HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (19:33): This amendment is intended to ensure that where a youth is repeatedly engaged in behaviours that result in harm to others or which jeopardise the safety of the community, the impact of that repeated offending and the need to protect the community from further harm is given adequate regard.

It is not expected to result in harsher sentencing where the youth has engaged in low-level offending which does not impact community safety, such as repeated breaches of a curfew condition in a bail agreement. It will be a matter of the court to determine what constitutes a pattern of repeated offending such that the additional statutory policy should be enlivened.

However, to avoid discouraging youths from participating in diversionary pathways offered to them, the bill makes clear the charges dealt with by a police officer or a family conference are to be disregarded. The bill amends the recidivist young offender scheme in division 4 of part 3 of the Sentencing Act. The scheme currently provides a mechanism for a court to declare the youth is a recidivist young offender. Pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Sentencing Act, a youth is liable to be declared a recidivist young offender if the youth has been convicted of at least three serious offences or at least two serious sexual offences committed on separate occasions. A youth who is declared a recidivist young offender is to be sentenced more harshly in respect of the triggering offence and any further serious offences committed as a youth.

It is now apparent that the current scheme has little to no utility. Only four youths have been declared by the court as recidivist young offenders since the scheme came into operation in 2010, the last declaration being in 2017. The bill amends division 4 of part 3 of the Sentencing Act to ensure that the recidivist young offender scheme operates as intended by capturing youths with extensive criminal histories involving serious offending.

Under the bill, a youth is automatically deemed to be a recidivist young offender when the legislative criteria in section 51(1) of the Sentencing Act are met, removing the need for a declaration by a court. The court will retain some discretion and be empowered to refrain from sentencing a recidivist young offender more harshly if 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. If special circumstances are established, the harsher sentencing principles in subsection (3) of section 55 will not apply and that youth may, pursuant to the relevant provisions in the Young Offenders Act, apply to the Training Centre Review Board for conditional release from detention as if they were not a recidivist young offender.

The bill also clarifies that, for the purposes of qualifying as a serious repeat offender or recidivist young offender, a conviction includes a formal finding of guilt by a court or the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court, whether or not a conviction is recorded. The Youth Court has previously exercised its discretion not to record a conviction against a youth, even in respect of serious offences where a penalty of detention was imposed.

While the meaning of 'conviction' has been interpreted broadly in some statutory contexts to include a finding of guilt where no conviction is recorded, there may be ambiguity as to its interpretation for the purposes of division 4 of part 3 of the Sentencing Act. The bill puts beyond doubt its intended meaning in this context. This will not affect the exercise of judicial discretion to refrain from recording a conviction when sentencing a youth. It simply ensures that such a decision does not circumvent the intended operation of division 4 of part 3 of the Sentencing Act.

There was some apprehension by stakeholders during consultation on the bill that these changes would bring a large proportion of young offenders within the recidivist young offenders scheme, including those who had only committed minor offences or offences considered to be at the lower end of seriousness. The serious offences listed in section 52 of the Sentencing Act include things like serious firearms offences, commercial drug offences, arson, 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 that causes harm. It does not capture those lower end antisocial offences such as property damage, theft or basic assault.

Further, in order for a conviction to qualify as a serious offence or serious sexual offence for the purposes of the recidivist young offenders scheme, the conviction must have resulted in a sentence of detention or imprisonment which does not include a wholly suspended sentence or a community based custodial sentence, such as home detention.

Once deemed a recidivist young offender, the young person must complete four-fifths of their sentence in detention and not in the community. Section 23(4) of the Young Offenders Act makes clear that a sentence of detention is an option of last resort and may only be utilised where no other penalty would be adequate. For that reason, only young offenders with a history of repeated and very serious offending can meet the criteria set out in section 55(1) of the Sentencing Act to qualify as a recidivist young offender.

The bill also makes related amendments to sections 53(2) and 55(2) of the Sentencing Act to clarify the interaction between a serious repeat offender and the recidivist young offenders scheme in certain circumstances, including where a youth has been treated by the court as an adult.

A transitional provision in clause 7 of the bill makes clear that the amendments to the Sentencing Act will apply in relation to the sentencing of a youth who is convicted of an offence after the commencement of the bill, regardless of whether the offence was committed before or after that commencement.

Finally, the bill amends the Bail Act to introduce a presumption against bail in circumstances where the applicant (a) is a youth who is a recidivist young offender as defined in part 3, division 4 of the Sentencing Act; and (b) the applicant is taken into custody in relation to a serious offence. The presumption against bail will apply to youths who are of or above the age of 14 years on the day on which the serious offence was allegedly committed.

Consistent with the existing test in section 10A of the Bail Act, the presumption of bail is displaced when the youth establishes the existence of special circumstances justifying their release on bail. A broader review of the Bail Act has been referred to the South Australian Law Reform Institute and will include consideration of whether the Bail Act appropriately deals with young offenders. I commend the bill to members and I seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses into Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Bail Act 1985

3—Amendment of section 10A—Presumption against bail in certain cases

Subclause (1) amends the definition of prescribed applicant in relation to presumption against bail in certain cases to include an applicant taken into custody in relation to a serious offence if the applicant is a youth who is a recidivist young offender.

Subclause (2) inserts definitions of recidivist young offender, serious offence and youth for the purposes of the section.

Part 3—Amendment of Sentencing Act 2017

4—Amendment of section 52—Interpretation

This clause inserts a definition of conviction for the purposes of the Division.

5—Amendment of section 53—Serious repeat offenders

This clause amends section 53 to make it clear that:

the section applies to a youth who is being dealt with as an adult; and

when determining the number of occasions on which a person has committed a particular kind of offence, offences committed by the person as a youth are not to be included unless the youth was dealt with as an adult.

6—Amendment of section 55—Declaration that youth is recidivist young offender

This clause makes amendments to section 55 of the Act to remove the need for a court to declare a youth to be a recidivist young offender and instead make it automatic in certain circumstances (subject to the discretion in subclause (5)).

7—Transitional provision

This clause makes transitional provisions in relation to the amendments in this Part.

Part 4—Amendment of Young Offenders Act 1993

8—Amendment of section 3—Objects and statutory policies

This clause amends section 3 of the Act to provide that, in imposing sanctions on a youth for offending, regard should be had to the deterrent effect any proposed sanction may have on the youth and if the youth 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 (whether as individuals or in general).

9—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

This clause makes a consequential amendment.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (19:40): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. I indicate the opposition's support for the bill and in so doing I will perhaps take up where the minister left off because the really substantial public policy reform opportunity and necessity is at the bail stage.

This bill adverts to that. It has in it the beginnings of a mechanism that recognises that bail and what we have seen far too often for many years now—the repeated breach of bail followed by an offence, followed by a new bail agreement, and breach of bail and so on—is a particular problem that really is one that is concentrating a focus on young offenders and on community safety in particular. The member for Bragg, the shadow minister for community safety, will focus on that, I am sure, in his contribution to the second reading speech shortly. There is an amendment that is filed in his name that goes more particularly to that.

The government's bill, this bill, is focused on what is I think on the government's own measure a relatively—perhaps towards vanishingly—small group of a subset of young offenders who would qualify for what is a marginally strictured, if you like, adjustment to the recidivist young offender provisions in the Sentencing Act. There is the dialling back of the court's discretion in relation to such offenders. Young offenders will be meeting the criteria of recidivist young offenders by definition rather than be eligible for declaration, as is the case on the face of the law as it stands.

The real world consequences of that definition as a recidivist young offender apply as they do presently in the three ways: imprisonment as a last resort is done away with; principal proportionality as well; and, as the minister has adverted to, the requirement that a sentence be served four-fifths in custody, all of which a child ordinarily has the benefit of. It is complete and necessary to note that in making these changes, particularly when it comes to the bail side, the government has chosen to go out of its way to target not only exclusively young offenders but only a subset of young offenders.

We know the government has, in the course of this parliamentary term, sort of run up the flagpole some public surveys on the possibility of raising the age of criminal responsibility and has ultimately abandoned any policy move in that direction. This bill would, in a way, introduce what is a novel reference to 14 as the relevant age of responsibility. We see that in clause 3, where the new presumption against bail is set out in new subparagraph (i), which provides that the presumption will apply against an applicant who is taken into custody in relation to a serious offence if the applicant is a youth who is a recidivist young offender. The introduction of the words 'is a youth' is nearly tautologist but not quite and it does the work of inserting there, for these purposes only, the definition of youth being a child who, on the day of the offence being allegedly committed by that child, was of or above the age of 14 years.

I do not know whether this somehow contributed to the process of putting this bill together in the government party room, but here we are. We have what will be noted as this introduction of a new relevant age. It is worth highlighting because the government has chosen to focus on what are relatively discrete changes to the treatment of defining a recidivist young offender and then has piled all of this on at a level of repeat serious offending and then applied it to this subset of young people, which has both raised the stakes enormously and narrowed the field to this really rather novel subset of the community.

As the government has indicated in the briefing it has provided, its data shows that we might be talking about 20 or so young people who are in this category, but it is important to note that they are only being rendered the subject of this intervention at that very serious advanced stage. As I said at the outset of my remarks, on this side of the house we are concerned with outcomes, we are concerned with improvements in community safety and we are concerned with ensuring that young people who are repeatedly engaged in offending are not well served by having that whole process escalate and multiply and compound and for that to have to happen right at the most serious point, the conclusion of criminal proceedings. We all know that so often to take a criminal matter to its end and for there to be a completed trial process and all the rest, it takes a particularly long time.

The real scourge, which is both totally contrary to the young person's interest and, of course, contrary to community safety, is what goes on at the front end, which is at the point where a young person finds themselves charged with a serious offence before a court and then entering into an agreement on terms upon which they are then released. That contract of bail is something that happens immediately.

We can all focus on the quality of that agreement, but it is something that is willingly entered into and, like any contract, it ought not be entered into where there is not a sufficient level of understanding, a sufficient level of capacity to engage with relevant terms and the capacity to understand that there are consequences for breach. Yet, it is that repeated process that we are seeing so often, which has been so undermining of community confidence and community safety.

I have referred to recent events. There was a particularly egregious attack at the highway hotel just a few weeks ago. It got a reference in the street gangs debate just a little while ago. That involved a group of young people over a wide age range, some of whom will not have been convicted of anything but some of whom may have been already repeatedly the subject of a bail agreement. That highlights where the real outcome can be improved, and that is at the bail end.

This bill is novel, in that it has to be said that it is particularly harshly focused on young offenders in many ways. It ratchets up the bail consequences for this, as I have said, very narrow subset of young offenders in a way that puts them in that same 10A category as only a very small number of serious offences committed by adults in ways that are uniquely contrary to public and community safety. The change certainly sends a strong signal, targeted as it is towards young offenders.

In terms of the amendment to the Sentencing Act, the subject of part 3 of the bill, that provides the underlying mechanism by which the government would have this subset of young people rendered subject to the additional 10A category, as I have said already, the amendment to section 55 of the act takes away, in subclause (2), the provision that such an offender is 'liable to be declared' so but renders them 'by force of the subsection, taken to be'. In many ways it preserves the familiar structure that is already applicable for other purposes.

In some ways, because the bill at its front end is making this really dramatic addition to the list of 10A categories on the bail side, it is sort of wanting to acknowledge that bail is where the real action is. But by being so preoccupied with this serious offending and a process of repeat serious offending, it is kind of ratcheting up the seriousness but at the same time missing the point if it is not doing more. It is potentially therefore letting down those very youth because, by the time they get caught by this bill alone, they are well down the path and considerably further than they would be in circumstances where there could be more immediate impact on bail arrangements based on the breach of that contract in the first place.

The minister has adverted to it already. There are real concerns about how we navigate a space in which, in responding to youth crime, we are working—as the Department of Human Services takes responsibility for it—in a therapeutic space within a subset of Corrections. That is the intent. There ought to be the means by which responsible adults can intervene at an early point to prevent further criminal activity, prevent further risks to community safety and ensure that that is actually a practical outcome that is applied at an early point, as opposed to setting up this rather back-ended sort of structure.

So the government made its way here with this bill, and it is kind of flagging that there is an issue. By indicating that there is a reference to SALRI, it is certainly saying that bail might be really where it is at. But insofar as this bill is front-ended on the bail side, its criteria are not going to do the practical work. That is where it can be improved, as I expect the member for Bragg will address in just a moment in the course of the second reading. I say that we ought to be serious about adults taking responsibility for getting youth offenders back on track. It is something that, on the opposition side, we have already made very clear in terms of putting our policy money where our mouth is.

We have announced a $40 million commitment to a process of intervention to ensure that youth offenders actually see consequences and they also have the benefit of investment into measures to prevent them from repeating that criminal behaviour as early as possible. A presumption against bail has some important work to do in that regard, it is just that it should be applied by reference to the breach and not be limited to this very escalated process. With those words, as I said at the outset, the opposition supports the bill, but we certainly urge the government to improve it, and I will let the member for Bragg elaborate before the committee stage.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (19:59): I rise to support the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill 2025. First, let's start with some perspective: South Australia has one of the lowest youth offending rates in the country, second only to the ACT. That is something that we should be proud of. The vast majority of young South Australians are doing the right thing: living their lives, studying, working and contributing positively to their communities.

But within that positive picture there is a small group driving a big share of the harm. In the past financial year alone, just 20 young people were responsible for around 11 to 13 per cent of all charges in our Youth Court. As the Commissioner of Police has pointed out, this is not a sweeping youth crime crisis; it is a concentrated problem involving a small number of young people who keep reoffending. They come before the courts time and time again, often breaching bail, receiving suspended sentences and returning with more serious offences. This bill is about targeting that specific pattern of behaviour. It is not about treating every young person who makes a mistake as a hardened criminal; it is about giving our justice the tools to respond appropriately when serious crimes are committed repeatedly and when community safety is at stake.

Under this legislation, a new category of 'recidivist young offender' will be introduced. It means that, if a young person has committed serious offences on more than one occasion, tougher measures will apply. Courts will be required to take into account not only the offence itself but also the broader impact on the community and the safety of that community. Once a young person falls into this category they will face stronger consequences: tougher sentencing for serious repeat offenders, a presumption against bail for those aged 14 and over when the offence is serious, and, when sentenced to detention, they must serve at least four-fifths of their sentence rather than being released early.

Importantly, the bill also preserves fairness and common sense. The court can still choose not to apply this tougher regime if special circumstances exist, ensuring judicial discretion remains where it is needed the most. This is the right approach for South Australia because it is balance and evidence based. Most young people are doing the right thing and we should not lose sight of that. This bill recognises that we do not need a blanket 'tough on youth' policy. We need a targeted response for repeat serious offences—offending like robbery, arson and serious assault—committed again and again by a very small cohort. Police tell us that this small number of young people creates a big workload: reoffending while on bail, cycling back through the courts and frustrating the efforts of officers and youth workers who are trying to help them make better choices.

The public is reasonable. They expect consequences for serious repeat offending, and they also expect us to help turn lives around. That is exactly what this bill and the broader Young Offender Plan aim to do. Alongside the legal reforms, the government has committed $3 million to working intensely with this small cohort of high-risk young offenders, providing targeted programs, culturally appropriate supports, and pathways to education, family stability, and employment.

If we simply lock-up young people without tackling the reasons that they offend—trauma, substance abuse, mental health challenges, family instability—then we are not fixing the problem. Kids who keep reoffending are often the ones having the toughest time at home. In my experience, when you look behind the charges you often find a child who has lived through things that no child should ever have to live through: neglect, violence, poverty and addiction in the family. They have had little stability and little trust and often no-one consistently in their corner. That is why early support and intervention are so important. If we can reach these young people early and give them safety, connection and purpose, we can stop the cycle before it takes hold.

While this bill strengthens consequences for serious repeat offending, it is not about punishment for punishment's sake. It is about balance, accountability and opportunity side by side, because every time a young person turns their life around it is a win for all of us. When serious crimes keep happening, the community expects the justice system to respond, and they are right to expect that. Supporting this bill sends a clear message: we are backing young people who want to do better, and we will invest in the help that they need to get there. But if someone keeps making choices that hurt others, there have to be consequences. For victims this says, loud and clear: your safety matters and we take that seriously.

I believe this bill strikes the right balance. It is strong where it needs to be but compassionate where it should be. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (20:04): I rise to make a brief contribution on the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill. I think this is just the latest example of Labor dragging their feet when it comes to law and order and tackling escalating youth crime—the latest example of Labor failing to prioritise community safety and put community safety first, because this bill is being introduced in a pretty concerning context: a context in which this government has lost control of law and order in our streets and in our suburbs.

South Australians are sick and tired of seeing bottle-shop workers, who are showing up at work, being attacked by gangs of youths. We saw examples, over the last couple of weeks, at the Arkaba and at the Highway hotel—really harrowing accounts of vicious attacks on people who are just trying to do their job, and people tell us that they see these same offenders time and time again. South Australians are sick of seeing these sorts of assaults on workers, they are sick of seeing stories of home invasions on the television news and they are sick of seeing small businesses being left devastated by shoplifting across the city and across the state. This sort of crime is not happening by accident. It is happening because we have weak laws, we do not have enough police and we have a government that never seems to prioritise law and order.

In that context, what we see tonight is, frankly, after four years of inaction, a bill trying to tackle youth crime and recidivist youth offenders being introduced into this parliament, in the dying days of this parliament. It is a start, but it is pretty weak because what we see is this law still allowing kids to commit crime time and time again, with little to no consequence. A small cohort of kids will keep committing crime time and time again if actions do not have consequences, if they know they can get away with it, and under Peter Malinauskas, and this Labor government, they know they can get away with it.

These laws are weak because they only apply to recidivist youth offenders. What that means is that this whole bill only has any work to do for a very narrow group of youths who have been convicted of at least three separate serious offences and then go and commit another serious offence, at which point they would be denied bail or have a presumption against bail under this new law.

The bill allows a young criminal to go and assault a bottle-shop worker at the Highway or at the Arkaba, quite near my electorate, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times—on four separate occasions—and be convicted of each and every one of those offences, before this Labor government thinks it is time to actually respond and reverse the presumption against bail. That is convictions for four separate attacks on bottle-shop workers, four separate attacks of Molotov cocktails being thrown at tobacco shops or butchers, four separate attacks on small businesses. It is bizarre that, in the dying days of this parliament and after doing nothing for four years, this is the grand response. These weak laws are the reason why we keep seeing crime committed across this state.

The other problem with these laws, as the member for Heysen has identified, is that they do nothing to capture people at the point they break their bail. Bail is the problem here. We have seen huge increases in breaches of bail in the last few years. We are seeing the same small cohort on the government's own admission committing a large majority of the crime. We are hearing stories of youths committing hundreds of crimes, allegedly, in the course of a single year. There was the story of one youth who had about 57 breaches of bail in one year. That is more than once a week this particular youth was breaching their bail and this law does absolutely nothing about it. It allows you to go and commit a serious offence—which might take a long time to go through the courts, by the way—and in that time you can breach your bail as much as you want before this law has any work to do.

The member for Heysen categorised that bail agreement as a contract. It does nothing to punish that breach of that contract. Bail conditions are not made to be broken and until all offenders realise that, we are going to keep seeing breaches of bail because there is no consequence in this state.

What we have seen is the criminal justice system turn into a bit of a revolving door for a small majority of offenders and in this case, given the topic of this bill, a small minority of youth offenders. Criminals who are committing crime, getting arrested, only to be released on bail to go and commit more of the very same crime, are making an absolute mockery of the criminal justice system. Actions have to have consequences and criminals will keep committing crime if they know they can get away with it.

As the shadow police minister I talk to police officers. How frustrating must it be for our police officers who are going out doing their job arresting these kids and then, two weeks later, they are arresting the very same kids for the very same crime and again two weeks after that they are arresting the very same kids for the very same crimes. We have done nothing to respond to that. This bill does not respond to that. In fact, it gives you four separate chances to go and be convicted of four serious offences before it has any work to do. You can potentially breach your bail hundreds of times over that period with this bill having no work to do.

If you keep breaching your bail, you should face jail. The Liberal Party will introduce, if we are elected, a one-strike rule—compared to the many, many strikes that this bill allows—that would reverse the presumption. There would be a presumption against bail if an applicant, who is taken into custody for a serious offence, is already on bail for a serious offence.

Enough is enough. South Australians are sick of seeing these sorts of crimes committed and there being no consequences. They are sick of seeing crime escalating and, as we have said, it is not happening by accident. It is happening because we have weak laws, not enough police and a government that just never prioritises law and order.

The Liberal Party will respond to that. We have a plan for more police more quickly, with the largest ever police attraction and retention plan. We have a plan for better crime prevention by investing in early intervention and rehabilitation. No-one wants to see any person—let alone a young person—be put through the revolving door of the criminal justice system. We want to give young, vulnerable kids every opportunity to avoid a life of crime or to give them an off-ramp rather than just go through the revolving door.

We want to give them every opportunity to get back on track, which is why we have announced that we would fund a $40 million breaking the cycle fund, which would partner with community organisations to help deliver their proven early intervention and rehabilitation programs to break the cycle of reoffending.

At the moment the laws that we have and the approach that we have is not just failing us on community safety, ultimately it is failing these vulnerable young kids as well because we have not realised the current approach is not working. It is not working for them and it is not working for the community who is suffering with escalating crime.

We have also said we will have tougher laws. Under Labor and under these laws, criminals are getting arrested, they are getting released on bail to only go and commit more crime. It is making a mockery of the justice system. If you break bail, you should face jail, and that is exactly what we will do if we are elected.

We are trying to fix some of this legislation—and I foreshadow our own amendment to this bill—by adding to those presumptions in section 10A, so we are not dealing just with recidivist young offenders, just with a young person who might have committed four serious offences and been convicted of four serious offences, but we will also add in there if it is a young person who has been released on bail if they have committed another serious offence.

This is an opportunity for this parliament, before we break, to legislate: break your bail, face jail, so long as it applies to youth offenders. I would urge the parliament to support the amendment that I am foreshadowing now because we cannot just keep having this revolving door of giving people bail over and over and over again. It is time to prioritise community safety, it is time to put victims first, and it is time to ensure once and for all if you break your bail, you should face jail.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (20:15): I rise to support the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders) Bill. I have to say that this is one that does touch my community. Unfortunately, we have had instances of serious crime in my area and some of those have been committed by young people.

Members of this house would have seen television coverage in recent times in relation to the Highway Hotel and the unfortunate offences that have been committed there. That is directly across from my electorate office and I do like to refer to the Highway Hotel sometimes as our office conference room. We like to head over there for a drink and to catch up with locals whenever we have the chance. So I am very familiar with the Highway and the good people who work there.

It is very sad to me and to my community when people who are going about their jobs find themselves victims of crime through obviously no fault of their own whatsoever. Workers should absolutely be able to turn up to work and do their jobs and not have to worry about their own personal safety. The suite of reforms that our government is implementing is of great interest to me and my community, and I am glad to see that our government is paying close attention to what is happening and making sure that we are addressing it.

I think maybe the difference between the approach on the other side and the approach that this side are taking is really a comparison of a scattergun approach versus using a scalpel. What we are looking at is really investigating what the problem is and devising laws that address those problems—not getting into what I think can be a really slippery slope in politics of trying to best each other on law and order policy just for the sake of headlines.

What the important thing is and what my community cares about is that problems are being identified correctly, investigated properly, and that where there is need for law reform that that is happening quite precisely, rather than chasing headlines, actually making sure that the laws we are putting in place are addressing the problems that we are confronting as a community.

One of the figures that struck me and obviously struck others in this debate—because I noticed that it has been mentioned in the addresses already—is that we know that in the past financial year, just 20 young people were responsible for up to 13 per cent of the charges laid in the Youth Court. That is actually quite a staggering figure when you think about it: 20 young people are committing really quite a high proportion of the crimes that are ending up before the Youth Court.

That actually does not point to a widespread problem with a huge number of young people engaging in criminal behaviour. What it points to is a small number of young people who, frankly, we are failing to manage to find solutions for, failing to manage to intervene either using the justice system or using our social justice system to ensure that those young people are not committing additional crimes.

Obviously, that is a much simpler thing to talk about than to actually fix, and there are certainly wiser folks in our justice and social justice systems that obviously are dedicating their time to finding ways to address that very small cohort of youths who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of harm not only to our wider community but also, unfortunately, to themselves and their own families a great deal of the time.

I think that this bill is aimed at really targeting that very small number of young people who find themselves repeatedly before our justice system, repeatedly committing offences, rather than tarring all young people or indeed all young people who come into contact with the justice system with the same brush.

I can recall when I was a teenager—I grew up in a country town—and there were issues like this that were referred to. I remember being acutely aware that others in the community felt that just because I was a young person I was somehow on the wrong side of the law or seeking to cause a nuisance or a problem. I think we have to be conscious as leaders in our communities, and as lawmakers, to really distinguish between the vast number of young people in our community who do do the right thing and who are not even just passive citizens but very active citizens in making sure that our community is a welcoming place and that they are contributing positively to it, day by day, and that they are not tarred with the idea that young people, or simply the stage of life of being young is somehow associated with offending or nuisance or poor behaviour, because it is simply not the case whatsoever.

We know that for young people who come into contact with the justice system, even for quite minor offences, that opens up a world to them that they otherwise might have avoided. We know a life spent in our court system and in our youth and adult justice systems is not one we would wish upon our worst enemies. We need to do whatever we can to ensure that young people are steered away from our justice system as much as possible so we do not have young people repeatedly committing offences and coming before the courts.

As I mentioned, this bill is one part of the Young Offender Plan, a plan that includes so much more. I will refer later to some of the diversion and intervention programs that are part of that plan as well. I think it is very important that we take a carrot and stick approach, that we have a diversity of approaches, tailored to the young people who are finding themselves in this predicament. That wider plan also includes commitments to toughen bail laws which have been the discussion by those opposite just now, and also strengthen penalties for young offenders with extensive criminal histories.

I think it would be remiss of us, in this debate, to think that this bill is the only thing that is being done: it's not. It is part of a much broader suite. The Young Offender Plan is looking at tackling this from many angles but, as I said, we are taking more of a scalpel than a scattergun approach to addressing this issue.

The Young Offender Plan, that broad plan, was developed in response to concerns raised by the Commissioner of Police regarding that very small cohort of youths who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. The bill reflects a targeted response directed to fixing the problem where these young offenders come before the Youth Court time and time again. It also concentrates on serious offences. We are not talking about someone who commits quite a lot of minor offences; we are talking about someone who is repeatedly committing serious offences and largely that includes offences of violence or potential violence.

There are three significant amendments that make up this bill. Amendments to section 3 of the Young Offenders Act to introduce new statutory policy which makes it 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. Taking a look at the actual offending that is going on, and the gravity of that offending, empowers our Youth Court judges to apply that filter over the offending that is happening, before deciding whether that young person comes under these new laws.

Secondly, the bill amends the Recidivist Young Offenders Scheme in division 4 of part 3 of the Sentencing Act to ensure that youths who repeatedly commit serious offences are captured in the scheme. What that will mean is that a young person will 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 as a recidivist offender is to be sentenced more harshly in respect to the triggering offence that brings them before the court.

Those opposite lamented that it was taking two or three offences to be declared a recidivist young offender, but the word 'recidivist' means repeated so, of course, a recidivist offender is not someone who commits one offence, so I am not really sure where that argument was going. Obviously a recidivist offender is someone who repeatedly commits an offence and therefore it is a really obvious definition of recidivism, and that is being included as part of this act.

Obviously, we have laws that target young people who have committed a very serious offence as a one-off, but we need judges to have the capacity to be able to look at circumstances and tailor the right approach in relation to those young offenders. What we are doing here is making a statement that we expect that small number of repeat offenders to be treated more harshly in the sentencing process, and this is what these reforms are aimed at.

For the offences to qualify they must be committed on separate occasions and, secondly, they must result in a sentence of imprisonment that is not wholly suspended or served on home detention which obviously would indicate that the judge in that matter felt that special circumstances existed in those cases to suspend or to allow home detention.

What is a serious offence under these changes? It is things like serious firearms offences, commercial drug offences, arson, causing a bushfire, robbery, serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and offences against the person which may incur maximum penalties beyond five years' imprisonment, such as assault causing harm. It is a pretty obvious definition of what a serious offence is. I think most people would not struggle too much to understand that they would be the kinds of crimes we were trying to capture here that young people might have committed more than once, and it should be subject to harsher, possible maximum sentences.

Interestingly, the bill also removes the need for a declaration by the court of a person being a recidivist young offender. I think that is really important, because we so often hear about how much work our courts have to do, and we also often hear the old adage of justice delayed is justice denied. Putting in a scheme, which does exist in other parts of the law, about seeking a declaration from the court really does hold things up. What this legislation does is to define what a recidivist offender is and generally a prosecutor will be able to go before the court and say, 'They fit this bill under the legislation,' and they are automatically dealt with as a recidivist young offender.

Of course, there may be circumstances in which a prosecutor does not want to advance that argument in which case they are free to say to the court that they feel there are special circumstances in which this young person should be treated differently, and the court can then refrain from sentencing the youth more harshly under these reforms. But the power is there and the capacity for both prosecutors to seek this and for judges to be able to adopt this approach without the need for additional court processes and additional hearings and additional evidence needing to produced on multiple occasions, just holds everything up for a young person who really does need to be dealt with quickly.

Thirdly, the bill amends the Bail Act 1985 to introduce a presumption against bail for recidivist young offenders who are taken into custody. I started my address by reflecting on the Highway Hotel example and certainly this, on the face of information that is before us in public—though not yet tested in court—would seem the kind of circumstance where this might be useful. This amendment will only apply to young people aged 14 or over and the presumption, again, can be rebutted if the youth or their legal team is able to establish special circumstances.

As I mentioned earlier, this complements other measures in the Young Offender Plan, and I really think that this approach, this really targeted approach is smart policy. It is intelligent law-making and it avoids over-reach and really tries to nail down and target the problem that we are faced with as a community.

Other elements of the Young Offender Plan include diversion and intervention programs. The member for Davenport spoke quite eloquently about the need to recognise the incredibly difficult circumstances or backgrounds that so many young people committing these offences, or coming into contact with our justice system, are overwhelmingly coming to the system with.

As a community, we should bear some responsibility for the circumstances that those young people find themselves in. As the member for Davenport said, when they are children, it is not their fault that they are subject to things such as neglect, abuse, being exposed to substance abuse and other members of the family being involved in criminal activity. It is hard to expect that a young person can grow up in those environments and avoid some of these behaviours.

It is incumbent upon us as a community to be offering, through this plan, not just constructive approaches that try to intervene with young people who might be declared recidivist young offenders, or likely to be declared as such, but programs that are open to other young people who may come into contact with the criminal justice system. I really do think we bear a great responsibility to intervene as early and as productively as possible to try to steer young people away from what is a dire situation for them going into youth detention and, of course, the adult system.

Really this package is a carrot-and-stick approach where there are more welfare-based interventions, but for that very small number of young people who are committing serious offences and causing harm to themselves and others, there is the capacity for strong action, which I think our community demands, but equally I think our community demands that we take a compassionate approach to young people in particular.

I do have to say that when I am out in my community and speaking with so many bright, bubbly and smart young people, it is hard to reconcile their lives, the potential that they have, with the prospects for some of our most vulnerable young people who find themselves in contact with our justice system and broader government services. It is tough for us to imagine sometimes that young people could be in situations where they are committing crimes from very young ages and being exposed to criminal activity from when they are barely out of primary school. But that is the case and we as a parliament need to address that sensitively and productively, but also we need to act on behalf of our community who do demand and do deserve to be safe in their homes, their workplaces or in public.

I think that this bill really does strike the right balance with taking on board some of the difficult circumstances that young people find themselves in and also equipping our courts where they find it necessary to be able to apply harsher penalties when other things have not worked and where the courts feel that it is necessary in all the circumstances. I do find it sad, but unfortunately it is necessary. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the house and thank you for the time.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (20:33): I have a few short comments. I particularly thank the speakers on this side for their contributions. The bill, as presented here, has been well thought out and a lot of work has gone into what we are proposing. As we have heard from speakers on both sides, these issues involving very young people can be complex and difficult.

As the member for Davenport observed, these young people are often from incredibly difficult backgrounds and have been through a great deal, and we, as legislators, have to strike that balance between making sure we put things in place that act as a really strong and efficient disincentive for current offenders, and those who might be on the cusp of doing that, to think twice about their actions and also making sure, as best we can, we take steps that actually break the cycle of offending.

Of course, there is always a question about whether or not presumptions against bail or detention do that or sometimes do not achieve what we think they might and sometimes make that cycle just continue. I thank those speakers for their contributions.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr BATTY: I have some questions about what will happen when this act commences, effectively, and I might ask them at this point. If there is a young offender who has committed 10 serious offences as at tonight or when this act commences, are they by virtue of this bill becoming recidivist youth offenders?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The short answer is yes, I am told.

Mr BATTY: We have talked a lot about the 20 offenders who we know are responsible for a large majority of the youth offending. How many of those 20 youth offenders will become recidivist young offenders by virtue of this bill commencing?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I will have to take it on notice in regard to those, but I am happy to do that.

Mr BATTY: Again, I have a question about the operation of this once it commences. If we have a 14 year old who commits three serious offences, I understand once this bill passes there will be a presumption against bail under section 10A if and when they go and commit a fourth serious offence. Would that same presumption be there if that individual was not 14 but was 19 years old?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: No. It does not apply to adults. This is a specific provision to apply to youth offenders.

Mr BATTY: Is it not unusual that we now have a situation where we are legislating tonight to treat a small and defiant cohort of 14 to 18 year olds very differently to any other offender, and indeed a lot more harshly? Is there a reason why we are not legislating tonight to also crack down on adults who might commit serious offences? Why are we particularly targeting 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds who commit serious offences and not 18, 19 and 20 year olds who commit serious offences?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That would appear to me to be a question totally outside of the bill that is in front of us.

Mr TEAGUE: Just on the starting point—it is important, isn't it? There has been focus on the around 20. There is this small number that we know about who have committed these repeated serious offences, and they are all caught presumably by force of the amendment the subject of clause 6, which is literally, by force of the subclause, that they are taken to be recidivist. Presumably then when they come to apply for bail, they will meet the definition. So it is not that everybody is starting with a clean slate tonight: they are brought along.

The particular question I have is around this narrowing of the subset of children who are eligible. You have to be 14 to be the subject of the presumption against bail, yet the offences that can render a child a recidivist young offender can be—hopefully vanishingly rarely; we have seen the examples recently in the press—committed by a young person aged 10 to 14 in circumstances where the court has established that doli incapax does not apply.

So that child has committed a serious offence, say aged 11 or 13, and comes before the court at age 15. Are they also rendered a recidivist child offender despite the fact that the definition for the purposes of the presumption only applies to 14-plus? I think the answer is yes, but I would be interested in the minster's assurance about that.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you, member for Heysen. I will try to answer your question this way: what I am told is that doli incapax is found to apply between the ages of 10 and 13 because the sufficient intent cannot be formed at that age, and because of that we have chosen 14 as the starting point in terms of age.

Mr TEAGUE: Let me put it back this way: the defence of doli incapax is available to a child aged 10 to 14. Should that defence be successful, and it often is, then no charge proceeds and there is no conviction and no court process because the child is rendered incapable of forming the necessary criminal intent.

What my question zeroed in on is the circumstances in which the defence is unsuccessful, the court hears a doli incapax, or it is not raised, and a child under the age of 14 is convicted of a serious offence. It seems to me that that counts towards the necessary serious offences to render the child a recidivist youth offender, but it is only at the point where that child is a youth applicant for the purposes of this additional provision in the Bail Act that they need to be 14.

I think I am answering my own question, but it is a questionably very rare set of circumstances where, as of right now, you have a child who is 15 now and they have committed multiple offences, including offences that count towards the three or more when they are aged less than 14, so the doli incapax defence did not apply and they were convicted. I am just seeking that clarification.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Member for Heysen, this is, I hope, the answer you are looking for: if the person in question is 15, then the provisions of this bill apply for that alleged offence.

Mr TEAGUE: I will try one more time. We have a situation in this state, for the time being, where the age of criminal responsibility is 10, but there is an available defence for a child in the age range 10 to 14; that is, resort to doli incapax—a child not capable of forming criminal intent, so please do not proceed with charges because you are dealing with a child incapable of forming criminal intent. If that is successful, then at the end of the day, no worries; no offence is made out.

I am talking about circumstances in which you have a child in that age range, the defence is available but it is unsuccessful or it is not pleaded and you end up with an offence being proved. That child has therefore committed a serious offence under the age of 14. That is the landscape. You then look to the circumstances, the subject of the bill, and that child is applying for bail now aged 15. You go back over the history and you see the court was satisfied that they were capable of forming criminal intent, it convicted them at age 12 and 13 and 14, and here they come back now, tomorrow, at 15.

It seems to me that the purpose of the 14 threshold for the purpose of the applicant is only to zero in on the necessary age of the applicant at the time that they are applying for bail. The relevant offences that will be establishing recidivism will include offences that are committed at less than 14.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Correct.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr BATTY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Batty–1]—

Page 2, line 13 [clause 3(1), inserted paragraph (i)]—After 'youth who' insert:

is alleged to have committed that offence while released on bail in respect of another serious offence or who

The CHAIR: Will you speak to it?

Mr BATTY: No.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to respond to the amendment?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: There are a few comments I would like to make in regard to the amendment being proposed by the member for Bragg. I understand that we have had a couple of references already tonight to the opposition's one-strike rule which, as I understand it, would see offenders breach bail and go to jail. That is the way it is characterised, anyway. Commentary has been made by those opposite—not necessarily by the member for Bragg, but perhaps by the member for Hartley—that they would always put it out for consultation. That was in response to a question put to the Leader of the Opposition on FIVEaa radio on 2 November. The opposition can respond whether or not that was done, in terms of this amendment and their one-strike rule being a well thought through policy, as it is put to us by them that it is.

As I said in the short remarks I made at the end of the second reading contributions, a great deal of work has gone into the bill that the government has before the house now, including the work that was done on the Young Offender Plan announced in March. A great deal of consultation sat behind that Young Offender Plan, including responses to stakeholders, legal bodies and other stakeholders as well.

The Attorney-General worked closely with SAPOL, as you would expect, on many of the issues that were raised in the Young Offender Plan. As we have already discussed here this evening, this bill has been carefully drafted to target a small cohort of serious, repeat young offenders. We heard in a number of the second reading contributions the very high number of offences committed by a relatively small number of young people that contribute to that overall figure, and the work that we have done, as best we can, is to target those recidivist offenders.

The bill, in that vein, adopts the targeted approach to capture those offenders who come before the Youth Court time and time again. The government agrees with the opposition it is certainly something that we are seeing from a small number of those recidivist offenders and they are committing in some cases serious offences that do put the community at risk and we are not suggesting otherwise.

But the amendment that is being proposed here by the member for Bragg is significantly wider in its application and I think there is a risk that it captures a much wider cohort of young people. In fact, it looks as though it will capture youths who may have no criminal history whatsoever and may find themselves spending time in detention only to be acquitted down the track—at least that is how it is explained to me.

I would assume we will ask some questions of the member for Bragg on this amendment. The opposition knows that the Legislative Council is the opportunity for amendments to be made to the bill where the government does not have the numbers. It is clear that this proposed amendment is not about improving the policy; it is about a platform to talk about the one-strike rule. For that reason, as I am sure I have made clear in my comments already, we are not going to be supporting this amendment.

Mr TEAGUE: It is interesting to have the minister's contribution to the debate on the amendment. I think the member for Bragg made clear in the course of the second reading the circumstances in which the amendment is moved and I speak up very much in support of the amendment.

I just put the proposition to the committee that, in the present circumstances, the government has been at some pains in the course of this debate to talk about how forensically and carefully and thoughtfully it has gone about the task of crafting this bill, and at the conclusion of the second reading contribution—and I welcome it—the minister said, 'Well, the government is also serious about this problem of repeat bail breaches, so much so that we are referring it off to SALRI.' That is an esteemed, authoritative, thoroughgoing body that will do very thorough work, which is valuable to the government. But it really rather makes plain that the problem that we are all grappling with here in this state is not one that is confined, or even characterised by this small group of young people—a subset of young people—who have found their way through the courts on repeated frequent occasions.

Yes, that is a really serious cohort, sure, but in the meantime we are doing a great disservice to this whole wide cohort of young people who are—just ask the police—in this kind of rinse and repeat cycle of crime, bail agreement, bail, crime, bail agreement, bail, over and over again. You hear these horror stories of tens and tens of bail breaches with no consequence.

I think we might all agree in the course of this debate that the rubber hits the road really very much at the point of bail and what are these repeated apparently no consequence offences or the dangerous perception of repeated breach without consequence. The courts have an extraordinarily important role in all of this. Proper resourcing of courts to ensure that applicants for bail understand the terms on which they are granted bail and that they are on terms that are capable of being complied with, and all the rest, has to be core to the framework, and I am sure SALRI will address it.

It is to emphasise that every step that is taken in terms of reforms has to be sincere, but if it is not disingenuous, it at least runs a real risk of just missing the whole wide scope of community safety risk that is going out there day to day on the streets. The sorts of kids who ought to be off the streets are not these criminal masterminds, repeat serious offenders who are heading towards lifelong serious crime; they are kids who we actually need to do the service of getting them off the streets, getting them out of the way of circumstances in which they go and repeat offend—hence, real consequences for breach of bail.

The other point that is really important to emphasise is that the bail agreement is happening right at the first point of contact with the court and, as I have said already in the course of my second reading contribution, it is an agreement that is entered into—freely entered into. The criticism might be put that when you are talking bail, you are talking about somebody who is entitled to the presumption of innocence and nothing is proved and all the rest, but they are entering into terms willingly. So you have a key moment in their life and engagement with the justice system and engagement on the terms. You are saying to them, 'Well, enter into a bargain,' and that is completely undermined, obviously, if the practical result is that it is not a bargain that has any consequence in the breach.

So the opposition joins with the government in being serious about the bail side. The government has sort of gone about it in the same way that the opposition has considered the matter, in terms of the introduction of a new category of presumption against, but the opposition says we are actually serious about grappling with real consequences for repeated bail breach by this group.

Lots of contributions have been quick to recognise that this is a serious focus on this subset of offenders and applicants for bail in the community. But that is where it is coming from. The amendment has merit and it ought to be supported. I commend it to the house.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Would the proposed amendment introduce a presumption against bail for children who have only been accused of a crime, as opposed to convicted of one?

Mr BATTY: I thank the minister for his question. The plain meaning of what the amendment says—it is only a one sentence amendment—is that if there is someone who is taken into custody in relation to a serious offence, and they are already on bail in respect of another serious offence, then there will be a presumption in 10A, against bail.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you member for Bragg for your answer. Have you done any modelling on the capacity of the youth detention centres to accommodate the extra young people being detained for breaches of bail agreements?

Mr BATTY: I have been begging the government to do some modelling on capacity in our correctional facilities basically for the entire time that I have been the shadow minister for correctional services. We have been sounding the alarm on capacity issues in our corrections facilities that might be just moments away from absolute breaking point. We have been calling on the government to release its business case on a new rehabilitation prison but, for whatever reason, that is being kept secret by the government and the new minister.

But if what the minister is suggesting by his question is that we should be letting people out on bail just because there might not be room in jail, I think that is an outrageous suggestion and he should really carefully think about it because we cannot have a situation where the minister is proposing to let people out on bail just because there is no room in our jails. That is how crime is going to keep rising, so I would call on the minister to reconsider those sorts of questions.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I asked a very simple question about whether or not the due diligence had been done by the opposition around modelling about whether or not it could be accommodated. I was not making any imputations about whether it should or should not be. As those opposite should know, from sitting on this side for a number of years, asking these questions, this is what you get to do in the committee phase and that is what I am doing because the amendment is from the member for Bragg. We did get an answer to the first one, and that is an absolute cracker, but we did not get an answer for the second one at all.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Let's try to—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Both are equally guilty on this occasion. Do you wish to speak?

Mr TEAGUE: I seek the call.

The CHAIR: You want the call? Go ahead, speak.

Mr TEAGUE: I would just add something here and this is something that comes up in repeated estimates when we look at the cost of holding young people in custody, and the cost per young person at Kurlana Tapa for example. It is a counterintuitive proposition in that there is a sunk capital cost at Kurlana Tapa. There has been recent improvement. The last time I was there, a little while ago, it had been the subject of significant capital works. The capacity at Kurlana Tapa is enormously in excess of the number of children who are in custody there, from time to time. We talk about a cohort of—the government will have this data available—maybe 11 at the moment; it is in the 20s sometimes. It results in an analysis of a very high per child cost because it is a fixed cost that is spread out over a very small number.

There is certainly capacity in that frame and I just reiterate—as the member for Bragg has said—it would be an outrageous proposition if we were grappling with a situation where you cannot enforce a binding bail agreement entered into by a court because there is no practical capacity in terms of custody. That has just got to be a baseline necessity, otherwise we are kidding everybody by entering into bail agreements in the first place.

Ms O'HANLON: Have you liaised with the Youth Court regarding their capacity to deal with the increase in bail applications?

Mr BATTY: What we know under this government is that there has been a huge increase in matters before the Youth Court. I think the figure is about a 50 per cent increase in matters before the Youth Court, and I think a 60 per cent increase for breaches of bail. What that data demonstrates is the very need for actions to have consequences, the very need for the amendment that we are moving tonight.

If actions do not have consequences, we will keep seeing these matters before the Youth Court, we will keep seeing kids commit crime over and over and over again. What you actually need is a deterrent. You need to make sure that if a youth is committing an offence, or indeed anyone is committing an offence, and they are getting released on bail after entering into a bail agreement and then they break that agreement, there is some sort of consequence for it.

Ms O'HANLON: That was your reasoning, but was that a yes or a no that you have asked?

Mr BATTY: I thank the member for her question again. As the government well knows, it is not open to the opposition to be consulting with government departments on a day-to-day basis. I would urge the government to come and introduce 'break your bail, face jail'. We have urged the government for the past year to introduce tougher bail laws, to at least review bail laws, and then they come to this parliament in the dying days of this parliament with this weak legislation that still is going to allow kids to commit crime over and over and over again with no consequence. It is the Liberal Party that says enough is enough, and that is why we introduced this amendment today so that if you keep breaking your bail you will face jail.

Mr TEAGUE: I might just add as well, if I may.

The CHAIR: This will be your last question, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: How?

The CHAIR: Because you had two others.

Mr TEAGUE: Really?

The CHAIR: Yes, you have.

Mr TEAGUE: I thought I had one but anyway I will only need this one.

The Hon. B.I. Boyer: In his defence, I think he is only seeking to have a go at answering the member for Dunstan.

The CHAIR: No, it is actually questions or speaking, one or the other, and he has either spoken or asked a question, and this is the third time.

Mr TEAGUE: Certainly, it is a contribution. I might say with great respect to the member for Dunstan it really is an extraordinary proposition, at a whole variety of different levels, to ask 'Has there been consultation with the Youth Court? Firstly, for the reasons that the member for Bragg has already addressed, but the fundamental proposition is—I say here in the context of clause 6—that clause 6 is rendering the relevant young person, by force of the subsection now, taking away the discretion from the court. So the government is at it itself. It is taking the discretion away from the court, applying these recidivist criteria by force of their own amendments.

If we have to go around asking the court whether or not it has some sort of capacity to apply the laws, then it betrays a basic issue with the appreciation of the separation of powers. As to perhaps the more practical meritorious sort of investigation about whether we have capacity in our jails, that is even more farcical because your basic responsibility in government, Corrections—and I am sorry, I am not sure if the new Minister for Police is also Corrections. I have forgotten. I think not. Definitely not human services, but you have a whole range of senior government portfolio responsibility for those resourcing matters. The real question that this boils down to is whether or not a fairly important contract that is entered into in the public justice system is enforceable. Again, these are just basic principles.

Any contract that is not enforceable is nothing more than some sort of philosophical aspiration or something, it is not law. The government certainly would be engaging in a great big dereliction of its duty if it were saying, 'You can't possibly have consequences for breach of bail because there is not capacity in the jails' or 'We are going to ask the court whether or not it has the means by which to deal with the lists.'

That is just as a key matter of principle. The point is that in many ways without this amendment, the class of applicant the subject of this new subclause in 10A will be both discretely escalated and also missing the fat side of the ground in a really big way and we will have the same community safety problem more or less as we have now.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: A question to the member for Bragg: what stakeholders did you consult with regarding this amendment?

Mr BATTY: Once again, it has been left to the opposition to try to legislate from opposition because of your four years of inaction when it comes to law and order. There is plenty of crime in Dunstan—plenty of crime in Dunstan—and we will be telling everyone about it, do not worry.

What we do is speak to the people. We speak to people such as the proprietor of the Arkaba, such as the manager of the Highway Hotel, victims of crime. For those who are listening, I have read out their harrowing accounts here in this place, telling us they are seeing the same kids for the same crimes over and over again.

If you want to know more about what people think about it, why not have a look at the Premier's Facebook post on 14 February when he really read the room well when he said, 'Crime falls across the state.' That attracted 425 comments. I would suggest you have a look at them. A couple of them are your constituents actually, member for Dunstan. I will read some of them out, which will give a bit of a flavour of the consultation perhaps that you might get if you actually went out and listened to people. Lucy said:

Don't know where you get that info from. All I hear is they get arrested, then they're out on bail (so many times).

Sonia said:

Really!! All I hear about is break ins and home invasions and people walking free it's not police it's the system the laws need changing and enforcing the police get them then they walking free again!!

Ray said:

Crime might be falling but people are still getting off with a slap on the wrist. It's bout time we started locking people up…

Sarah said:

Are you sure? Because our area (5070) has had nothing but theft, break ins…peeping toms.

There are 400 of them. Steve said:

I call BS…

Jo said:

The courts aren't doing their job or the right thing by the public.

Greg said:

…a lot of people are sick of low penalties and quick turn around times to bail…the Bail Act needs changing and making it harder to get bail and for some crimes bail refused.

Gin said:

The CBD is terrible at the moment. People now shooting up in broad daylight in front of schools, vandalism and graffiti everywhere, petty crime, bike thefts. It's the worst residents have ever seen.

Disy said:

Our laws need to be overhauled and made tougher stop letting kids out on bail over and over again people are not safe in their homes at shopping centres work place etc

There is a lot more, and I will keep going later in the evening perhaps, but the Liberal Party says, 'Enough is enough.' We will put community safety first and, if you break your bail, you will face jail, and we do not apologise for that.

The CHAIR: Minister, this will be your last question.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Come on, you have got nothing to hide.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes, that might be true actually. Anyway, we will not go back to that. My question is to the member for Bragg: in the opposition's opinion, is youth crime going up or down?

Mr BATTY: What we have seen through FOI data is a 50 per cent increase, I think, of youth crime since 2021. There is a 50 per cent increase in matters before the Youth Court since 2021. I would have to check the exact data; I do not have it in front of me. I get the game the minister is trying to play, and we can cherrypick figures all we like, but it is a real trap to fall into, because it is not people's experience.

People are sick of waking up every day and seeing on the news or in the newspaper the latest story of a violent home invasion, of a Molotov cocktail being thrown at a tobacco store and at small businesses being left devastated by shoplifting. I am sick of hearing from publicans every day about groups of youths going in, biting bottle shop workers, throwing bricks at windows and then walking out with very little or no consequence. So you can bring all the data you want, but that is not people's lived experience.

That is not what people are experiencing, and you cannot tell them otherwise because it is not reading the room well. Peter Malinauskas tried that in February, so do not try it again because it is the wrong approach. We need to crack down on people who keep breaching bail over and over again. It is very clear to me that the Malinauskas Labor government will not, so we will.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Excuse me, members!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister and member for—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Have we had enough? We've done it? Okay. I think we have dealt with that clause sufficiently.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: What did you say after that?

Mr Batty interjecting:

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Did you say 'drunk'?

Mr Batty: No. I said, 'What is wrong?'

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Can we get that please, 9.22?

The CHAIR: Minister, can you take a seat. The question before the Chair—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Once everybody has calmed down, the question before the Chair is that the amendment in the name of the member for Bragg be agreed to.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 12

Noes 23

Majority 11

AYES

Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. (teller) McBride, P.N. Patterson, S.J.R.
Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G. Pratt, P.K.
Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J.

NOES

Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Boyer, B.I.
Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D. Close, S.E.
Cook, N.F. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P.
Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller)
O'Hanlon, C.C. Pearce, R.K. Picton, C.J.
Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.J.

PAIRS

Tarzia, V.A. Dighton, A.E.
Hurn, A.M. Fulbrook, J.P.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (4 to 9) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (21:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT