS has repeatedly identified that offending behaviour by young people is not typically caused by a 'weak approach to law and order' but rather the failure of our youth justice, child protection and social service systems to properly address the fundamental drivers of social challenges, including household and youth poverty; housing insecurity; domestic, family and sexual violence; the impacts of alcohol and drug use; irregular engagement in education; lack of attention to disability, neurodevelopmental conditions, mental health challenges, unemployment, cost of living pressures, alienation and a lack of belonging, and limited social and recreational activities for young people to engage in. The causes of offending behaviours must be given proper attention, and children and young people should not be targeted, labelled 'recidivists', apprehended or treated under the proposed provisions of this Bill.

I entirely agree. Where is the serious attention of those from the Malinauskas government? I am bitterly disappointed that, despite the fact that I introduced my private members' bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility in line with the recommendations of the United Nations, that bill has languished on the Notice Paper in this parliament, and the Labor government has lacked the political will to do anything serious in this regard.

There was a discussion paper with a series of submissions that were kept under lock and key and this seems to have just gone into the never-never. It is bitterly disappointing. Instead of moving us down that path, what we have from Labor is this draconian law and order policy, which is going to do nothing to improve the lives of vulnerable young people in our community. It is based on false evidence and false assumptions because we know we are not facing a youth crime crisis. I urge the government to think again.

This is not about being soft on crime. To the contrary, it is about actually advancing policies that would work, and that means an evidence-based approach to law and order and something that actually addresses the causes of crime. The Greens cannot support a bill that puts kids on a path that they cannot get out of, and of course we know that once young people move into the criminal justice system it is very, very difficult to get them out.

I urge the government to think again and to stop listening to the bleating opposition and their populist law and order drum, and actually start to engage with people who work with young people and understand the needs of that sector. Evidence-based policy is what will work, not the sort of populist fearmongering we see from the Liberal Party.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:56): Today, I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill, introduced by the government as part of its broader Young Offender Plan. The data presented by the Youth Court shows that 20 individuals are responsible for over 13 per cent of Youth Court charges. Many community members may be surprised that only a small cohort of young people are responsible for a significant proportion of serious offences. This has real and lasting consequences for victims, families and the broader community.

This bill proposes automatic classification of certain youth as recidivist young offenders. It introduces a presumption against bail for serious offences and places greater weight on community safety in sentencing decisions. It also ensures that anyone who is classified under this category must serve out four-fifths of a detention sentence. This aims to meet community expectations and put the safety of community first. This is a key change in this bill.

In the current act, there is—and rightly so—a focus on rehabilitation, care and guidance of the young person to help them become a law-abiding, functioning member of our society. While the existing act rightly prioritises rehabilitation and care, this bill introduces a necessary recalibration, placing greater weight on the safety of the community and the rights of victims.

This bill responds to the reality that current measures are not adequately addressing repeat serious offending. It strengthens the system's ability to protect the public, while still preserving pathways for rehabilitation. Importantly, the bill retains judicial discretion, allowing courts to consider individual circumstances and ensure that justice remains proportionate and fair. This shift reflects what many in the community have called for—a justice system that responds firmly to serious repeat offending, while continuing to support young people who are willing to change.

Additionally, this bill does not target low-level or first-time offenders. It will not capture minor offences or breaches of bail. It is designed to intervene where serious harm is caused and, as we know, it is paired with a $3 million investment in therapeutic programs to break cycles of reoffending. This $3 million package, delivered over three years, will hopefully assist the youth already identified through SAPOL and the Department of Human Services with accessing therapeutic supports, connecting to NDIS, counselling and other support services, all with the aim of supporting these young people to becoming contributing members of society again. Consultation with stakeholders, including First Nations representatives and the Law Society, has helped define the bill. Concerns around bail breaches and judicial discretions have been considered in the final drafting.

I support the intent of this bill to protect our communities and respond to serious repeat offending. It is important that the way this bill is put in practice is watched very closely, as other honourable members have raised concerns about, especially to make sure vulnerable young people are not unfairly affected. Keeping our communities safe must come first, but justice must also be fair. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:00): I rise to speak in opposition to this government Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill. I do so grounded in the evidence and on the advice of the Guardian for Children and Young People, Ms Shona Reid, and informed by the lived experience voices gathered through the Training Centre Visitor's report on mental health and wellbeing in youth detention, entitled From Those Who Know. Together, they point us to a path that is safer, smarter and more humane than the one set out in this bill.

The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, acknowledges that South Australia already has one of the lowest youth offender rates in the nation—lowest—while a small cohort accounts for a disproportionate share of offending: around 20 young people responsible for roughly 11 per cent of Youth Court matters in the 2023-24 year. That reality demands a response, but the question is: which response reduces reoffending and keeps communities safe? It is not this response in this bill.

The expert advice says connection, not control; rehabilitation, not ratcheting up punishment. The guardian's submission is clear: the bill tips our youth justice system away from rehabilitation and children's rights towards punitive settings; in fact, it erodes the child-centred balance in the Young Offenders Act, it creates a vague broad pattern of repeated illegal conduct tests, it removes judicial discretion by expanding the recidivist scheme in the Sentencing Act, and it adds a presumption against bail for children—for children.

Each change is likely to swell remand numbers and lengthen detention without addressing the root causes. That is contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child standards that detention be a last resort and for the shortest appropriate time. The guardian warns us that this approach will especially burden Aboriginal children, who are already over-represented in detention. It will also compound operational pressures at Kurlana Tapa, driving rolling lockdowns and idleness in place of programs—and none of that makes our community safer.

The Training Centre Visitor's From Those Who Know report captures what children and young people in detention tell us works and what harms. On the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the Training Centre Visitor is unequivocal: raise the age to 14, with no exceptions, and design alternatives that keep children out of cells and courts. Young people themselves say early detention, 'Did not help, it made things worse', and that they need safe places, safe people, education and support. That is the voice of lived experience, and we ignore it at our peril.

The report, of course, elevates young people's accounts of mental health needs and the service gaps in detention and reinforces the calls for trauma-informed care, timely clinicians, culturally safe supports, continuity of care and alternatives to isolation. Those themes echo multiple Training Centre Visitor annual reports and her oversight work.

The guardian's submission, of course, does not just critique, it offers us a clear, staged reform program. I place these recommendations on the record and urge the government to consider them:

1. Withdraw the bill (Primary Recommendation). Reallocate effort and resources to evidence-based prevention and rehabilitation that actually reduces re-offending.

I suspect the government will proceed regardless. The other recommendations are: adopt the following safeguards and limits:

2. Clarify or remove the 'pattern of repeated illegal conduct' (Clause 7). Delete the clause or narrowly define 'pattern' (multiple serious convictions within defined timeframes) and keep the best interests of the children primary.

3. Do not extend a presumption against bail to children (Clause 3). If retained, insert safeguards: expedited detention review, child-specific factors [including] housing, school [and] care background, and guaranteed legal representation.

4. Retain judicial discretion in sentencing (Clause 5). Avoid automatic deeming that forces disproportionate sentences; broaden 'special circumstances'—

as it is cited—

so courts can tailor their responses to rehabilitation.

The guardian also recommends that we need to hardwire safeguards into this, if this bill proceeds and if this scheme is to be implemented, and that includes mandating rehabilitation case conferences, periodic detention reviews, sunset or review clauses, a guaranteed child-friendly legal process and a child rights impact assessment. We must invest in a whole-of-government youth justice strategy as an alternative to this bill, expand diversion and therapeutic programs, strengthen interagency case management, convene a youth justice round table and run public education focused on what works.

In line with the lived experience evidence gathered by the Training Centre Visitor, the parliament should also commit to raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14, with no exceptions, and redesign responses for under 14s so that they are genuinely outside the criminal justice system and led by health, education and family services. We need to embed trauma-informed, culturally safe mental health supports in youth justice, ensuring timely access to clinicians, continuity of care and real alternatives to isolation and room confinement practices that cause harm, as well as guaranteeing access to education programs and safe relationships every day in detention. Young people themselves name these as the conditions that will support change for them.

If we want fewer victims tomorrow, we must stop doing what we know entrenches harm today. The guardian's submission and the Training Centre Visitor's report tell us really plainly that a punitive term, presumption against bail for kids, automatic deeming and longer detention will not fix this problem cohort; they may well grow it. Adopting from the guardian's recommendations and the lived experience reforms recommended in From Those Who Know would align our state of South Australia with child rights standards and evidence in how to actually cut reoffending.

I call on the government to withdraw this bill and, in the next term of parliament, return to us with a rights-based rehabilitative package designed with young people, Aboriginal communities, the sector and the courts so that we can, in our debates in this place, prioritise connection over control and make our communities genuinely safer.

I note that we are now just a few short months out from an election. The Liberals have led a false debate based on false statistics conveniently starting at the COVID period—when, of course, all statistics were skewed—to put into the media and the community a fear that there is somehow a youth crime wave. The statistics do not bear that out. The Liberal opposition should stand ashamed of their fallacious campaign that they have run. The government is seemingly more willing to simply neutralise it with some 'tough on law' rhetoric and legislation here than to tackle the lack of truth in politics and political debate. That is to all our shame. I certainly stand with those in the community sector who have opposed this bill and I will be voting accordingly against it.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:08): I rise to support the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill 2025. The bill is part of the government's Young Offender Plan and a commitment to get tough on serious repeat young offenders. Given the escalating rates of youth crime currently in the states of Queensland and Victoria, it is both appropriate and prudent for the South Australian government to not only pre-empt similar developments in this state but also ensure that South Australia does not become a haven for young offenders across the country.

The proposed amendment to the Young Offenders Act 1993 is an appropriate and necessary measure, as it will require the courts to give more weight to community protection when sentencing a youth who has demonstrated a pattern of repeat offending. The state's commitment to the rehabilitation of young offenders who repeatedly commit serious criminal acts should never come at the expense of community safety.

However, it should be noted that this amendment is not intended to capture low-level young offenders who arguably have greater prospects of rehabilitation than repeat offenders of serious crimes who pose a risk to community safety. Further to this, the proposed amendment to the Sentencing Act 2017, section 55(1), will now operate to automatically identify young repeat offenders of serious crime as recidivist offenders without the need for a court declaration.

This means that such repeat offenders will be more likely to face harsher sentences from the court. Such measures are worthy of support and in step with community standards and expectations. The serious offences that will be captured by this amendment include firearms, arson, robbery, serious criminal trespass and commercial drug offences, and in order to qualify as a serious offence or serious sexual offence, any conviction must have received the sentence of detention or imprisonment.

Consequently, it is only young offenders with a history of repeated offending who will be captured by this scheme. In addition to this, the bill seeks to amend the Bail Act 1985 to expand the presumption against bail to include recidivist young offenders taken into custody for serious offences. It makes no sense that a young offender who has been charged with yet another serious offence be released on bail. It is perfectly logical and proportionate to keep such serious repeat offenders off the street, and it only raises the question as to why this presumption against bail was not already in place.

People in our community deserve to live in peace and safety, and young people who repeatedly commit serious crimes need to know that such criminal acts will not go unpunished. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:10): I stand here to support the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill 2025. The bill implements key elements of the Young Offender Plan, which includes commitments to toughen bail laws and strengthen penalties for young offenders with extensive criminal histories. ABS data shows that the young offender rate in South Australia is declining and the number of youth defendants is also declining. South Australia has the lowest youth offender rate of any state, behind only the ACT.

The Young Offender Plan was developed in response to concerns raised by the Commissioner of Police regarding a small cohort of youths who are responsible for a disproportionate number of charges before the Youth Court. Just 20 young people are responsible for between 11 and 13 per cent of all charges laid in the Youth Court. The bill reflects a targeted approach directed to fixing the problem where these young offenders come before the Youth Court time and time again, committing serious offences and putting community safety at risk.

Firstly, the bill amends section 3 of the Young Offenders Act 1993 to introduce a new statutory policy which makes clear that when sentencing a youth who has demonstrated a pattern of repeated offending, substantial weight should be given to the impact of that offending and the need to protect the safety of the community. Secondly, the bill amends the recidivist young offender scheme in division 4 of part 3 of the Sentencing Act 2017 to ensure that youths who repeatedly commit serious offences are captured by the scheme.

A youth will automatically be declared a recidivist young offender if they are convicted of two serious sexual offences or three serious offences. To be clear, a youth who is declared a recidivist young offender is to be sentenced more harshly in respect of the triggering offence. For the offences to qualify, they must (1) be committed on separate occasions and (2) result in a sentence of imprisonment that is not wholly suspended or is to be served on home detention.

Serious offences include things like serious firearm offences, commercial drug offences, arson, causing a bushfire, robbery, serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and offences against a person which carry a maximum penalty of at least five years' imprisonment, such as assault causing harm. The bill removes the need for a declaration by the court, instead deeming a youth to be a recidivist young offender when the legislative criteria is met. However, where the court is satisfied that special circumstances exist and that it is, in all the circumstances, not appropriate that the youth be sentenced as a recidivist young offender, the court may refrain from sentencing the youth more harshly.

Thirdly, the bill amends the Bail Act 1985 to introduce a presumption against bail for recidivist young offenders who are taken into custody in relation to a serious offence. That amendment will only apply to youths aged 14 and over. This presumption can be rebutted if the youth is able to establish special circumstances. Once deemed to be a recidivist young offender, if they are sentenced to a further period of imprisonment they must complete four-fifths of their sentence in detention.

Now, I just want to make a comment. The Hon. Mr Robert Simms, a good colleague, sometimes loves to use colourful language, like this rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em view. I will make it quite clear: I do not support the rack 'em, stack 'em method of justice. I do not support that, but there has to be a balance when you consider that just 20 cohorts are responsible for between 11 and 13 per cent of crime. There has to be a balance between protecting the many victims of this cohort and also understanding that many of these cohorts have had a pretty bad upbringing. There are circumstances which must be taken into account when they appear before the court. In line with that, I look forward to seeing this bill go before and pass.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:15): I thank all members for their contributions on this bill. There were some issues raised, particularly in relation to youth treatment orders, by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, which I am happy to address. The Hon. Connie Bonaros asked, I think, how many youth treatment orders had been made. I can advise that since youth treatment orders came into operation on 21 November 2021, with the commencement of the new part 7A of the Controlled Substances Act, there has been one youth treatment order assessment application, but no orders have been made. So the answer is that zero orders have been made under that youth treatment orders program, I am advised.

Secondly, the other thing that has been mentioned by the Hon. Connie Bonaros in particular, but others mentioned it as well, is in relation to what the government is doing, not in a legislative sense but looking at investing $3 million over the next three years from the Justice Rehabilitation Fund for targeted intervention programs. I can confirm, in relation to the Hon. Connie Bonaros' comments and questions, that, yes, SAPOL and DHS are working together to see who are the young people who would benefit most from those, that is, the ones who have a very significant level of contact with the Youth Court and the criminal justice system.

I am happy to also inform the Hon. Connie Bonaros that—after I have, obviously, just informed her that zero youth treatment orders have been made—in relation to our ambitions for those targeted intervention orders that SAPOL and DHS are working on, identifying the individuals who are the ones who have most contact with the Youth Court and the criminal justice system, DHS are working with service providers. This was a question that particularly the First Nations Voice raised, and I can confirm that they are looking at partnering with ACCOs and making sure that such programs are available in regional South Australia as well.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Given the Attorney has advised the chamber on numerous occasions that the incidence of youth crime has decreased, what is the imperative for this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member is right that youth crime has decreased. I think in terms of the official statistics, that is, those that are put out by the ABS each year, the youth offender rate—I cannot remember a baseline year but from five or six years ago—has almost halved. The honourable member is right in his contribution that we are the lowest of any state in terms of the youth offender rate, behind only the ACT, which is, obviously, a territory. But we want to make sure we are putting things in place to make sure South Australians are as safe as possible and that we are keeping ahead of the curve and that it stays that way.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Does this mean that the government has now abandoned any plan to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12? There had been a discussion paper that was issued some time ago, with feedback sought from the community. Where is that up to, and where does this sit with this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The honourable member is right: there was a discussion paper put out, and there were a whole range of views, even from those who supported raising it, but very different views about what the ambition should be, whether it should be 12 or 14 and whether it is worth—in some people's view it is not going straight to 14. The government does not have a policy in relation to raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. As I have said, we have shown a willingness to look at these issues.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: A range of stakeholders have provided feedback to the Attorney and the government in relation to this bill. What action has the minister taken in relation to the feedback from stakeholders?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have a complete breakdown of everything that was put forward and every single thing that has changed, but I can give some examples of things that have been put forward and from a whole range of people. A number of members have contributed in their second reading speeches on the different groups and different bodies and different statutory office holders who have contributed on this.

For example, as a result of feedback—and some of the feedback was mirrored a number of times by people who contributed—we have carved out matters that are diverted to be dealt with by a police officer or through a family conference from being included. Another example is that we have removed the requirement for a young person to make out special circumstances through giving evidence or on oath on behalf of the youth; instead, the court must be satisfied in a way it deems fit that such special circumstances existed.

So there are a number of ways. We put a draft bill out to consult. We received a number of views—as I said some of them similar in nature—and we have acted on a number of those.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Was feedback sought specifically from the Voice, and what action did the government take in relation to their feedback?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, it was, and I personally had a meeting with the State Voice about this bill. Some of it was very similar to what the ALRM and others have put forward and that we have included, but I think it is fair to say there was a range of views from elected members of the State Voice. Other parts of it are reflected in how we are developing those intervention programs; for example, making sure there are Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations involved and making sure that they are available in regional areas.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney just perhaps clarify for me: there were zero youth treatment orders and one application which was not followed through with. There were also, though, a number of delays to the implementation of that scheme overall. I understand there is also a review into the scheme. Does the Attorney have any insight into the zero take-up rate that he has just alluded to for those orders?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the new part 7A of the Controlled Substances Act had youth treatment orders come into operation on 21 November 2021. So in terms of delay in operations, that is something I cannot speak for. That was before—

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —yes, the current government's time. In relation to why there has not been a take-up of the scheme, I do not have an answer for that. But the honourable member is indeed correct: there is a legislative required review of the scheme that I believe is due to report later this year. I am happy to go and find out when that will be.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is the Deputy Premier aware of the late implementations of that scheme because of the lack of services available to actually refer young people to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I am not sure of the reasons for that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Deputy Premier just confirm also: those intervention programs and the $3 million that is going to go towards that do actually apply pre, during and post incarceration of a young person? So it is not necessarily a service that kicks in once you have a child who is in custody but something that is actually available prior to them being potentially taken into custody?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is I can confirm that is correct. You do not have to be in a period of detention to access those. As I mentioned, I know SAPOL and DHS are working on which young people are the ones who are most frequently coming into contact with the Youth Court, to target them. It may be that some are in detention but it is entirely likely some will not be in detention as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What sorts of interventions are they likely to be able to access under those programs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised DHS are now working through that and finalising how those programs will look.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I appreciate we are working through those. Is it likely that that will include drug treatment rehabilitation if that is required, for example?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is possible they might. I am advised it has been co-designed with service providers, particularly Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations. One thing I have been advised of is it will also look to try to make sure that those young people—I am advised there are a substantial number—who may benefit from inclusion in the NDIS who have not applied or have not been able to yet have help to do that as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I appreciate this is still being developed, but just broadly speaking is the intent to tailor that sort of intervention to the needs of the child in question?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, it will be completely individually tailored.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 9) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.