HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-09-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Street Gangs) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 September 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:42): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Street Gangs) Amendment Bill 2025. The opposition will support this bill. Community safety comes first. Police and courts need workable tools to disrupt organised street gangs. Young people should be protected from recruitment into serious crime. We will support this so the government can just get on with it.

But this is late. Communities have raised youth crime concerns for years. Police have warned about recruitment and victims have asked for action, so why has it taken three years to bring this on and why were South Australians left exposed while the Labor government hesitated? These are the questions many South Australians are asking. However, we are here today and this bill seeks to address critical issues regarding the safety of South Australians.

The bill inserts a new part 3BA into the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. It defines a street gang as a group of three or more whose purpose includes engaging in serious criminal activity and who, by that association, pose an unacceptable risk to the community.

The Commissioner of Police may apply to the Supreme Court for a declaration that a group is a street gang. The court considers evidence about organisation, purpose and risk and may make a declaration. After a declaration, the commissioner may apply for a street gang control order against an adult, or a youth aged 14 or over, if the person is a participant in a street gang or has been a participant in a now declared group and either associates with participants or has engaged in serious criminal activity with them, and making the order is appropriate in all of the relevant circumstances. Street gang control orders may prohibit:

association with specified people or classes of people;

presence at or within a distance of specified places or classes of places;

holding licences or authorisations for prescribed activities;

possessing specified articles or weapons;

carrying more than a specified amount of cash;

using or possessing communication devices except as permitted; and

other conduct the court considers relevant to preventing serious offences.

Breaching an order is an offence with a maximum of five years' imprisonment.

In deciding a street gang control order the court may consider the likelihood the person will engage in serious criminal activity; the reasons for any declaration; how an order would prevent participation; prior criminal records of the person and relevant associates; any legitimate reasons for association; and any other relevant matter.

Where non-association is proposed, the court must consider the person's connection with family and culture and must not prohibit association with a close family member unless necessary to prevent serious criminal activity. For youth, the Youth Court is expected to weigh education and rehabilitation impacts when tailoring conditions.

The bill also establishes a presumption of participation where a person wears or displays a distinctive logo, sign, identifier, mark or symbol unique to the group. The bill establishes three other new offences:

recruiting or attempting to recruit another person to become a participant in a street gang, with a maximum five-year imprisonment if the person recruited is a child, three years otherwise;

entering or attempting to enter a prescribed place or event by a participant or a person subject to a street gang control order with a maximum three-year imprisonment; and

association between members of a declared organisation, members of criminal organisations, and participants in street gangs, including persons under control orders. A maximum two years' imprisonment and the offence requires six or more associations across a 12-month period.

The Attorney identified several revisions made after consultation in the bill as introduced, and these revisions include:

increasing the age threshold for street gang control order applications, limiting them to children aged 14 and over;

ensuring that the presumption of participation cannot be triggered by cultural symbols and symbols not unique to a gang;

changes to the definition of participants, so social workers and others providing positive supports are not captured. Lawyers acting professionally are also expressly excluded; and

changes so that only a court can declare a group to be a street gang.

I understand these adjustments reflect feedback from a number of organisations including the Law Society, SACOSS, the Guardian for Children and Young People and the First Nations Voice.

The bill is necessary and also overdue. Why are we legislating now rather than two years ago when communities were already sounding the alarm? Who will police these orders while SAPOL faces ongoing workforce pressures and rising demand? Will the government fund enforcement or just add powers on paper?

There is also a policy inconsistency on age. The bill excludes under-14s from street gang control orders, yet the age of criminal responsibility in South Australia remains at 10. How can a 12 year old be criminally responsible in this state but wholly outside the reach of the very framework the government says is needed to disrupt serious youth offending?

Not long ago the government floated raising the age of criminal responsibility, then cancelled the move after negative feedback, and now it targets 14 to 17 year olds here, leaving 10 to 13 year olds in a gap. I understand some members of the crossbench are intending to bring this legislation to a committee. I indicate the opposition will not be supporting this. We support this bill so that the police and courts can use these tools without delay.

It targets genuine street gangs and adds offences to deter recruitment but there is much more work for the government to do. They need to resource SAPOL to enforce what they pass and they need to resolve the inconsistencies between this scheme and the age of criminal responsibility. They need to review penalties and act on breaches of bail and, in fact, a review of youth bail altogether, as this has been identified as a key contributor to reoffending.

Let's move earlier rather than later on youth crime so that laws arrive before problems do. This bill is overdue. We support it. We will hold the government to account until South Australians can be safe at home and in their own communities.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:49): I rise to very briefly make some remarks with respect to the Criminal Law Consolidation (Steet Gangs) Amendment Bill 2025 and to focus, more to the point, on the issues that have been raised with respect to this bill. I have just heard the Leader of the Opposition's speech and it is precisely what I anticipated. I say that, because in principle punishing those who lure minors towards—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will get to the Attorney in a moment—crime and street gangs does seem a very sensible step. It is a bill that we should all be able to support with confidence that this is good because this is what the community wants.

In reality, however, it appears much more a missed opportunity in many respects than the beginning of something extraordinary, new and helpful, because if the status quo was working so well when it comes to youth crime in particular we would not keep having the same conversations over and over again. Perhaps if we were more open-minded at taking on board some of the very legitimate concerns that have been raised by stakeholders in the many submissions that have been received, we would not find ourselves in the position we do today.

I did reflect on the opening statement of the Attorney when he introduced this bill, and this is one of the issues that concerns me about this proposal. He said, on 6 March:

The state government publicly announced the young offender plan—

good—

aimed at strengthening laws in relation to young offenders and investing in preventative measures to divert young people from the criminal justice system.

Also good. He continues:

The bill is the first of two bills being developed following the release of the plan.

I do note that when this bill was introduced—and the Attorney may wish to correct me if I am wrong—announcements had already been made in relation to preventative measures and diverting young people from the criminal justice system, but this is the only bill that we have actually seen on this front.

The Attorney also acknowledges that we have one of the lowest youth crime rates in the country, only behind the ACT, and that they are committed to remaining ahead of the curve, and that as part of that plan the state government committed to ensuring police had adequate tools and powers to target and disrupt the activities of street gangs and deal with young people who commit serious offences.

Of course, all the criticisms that have been raised by stakeholders point to the fact that not only is this a missed opportunity but that we have not seen the full package of that plan, so we are considering part of the package in the absence of what is supposed to be a plan in its entirety. Notwithstanding that, it is fair to say that many of the stakeholders have said that not only is this a missed opportunity but that the bills we have seen are an overreach and, sadly, misguided.

We have had submissions from across the board. We have had submissions from the Law Society, we have had submissions from the guardian, we have had submissions from the various stakeholder groups working specifically with Aboriginal children and families, we have had submissions from the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, and of course those submissions also point to the disproportionate impact this bill is likely to have on Indigenous children in this state.

I am not suggesting that punishing those people who lure kids towards crime is, in and of itself, a bad thing—not by any stretch. In fact, I think if I went and took a poll of the public out in the community, they would say that is the right thing to do, that we should be doing everything we can to discourage children from taking part in street gangs and in criminal activity but also punishing those people who drive them towards that behaviour.

That is not dissimilar to the bikie laws that we passed in this instance, but it does concern me that we have effectively picked up, in some respects, what was legislation relating to bikies and applied it to this cohort. And, again, only because many of the elements of the bill do appear to target vulnerable kids, and they do appear to be problematic in many respects, and many of those problems have not been addressed in this bill.

There are two motions before this place in relation to this bill. I am supportive of those motions. It would be remiss of me not to highlight that if we had an effective committee system in this jurisdiction, we would not have to choose which of those committees we refer this bill to. On the whole, it does not really matter what I think. The fact that we have so many concerns being raised by so many sectors, including the guardian, including the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, including the Law Society, including SACOSS, it is a missed opportunity not to refer this bill to an inquiry, whether that be either of the two that have been proposed.

I am open to both proposals. I would welcome the opportunity to do this in the Legislative Review Committee, and I am sure the other committee that has been proposed, the Social Development Committee, would also be a very fitting committee to consider this matter. The bottom line is, if we are actually genuine about dealing with this issue, rather than going out and promoting our own political stance of being tough on crime—a policy which has failed children in this state for I do not know how long, because the status quo remains as is.

We have not done anything to make a dent in children being involved in crimes in this state, regardless of the fact that the numbers are the way they are, and there has been a significant decrease, and the fact that we keep pointing to the fact that 11 per cent of all charges in the Youth Court are attributable to 20 young people, we have done so in the absence of all the expert advice and stakeholder advice that has been given to both the government and the opposition. I do not see why we cannot be a little more open-minded to considering these things in the context of taking into account the concerns that have been raised by those sectors.

It may just be that those sectors are able to provide improvements to this bill, just like the First Nations Voice did when it was heard by the government, and the age group that this bill would apply to was changed from 10 to 14. That is a positive step and there are plenty more positive steps we could be taking in relation to this rather than just banking on this public notion of: 'We are going to be tough on crime, and we are going to break up street gangs,' because, in reality, if that worked we would not need this piece of legislation in the first place.

As I said, it is always useful to look at these things in their entirety, unless something escapes me and I cannot remember that it does. This was the first of two bills that the government introduced this year. The Attorney might correct me as to whether we have debated the second. I cannot remember that we have.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It is to come. I am glad the Attorney confirmed that because my preference would of course be to look at those two pieces of legislation side by side, taking into account the overall impact of that plan before we make a decision on one part of it.

The biggest problem that we have in this jurisdiction is that we keep making the same mistakes and we keep responding in the same way. This might look good, but we do not know how it fits with that other piece of the puzzle which none of us have been privy to so far. Of course, my preference would be to refer this to a committee so that we can consider potentially both aspects of this plan and see how they work together and see what other measures we are proposing to actually deal with those core issues that underpin youth crime in this jurisdiction and everywhere else, because it is those elements that actually make a dent in this area.

I am not going to keep going on about it; I am just going to make the point that we now have submissions in front of us which I do not think should be overlooked. I do not think it is responsible of us to ignore the voices of the commissioners and the guardian and the stakeholder groups who work on the frontline in this area, or indeed SAPOL, who as we know has worked for some time on the Youth and Street Gangs Task Force. Of course, giving the police more powers is always going to get results—we know that regardless of whether you are talking about street gangs or youths or bikies or any other criminal element that we are trying to address in the community—but it is not always the solution. I guess that is the point I am trying to make.

There may be some very reasonable, practical tools, solutions and ideas that are contained within those submissions that have been ignored and overlooked. It concerns me when we have sectors like those which have spoken out saying that there is potential overreach, that there is a lack of procedural fairness, that there is a level of misguidance, that there are disproportionate impacts on some vulnerable children and Indigenous children, and that it will not have the desired effect of improving community safety. It also will not have the desired effect of improving the outlook of the lives of the very children we are talking about.

With those words, I look forward to seeing what will happen—actually, no, I do not look forward to it because I think we have just had that question answered by the Leader of the Opposition who said that the opposition is not open to supporting either of the referrals. I will put this down to a very missed opportunity by the government and the opposition to do some good things in this space and take on board the voices of all those stakeholders who have taken the time and effort to put together submissions and provide data and evidence to the government and the opposition that, frankly, has fallen on deaf ears and been ignored.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:03): I rise today to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Street Gangs) Amendment Bill 2025. The bill introduces a new legislative framework aimed at addressing the risks posed by the serious criminal activity of street gangs in South Australia. Recent South Australia Police task force efforts in August 2025 reported the arrest of 145 individuals and the laying of 586 charges related to prominent youth gangs. An internal police report also identified new formations and linkages to established gangs' development. These are very concerning.

This legislation will give law enforcement the power to deal with street gangs in a similar way to outlaw motorcycle gangs, introducing tools such as control orders to disrupt street gang-related crime. The Attorney-General has highlighted that the street gangs targeted by this bill carry out similar offences to other serious criminal organisations and that there are concerning suggestions that there are even links between street gangs and other organised crime, with bikie gangs and other criminal organisations seeking to control or use street gangs to further their own criminal activities.

The bill introduces a new legislative framework that would empower our police and courts to identify and disrupt street gangs whose activities pose an unacceptable risk to public safety. The bill creates a new offence for an adult to recruit a person to become a participant in a street gang, with a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment or five years if the person recruited was a child under 18 years old.

It is important to note that it will not be an offence in or of itself to be a participant in a street gang. However, it will be an offence to contravene or fail to comply with a street gang control order or to associate with a participant in a street gang or a criminal organisation or a declared organisation under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act.

In making a control order, courts must consider cultural and familial impacts before imposing restrictions and must not prohibit associating with a close family member unless it is considered necessary to prevent the respondent from engaging in serious criminal activity. Control orders must also take into account any legitimate reason the respondent may have for associating with a specified person and the impact that a control order on a youth may have on their access to education and support services.

I have raised a question in this place previously regarding criticism raised by legal rights and Indigenous advocacy groups about the disproportionate impact that the presumption as to participation may have on Aboriginal and vulnerable children in our community. I note that following feedback from consultation with stakeholders, including the Law Society and the First Nations Voice, several changes were made to the final bill, including raising the minimum age for control orders from 10 to 14, and ensuring that the definition of participant does not unjustly capture people such as social workers, lawyers or services who are providing positive support for individuals in our community.

The ability to designate street gangs via regulation has also been removed, ensuring that only courts have the power to make such a declaration. I am also pleased that the presumption as to participation has been refined to clarify that cultural symbols and national flags cannot be considered to be identifiers of the street gang. Only distinctive symbols unique to the street gangs can be considered under this section.

I want to, however, bring to the attention of this chamber the concerns raised by the Guardian for Children and Young People, Shona Reid, who has recently reiterated her strong concerns about the potential impact of this legislation on vulnerable children and young people, including the risk of overreach, racial profiling and unintended entrenchment of gang identity. While I believe that the changes made have greatly strengthened safeguards within the bill, those concerns need to be canvassed, and I call on the government to ensure that adequate safeguards and additional investment in support services and early intervention strategies are implemented to help prevent vulnerable and disadvantaged young people going down the path of criminality.

I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the leadership of the African Communities Council of South Australia (ACCSA), with whom I have a very close relationship, for its extensive work with government agencies and non-government providers to address youth crime and harmful behaviours within our diverse African communities. I have previously moved a motion in this place highlighting ACCSA's inquiry into causes, challenges and potential solutions to violence and antisocial behaviours committed by African South Australian youth, and wish to again commend ACCSA on its ongoing work and proactive approach to tackling the complex issues in this space.

Given the heavy penalties for breaching control orders, it is vital that courts only take such restrictive measures necessary to prevent serious criminal activity and ensure public safety, and when appropriate in all the circumstances. The link between street gangs and other serious criminal organisations is extremely concerning, and the thought of organised crime groups deliberately recruiting and using children and young people to carry out their criminal activities is very disturbing and confronting and must be met with suitable penalties.

I strongly support the safety of our community and believe that, on the whole, this legislation provides important tools to prevent the recruitment of at-risk young people into street gangs and to disrupt serious criminal activity. However, I can also see the merits of the bill being referred to a committee, as suggested, whether it is to the Legislative Review Committee or Social Development Committee. I am open to listening to the debates and discussions by the other honourable members. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:10): I rise to support the government's Criminal Law Consolidation (Street Gangs) Amendment Bill 2025. The Attorney-General says this bill will address the risk posed by the criminal activities of street gangs in the community. This is an avowed commitment from the state government to get ahead of the curve and to use all the tools and powers necessary to disrupt the activities of street gangs under the government's Young Offender Plan.

The unquantified risk requires, in the government's view, a new legislative scheme aimed at diverting young people away from street gangs. This legislative scheme will require a group to firstly be declared a street gang, which will then enable control orders to be made regarding the activities of the gang and its participants. While these control orders are related to the orders currently available under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act aimed at the activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs, this proposed scheme is designed to capture young people involved in street gangs.

I support measures to keep our streets safer and to ensure law-abiding South Australian taxpayers are not affected by these street gangs. The messages my office have received about this bill is that honest, decent, hardworking South Australians are tired of criminal activities of these gangs and that we do not wish to become like Victoria where street gangs, crime and violence are sadly becoming an everyday part of life.

I note those at the frontline of dealing with street gangs in South Australia, SA Police, support this bill, and that alone should send a message to members in this chamber. Lawless individuals and lawless street gangs have no place on South Australian streets. Their activities often infringe on the rights of others. I make no apologies for wanting to crack down hard on street gangs. They are unAustralian and have no place in the streets of Adelaide. Reasonable measures aimed at tackling the criminal activities of street gangs deserve our support on behalf of those who have elected us.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:12): I rise to indicate my opposition to this bill on behalf of the Greens. Populist law and order penalties will not solve the issue of youth crime. The bill before us today is just more evidence that the Malinauskas government is turning youth crime into a political football. When this bill was announced earlier this year, the government proudly claimed that it was part of a commitment to deliver on policies that are, I quote, 'tough on crime' and it was taking the legislative model used to target outlaw motorcycle gangs and applying them to so-called street gangs, which comprise a group of three people or more aged 10 years or older—aged just 10—to be captured by the government's proposal.

Data released by the Attorney-General's own department this year revealed that South Australia has the second lowest rate of youth offenders across Australia after the ACT. Indeed, I note the ridiculous law and order campaign being run by the opposition, the usual populist campaign that the Liberal Party are running. In response to that, the Attorney-General has previously advised this place that we do not have a youth crime crisis and has presented data to demonstrate that crime among young people is not the significant problem that the Liberal Party are presenting it to be.

That is not to say that, of course, when crime occurs, it does not have a terrible impact on communities or individuals—I am certainly not suggesting that—but this idea that there is a crime wave involving our state's young people is just a pure concoction by the Liberal Party. I am disappointed that, rather than calling that out, what the Labor Party have chosen to do is come to this place with more populist law and order policies that do not do anything other than stigmatise young people. That is all this does.

The SA police commissioner and, indeed, analysis by SACOSS reveals that there is a long-term downward trend in offending involving young people across Australia and in South Australia specifically. In fact, SACOSS has found that over a 14-year period to 2022-23, the number of young offenders in SA has more than halved. Importantly, most crime in our state is not committed by young people at all. In fact, in 2022-23, young offenders constituted only 9 per cent of the total offender population.

The Attorney-General's Department states on its own website that, over the past financial year, just 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. There is a total disconnect between the evidence and these proposed laws to enable sweeping surveillance and restrictions on the rights of children and young people.

Stakeholders, including the Law Society, the Guardian for Children and Young People and SACOSS have called for attention to this bill's many problems and its implications for human rights. I will highlight a few of those for you. The extremely broad and vague definition of 'street gang' creates a serious risk of children being unjustly and unnecessarily criminalised. The bill defines 'street gang' as:

(a) a group consisting of 3 or more persons—

(i) who have as their purpose, or 1 of their purposes, engaging in, organising, planning, facilitating, supporting, or otherwise conspiring to engage in, serious criminal activity; and

(ii) who, by their association, represent an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community…

The definition of 'serious offence' is any indictable crime punishable by life imprisonment or five years or more means that even a 10-year-old child could face such penalties. That is outrageous. 'Unacceptable risk' is not defined in the bill, nor is it linked to objective behavioural thresholds or measurable indicators of harm.

As SACOSS pointed out in their submission to the draft bill, this could theoretically include children walking down Rundle Mall wearing hoodies and being noisy, or being perceived by a member of the public as posing an unacceptable risk to that person's own safety, welfare or the order of the community. This raises serious implications for the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of association.

The proposed powers under section 83GT for street gang control and interim orders show alarming overreach, which risks imposing sweeping restrictions on young people's lives. Restrictions on communication devices, cash, locations and associations, for example, can severely limit young people's lives, disrupting their education, their recreation or their community involvement. This bill provides for these restrictions to apply for up to two years, an extremely long time for a young person to be subject to serious restrictions on their rights and to be constantly vulnerable for criminal liability, which creates a further risk of marginalisation.

I understand that section 83GU of the bill allows an interim street gang control order to be issued without notifying the respondent and with any prohibition that a full order could impose. These orders could also be varied without having to give notice to a respondent. This undermines procedural fairness and it leaves respondents unaware of the serious restrictions that may apply to them. Such a unilateral approach neither serves justice nor helps respondents understand and learn from the consequences of their actions.

Bills like this might make for good headlines, and I am sure that is the government's primary concern here, but they make crime worse by stigmatising and marginalising vulnerable people. This bill enables the broad surveillance and restriction of people's rights, not on the basis of proven conduct but on appearance, proximity and association.

Rather than pushing these populist law and order policies, the government must get tough on the causes of youth crime. This means actually coming up with policies like fully funded public schools, expanding free meal programs, addressing access to free mental health sessions, directly funding early intervention and other programs that improve safety. We know that the causes of crime lie in poverty, social isolation and marginalisation.

In her submission to the draft bill, the Guardian for Children and Young People urged the government to instead pursue youth justice reforms grounded in evidence, and to invest in holistic, therapeutic and culturally responsive diversionary pathways that actually support children and young people to thrive, rather than entrenching cycles of disadvantage. Crucially, she called on the government to avoid language that sensationalises or pathologises children and young people and urged them to work with media partners to elevate balanced reporting on youth crime. The government should listen and act on these recommendations.

I remember back when I started my working life, working in the youth sector for YACSA, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia. At that time there was a push from the then Rann government to target youth crime with draconian legislation. The issue was being whipped up by the Rann government with the support of the then Liberal opposition.

It is really disappointing to see that 20 years on we have the Malinauskas government pushing the same old tired populist policies. I thought the Rann government was a reactionary and conservative government. I think the Malinauskas government has a much better track record in terms of delivering positive outcomes for South Australians, but I am disappointed that Premier Malinauskas and his government have chosen to take this populist policy from the Mike Rann handbook. Those days of Michael Atkinson and Mike Rann beating the populist law and order drum were really dark days for South Australia, and I am disappointed to see the Malinauskas government going down that path.

I am also very disappointed, might I say, in the opposition and their spineless approach to this matter. There was a real opportunity for them to support this matter being referred to an inquiry, and the fact that they are not willing to do so I think demonstrates a lack of leadership on their part and a timidity with respect to politics that will not serve them well heading into the next election. Really, they should be fulfilling their obligation, which is to scrutinise government legislation and to act as a watchdog, not a lapdog, of the government of the day. They are really failing, I think, to subject this legislation to the scrutiny it deserves.

That is why I will be moving to refer the matter to the Legislative Review Committee and seeking to suspend standing orders so that I may do that. I understand the Hon. Tammy Franks will be seeking to refer the matter to the Social Development Committee, and I think we will be dealing with her proposal first. I am supportive of that. Should the honourable member's push to refer the matter to the Social Development Committee fail, then I will move my referral to the Legislative Review Committee.

This is a significant change to the law of our state. It has significant implications for the rights of young people in our state. Rather than just waving it through we should ensure that it is given appropriate scrutiny by a parliamentary committee. That could be the Social Development Committee or it could be the Legislative Review Committee, but I urge the opposition to think carefully here before they sleepwalk into this dangerous populist law and order minefield.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:22): This bill amends the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to create a new legislative scheme to target and disrupt the activities of street gangs and to make related amendments to the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008. The scheme is similar to what is in place for outlaw motorcycle gangs but tailored to the way that street gangs operate. They tend to have a more fluid composition, a less structured hierarchy and fluctuating membership.

SAPOL have investigated many types of offences associated with street gangs, including murder; attempted murder; serious violent offences, such as assaults involving weapons; as well as large-scale drug offences and serious dishonesty offences, including money laundering. The bill seeks to ensure that there is an appropriate scheme in place to disrupt the criminal activities of street gangs and ensure that police have appropriate powers and tools to deal with these groups. In particular, the bill amends the CLCA to:

insert an express definition of a street gang as a group consisting of three or more persons whose purpose or one of whose purposes is to engage in, organise, plan, facilitate, support or otherwise conspire to engage in serious criminal activities and who, by their association, represent an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community;

allow the Commissioner of Police to make an application to the Supreme Court to seek a declaration that a group is a 'declared street gang';

allow for the Commissioner of Police to make an application to the Supreme Court, or Youth Court in relation to a child who is at least 14 years of age, for a street gang control order in relation to a specific person;

empower the Supreme Court and Youth Court to impose certain conditions on a person who is subject to a street gang control order;

extend the operation of the existing offence of an adult who recruits a child to engage in criminal activity in section 267AB of the CLCA to include an adult who is the participant of a street gang as a 'prescribed adult';

create a new standalone offence to criminalise associations between members of declared organisations, members of criminal organisations and street gang participants;

create a new standalone offence for the participant of a street gang to be present at a prescribed place or event that has been declared as such under section 83GA of the CLCA; and

create a new standalone offence for an adult who recruits a person into a street gang.

Where the court determines to make a street gang control order, it may prohibit the respondent from doing one or more of the following:

associating with a specific person or persons of a specified class;

holding an authorisation to carry on a prescribed activity while the order remains in force;

being present at, or being in a specified distance of, a specified place or premises;

possessing a specified article or weapon;

carrying more than a specified amount of cash;

using or being in possession of a communication device, except as may be specified; and

engaging in other conduct of a specific kind that the court considers could be relevant to the commission of serious offences.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:26): I rise to speak on this bill. I was not on the speaking sheet because this is the very first day that this bill has appeared on the Notice Paper and it is convention in this place that a bill sits for more than a single day on the Notice Paper before we debate it, and so my indication had been not today in terms of my contribution.

I rise to express my serious concerns about the Criminal Law Consolidation (Street Gangs) Amendment Bill and, in doing so, I am mindful that groups such as SACOSS have joined with others, including the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, and also eminent voices in this debate, such as the Guardian for Children and Young People, and have all urged that this bill be referred to a committee. This bill in its current form may have been out for consultation for some time, but in its current form it has only existed in fact for just over a week in the public domain.

In my reaching out to stakeholders, they noted that, while some changes had been made, they still had serious concerns and still needed time to process the bill and urged that a committee take a proper look at this piece of legislation, particularly with regard to issues such as children with disabilities and unforeseen circumstances.

I rise to admonish members of parliament who have created a campaign of fear about a supposed youth crime wave in this state. There has been some debate about that, and I note the member for Bragg has led that debate. The debate is not borne out by the statistics.

I refer members to the analysis done by Sue Tilley and Rebecca Tooher from SACOSS and I draw members' attention to, in particular, the stats on offending, which take from their genesis the ABS about recorded crime offenders and youth offenders. They state in that contribution to the Law Society Journal that:

Since December 2023, across all offenders (including young people), every type of offence has decreased, including house break-ins, shop theft, car theft and theft from vehicles. Robbery and related offences have dropped by 26 percent and aggravated robbery offences by 20 percent. In 2022-23, young offenders constituted only nine percent of the total South Australian offender population. Over the 14-year period from 2008-09 to 2022-23, the number of young offenders more than halved, with the decline accelerating after 2016.

Of course, it is easy to cherrypick some figures that start at the period of COVID when clearly we had quite a break in the usual running of business and the way that this society operated, and pretend that there was some sort of crime wave that needed a response. I remind the opposition that facts matter.

Some facts that I would also like to put on the record today are that this nation currently spends some $1 billion plus a year locking young people up. In South Australia, we spend eight times as much on locking young people up as we do on community-based services for them. Do you know what? It costs quite a bit to lock a young person up. Not only does it rob them of their future, not only does it break social fabric, it costs some $4,189 a day to lock them up. That is $29,323 a week or, in fact, over $1.5 million a year. If you just stopped and paused and did not lock, say, one young person up, you would have another $1.5 million to spend on justice reinvestment, on keeping people out of the system in the first place, and creating better lives for all South Australians.

I note the words of SACOSS and others, that this draft legislation has made some small amendments from the previous position that the government was putting out to consultation, but that those do not go anywhere near far enough. In particular, I observe the concerns of the guardian, and I thank her for her swift response to my correspondence in recent days, noting that none of these groups have actually had adequate time to provide a proper response to this piece of legislation, so I fail to see how any member of this place can do the same.

In fact, the guardian has also pointed to things that need to be done to turn this debate around, to acknowledge the truth of it and, in fact, to create better lives for young people. The bill is, in fact, incompatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and, of course, Australia is a signatory to that and does have legal obligations. The risk of overreach, racial profiling and unintended entrenchment of gang identity is significant.

This bill potentially provides a vehicle for racial discrimination, as the guardian warns, and it has in it the erosion of key legal protections, including the presumption of innocence and the right to silence. Indeed, as the guardian states, she remains concerned that this bill places the onus on a child or young person to prove that they are not part of a street gang, flying in the face of our usual rule of law.

I have given contingent notice today, at the very first opportunity that I had to do so, to refer this particular bill, in my case to the Social Development Committee for further consideration. I note that that will need an absolute majority of this place due to the suspension of standing orders. I also note that the Liberal opposition has indicated that they will not be considering any referral of this bill for further consideration to the Social Development Committee, the Legislative Review Committee or, indeed, a committee that the Liberal opposition could themselves set up to ensure that there is thorough and proper process in this place, that we do not debate bills on the fly one sitting day after they have been introduced, and that we do not deny stakeholders with expertise the ability to have proper input into the legislation that is debated in this council and in the other place.

It is a failing of democracy today that that has happened. I bemoan the fact that we have ended up in this law and order debate—back to the old era of the Rann days, where it is great, with a state election in the offing just a few short months away, to start talking tough on crime and to throw real statistics and the facts out the window.

On a final note, I know that AI, should you consult it, notes that there is no youth crime wave in South Australia, and in fact we have the lowest rate, other than the ACT, of youth crime. I note with some comfort that that statement is backed up by the Attorney-General's own department, as well as groups I have mentioned today, such as the Law Society paper that SACOSS has penned.

I urge members to consider whether they are making a mistake by playing fast and loose with the truth for the sake of political pointscoring, and I look forward to the debate and answers to questions that do need a response from the Attorney-General. It is a deeply disappointing day when we see this sort of legislation rammed through the parliament, not just through the government's actions but with the Opposition's complicity and inaction.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (16:35): I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. As the government said at the outset, this bill gives police important powers to disrupt the activities of street gangs. It is the government's view that it is an important measure to maintain the safety that the South Australian community enjoys.

In this state we have been very successful at disrupting the activity of outlaw motorcycle gangs. These reforms draw from that successful model and similarly seek to disrupt the activities of street gangs. These reforms have been the subject of significant consultation. The proposal was first outlined in the Young Offender Plan, as honourable members have alluded to, in March of this year. It was then refined, and a draft bill was first published on 10 June 2025.

Consultation on the draft bill was extensive, with the bill sent to many stakeholders, including the ALRM, the Law Society, the Bar Association, the courts, the Guardian for Children and Young People, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Youth Affairs Council, the South Australian Council of Social Service and others. It was also made publicly available on the Attorney-General's website, including advice on how to make a submission.

In all, almost three dozen submissions were received in response. Consultation also occurred directly with the state's First Nations Voice, including a meeting to receive feedback, as I outlined in my second reading explanation on the introduction of this bill. This feedback, as well as feedback that was similar in nature from a number of other groups, led to a number of changes to the bill.

This has been an extensively consulted on bill and one of the most consulted on bills in the Attorney-General's portfolio area during this term of parliament. We will not be supporting the referral to committees for further consultation after the consultation that has already occurred. We will be looking forward to discussion on this bill, should it not be referred to a committee at the second reading stage today.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 13

Noes 4

Majority 9

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M.
Hanson, J.E. Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F.
Wortley, R.P.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Franks, T.A. Lee, J.S.
Simms, R.A. (teller)

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:41): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move that the bill be withdrawn and referred to the Social Development Committee for inquiry and report.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks, we do not have an absolute majority on the floor.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Mr President, I draw attention to the state of the chamber.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You just walk out; you do not even vote on it, let alone—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks, there is a quorum present so you cannot call attention to the state of the house.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, I know. I gave it a go. I am just pointing out that you just pulled the numbers so that I cannot actually put a motion for a bill that you did not even have on the Notice Paper today, so you have just used process to deny democracy. Well done.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:42): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move that the bill be withdrawn and referred to the Legislative Review Committee for inquiry and report.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, we still do not have—

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Shame on the government, shame on the opposition. You have the numbers and you are not even willing to let us have this debate. You are ramming it through. That is a really low act and one I will not forget.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, I am actually not doing anything.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am not having a go at you, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: It sounded like you were.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I was commenting on the actions of the government and the opposition, to be clear. I think this is a very lousy sleight of hand on their part.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question to the Attorney-General is: does the First Nations Voice to Parliament support this bill in its current form?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. As I outlined, I think, in my second reading explanation and also my second reading sum-up speech, we have had direct consultation with the First Nations Voice in relation to the bill. They made a number of suggestions which we have taken into account.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does the First Nations Voice support this bill in its current form?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are not regularly in the habit of going out to consult once we have made changes as a result of suggestions made. That could lead to an endless cycle of consultations every time changes are made for further changes and further consultation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the bill that we have before us the same format that was provided to the SA First Nations Voice to Parliament or not, and on what date was it provided to them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have an exact date. I am trying to remember. I could not guess on a date, but certainly in the three months since the draft was released there was a version of the bill that was provided that was in the original version that went out for consultation. As a result of that consultation, significant changes have been made and that is what is presented before us today.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Which stakeholders support this bill in its current form?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have a full list. As I have said, as I understand it there were almost three dozen submissions received. Some of the concerns that were raised amongst groups were similar to the concerns that were raised by the First Nations Voice. I think there was both support for the bill in the consultations as well as concerns raised, and we have taken into account some of those.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Will the minister release the submissions publicly and identify which elements of feedback have been actioned?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for the invitation but that is not the usual course of action that we take.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Which stakeholders actually support the bill that we currently have before us that we are debating today? Which stakeholders actually support it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, in a similar answer to the last question, I thank the honourable member for her invitation. It is not the usual course of action that we as a government take—or indeed other governments have taken—to release all submissions that are received, but we do take them into account.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the Attorney-General aware of opposition to this bill and is he aware of which stakeholders oppose this bill in its current form?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Once again, clearly that is the case because we have made changes in relation to feedback that was received during consultation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney outline the significant changes and changes made to the bill that he has referred to in his responses so far?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to outline some of the changes that were made. These were ones that I think I traversed during my initial second reading explanation, in particular in relation to feedback that was received from the First Nations Voice, which was similar to feedback that a number of other groups put forward. I think the opposition outlined some of those.

One of the changes we have made was that the application for street gang control orders can only be made in relation to children who are at least 14 years of age, not 10. I know that there are very well-held views and debate about the age of criminal responsibility in South Australia, which is generally 10. For this bill, for orders the child has to be 14.

It has refined the operation of presumption as to participants so it does not apply to cultural symbols or symbols that are not unique to that street gang. There was concern raised that, for example, wearing a national flag in and of itself could constitute an offence or participation in a street gang. My advice is that that was never the case under how the initial bill would operate, but as an abundance of caution and to allay any fears that that was the case, even though the advice was that that is not how it operated, we made it abundantly clear that those symbols have to be unique to that street gang. They cannot be, for example, a national flag.

We have ensured that the definition of 'participant' does not capture people who may be providing positive support to an individual in a street gang. In the draft bill, lawyers were excluded. We did take on suggestions that social workers or other professionals who are actually trying to help those in the street gang, not actually in the furtherance of criminal activity, ought not to be inadvertently captured, and we have taken that on board.

There was an ability in the draft bill that by regulation you could declare that a group is a street gang in relation to feedback. We have made it so that only the court can make that declaration, so evidence would have to be provided and there would potentially be a contest about whether that was enough evidence. It cannot be by regulation; it can only be by the court who makes it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Given that list actually reflects exactly what I have in front of me in terms of the substantive changes, can the Attorney confirm that they are the only substantive changes that have been made between the two drafts?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there are other less substantive changes, but my advice is that they are the substantive changes that have been made.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Rather than me asking questions at the relevant sections, I might just ask them now, so that I can get them out of the way, if that suits you. I note the haste with which the government is keen to move this through. I refer to clause 83GH. Can the Attorney explain why the suggestion of the Law Society and others to include the words 'without lawful excuse' has not been taken up? Surely there are reasons why people might associate with a group, not necessarily knowing, for instance, that they are a potentially criminal organisation. Can you explain why that has not been taken up?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can I just get some clarification? The section that the honourable member refers to is the interpretation section. What particular element of that is he directing us to?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Sorry. The advice that I have been given here—maybe it is clause 9, actually.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Do you want to write and we can take it on notice? We are just not sure.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: There is a clause here that refers to a participant. Maybe the clauses are wrong on my notes. I do not have it in front of me, but a:

participant, in a street gang or other group—

no, it is in definitions—

means a person who

(a) asserts, declares or advertises their membership of, or association with, the group…; or

It goes through (b) and (c) and lists a series of instances. It is my understanding that the Law Society and others suggested that there should be the inclusion of the phrase 'without lawful excuse'. Can the minister explain why that was not taken up?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that we did take into account that particular suggestion in the way that it is now drafted, and that has changed from the original drafting of the bill. In that particular subclause of the interpretation section in 'participant', subclause (c) states:

with the intention of engaging in, organising, planning, facilitating, supporting, or otherwise conspiring to engage in, criminal activity—

It is a way we have taken that into account by saying you have to have the intention of doing that.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I have that in front of me. The precursor under (b) is 'or', so I read that as implying that the intention of engaging in or organising is not an essential part of the offence. Is the minister saying that that is indeed an essential part of the offence?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand what the honourable member is asking, but I am advised it is, and deliberately, quite a high threshold to meet that in 'participant'. For the first two parts, (a) and (b), you have to do things proactively. You have to assert or declare, you have to seek to become a member of, so you do not inadvertently fall into that—it is taking positive steps to do that—and in part (c), again, it is with the intention of doing that.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Then why did the minister not use the word 'and' rather than 'or', because this implies that it is an 'either or' proposition? If you are saying that this is in fact an essential component of the offence, then why is not part (b) followed by 'and' rather than 'or'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In all those three parts, (a), (b) and (c), every one of them requires a positive step. It is not like part (a) does not require a positive step, so it should be 'and to require another part' with the positive step; all three elements, either one of those, require that positive step.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can I ask the Attorney: what is the urgency here? I note his comments earlier where he talked about the fact that he had released a draft bill some time ago, but why was this bill only on the Notice Paper in this chamber for such a short period of time? Why were members not given more of an opportunity to engage with the detail of this legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The draft of this bill was released some three months ago. We have taken into account significant feedback. I outlined some of the significant changes that have been made. We have just traversed another one of the less significant but nonetheless important changes that have been made that require that participation to be taking positive steps to do that.

We are getting towards the end of this term of parliament. I think there are something like 14 sitting days to go after today. This bill will necessarily have to travel to the other place and be debated there, so we are keen to get on with it to try to make sure that this bill gives the police the power they need during this term of parliament.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just referring to the Young Offender Plan 2025. It is all of five pages, about 16-point font size and triple lined. Extraordinarily, there are fewer than a hundred words on youth gangs and areas for improvement, and that is what this bill deals with. Again, I can read them clearly because they are in about 18-point font size. There are three areas of immediate action: a million dollars over three years for justice rehabilitation funding, a stakeholder round table and a review of the Bail Act.

Can the Attorney provide an update on all of those three immediate actions, and can the Attorney also provide an update in relation to the other bill, which is supposed to provide a response to the overall plan in relation to young offenders?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the honourable member is, indeed, correct, that there are other elements of some of what we are doing in this area. With regard to the other bill that the honourable member refers to that deals with serious repeat young offenders, a draft has been made available. There has been, like this, extensive consultation. That consultation period is now closed and as a government we are considering the result of that consultation.

In relation to targeted programs to intervene in young people's lives, I think the honourable member mentioned a million dollars over three years—it is a million dollars a year over three years, so that is $3 million in total. I know work is underway, particularly in consultation between the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Human Services about how those services will look.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The last of those immediate actions also calls for a review of the Bail Act to be referred to SALRI, and that will relate to the 'practical operation and role in the criminal justice system'. Where is that at?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That has happened. That reference has been given to the South Australian Law Reform Institute. As honourable members will know, SALRI do very in-depth deep-dive analysis. That has occurred. As with most SALRI references, I expect that will take some time.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney just refresh my memory: do we not have another bill that is dealing with the Bail Act at the moment, and is that related to young offenders at all?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I cannot think of one apart from the one that was out for consultation. Consultation has now closed and we are considering the feedback. I cannot remember another one that specifically deals with bail for young people.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney explain how the significant implications for children in youth detention and the youth detention environment have been overcome by any of the provisions in this bill since the first draft?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Before I answer that, I might add to the previous question that was asked in relation to bail. There is in the Attorney-General's portfolio bill that is now introduced reference to bail, but that is not specifically to do with young offenders. That is to do with an issue that we have not seen in South Australia but has arisen in other states with private providers of bail services. That is not anything to do with what this bill seeks to do, but in the Attorney-General's portfolio bill there is a reference to private providers of bail services, to make sure they cannot spring up without the knowledge and approval of the bail authorities in South Australia. I will get a further answer in relation to the member's question.

I am not sure if this answers the question, but I am sure if it does not, the honourable member will further refine her question to point me in the right direction. In relation to youth detention or vulnerable cohorts of young people, one of the very specific aims of this bill is to disrupt the operations of street gangs, and particularly the recruitment of young people into those.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Has particular consideration been given to how this bill will apply to children in residential care?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is not a provision in the bill that specifically speaks to that, but I am advised the provision in the bill—for example, if a control order is made—is to take into account all the circumstances of that person, and the circumstances if it was a child in residential care may well be one that is taken into account.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: By the same token, what consideration has been given to those control orders when it comes to the living arrangements of children and adults alike, who may be siblings, cousins, living in an extended household setting where they are actually related to each other or living together as kin?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is one of the other further changes that has been made to the bill from the draft bill after taking into account the results of consultation. Division 3 83GT(7) has changed from the draft consultation so that it requires the court, if they are going to look at making a control order:

(7) In determining whether to make a street gang control order prohibiting the conduct of a kind referred to in subsection (5)(a) or (c), the Court—

and this is not 'can', this is a 'must'—

(a) must have regard to the extent to which such an order may affect the respondent's connection with their family and culture; and

(b) must not prohibit the respondent from associating with a close family member unless the Court considers it necessary to prevent the respondent from engaging in serious criminal activity.

The issue that the honourable member raised is something that has changed and been taken into account from the draft bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney just flesh that out a little in terms of the practical implications? So you have one of these applications, and there are siblings or kin or they are living in the same household, and the court has a positive obligation to take that into account. What is the outcome for the parties involved?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for inviting me to step into the position of being a judge and looking at factual circumstances and making a ruling, but it will depend on the individual circumstances. But it is something the court must take into account.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So the court must take it into account, but the concerns that have been raised about the fact that it may potentially still result in the same outcome are valid ones?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, this has changed as a result of the consultation. This is a new and different addition to the bill. As I said, the court must not prohibit the respondent from associating with a close family member unless it considers it is necessary to prevent the respondent from engaging in serious criminal activity. That is a requirement that is in the bill now that was not in the bill previously, I am advised.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Is this legislation modelled on the laws in relation to bikies, and does the Attorney-General think it is right that we treat children the same way as we treat bikies in our state?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly the aim of this is to disrupt the activities of street gangs who engage in criminal activity in the same way that the bikie legislation has very successfully disrupted the criminal activity that bikie gangs engage in.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Street gangs involving children—minors.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would point out that the outlaw motorcycle gang laws that we have could involve people under 18 as well. Very significantly, I think, one of the aims of this is to disrupt and prevent young people going down a path of choices that involve more frequent contact with the criminal justice system.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just perhaps as a supplementary to that and noting specifically, in division 4, new section 83GZE, which, as I understand it, creates an offence for carrying on a criminal association on not less than six occasions during a period of 12 months, can the Attorney please clarify where the six occasions in 12 months recommendation has come from, particularly in regard to intervention with a penalty to perhaps promote a change of path?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is one of the areas that is borrowed from the declared organisations legislation. So it takes, I think, as I am advised, the same time period and number of occasions from that piece of legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney just confirm whether consideration was given to how this bill may interact with the transit barring orders scheme that was implemented by regulation, not legislation, recently?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised it is difficult to see how there is specific overlap in relation to that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: There were some specific concerns raised in relation to new sections 83GZN and 83GZO around criminal intelligence and preventing parties from being able to challenge errors. Were there any changes made to either of those two sections as a result of the substantive changes that the Attorney referred to earlier?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that these provisions are taken from the serious and organised crime legislation and my advice is that what they seek to do is if there is criminal intelligence that the police come by way of investigating something unrelated they can use that intelligence in relation to this scheme.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just looking at the definitions that apply in relation to street gangs and serious offending.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is this in interpretation?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, interpretation. So 'street gang' in 83GH is defined as:

(a) a group consisting of 3 or more persons—

(i) who have as their purpose, or 1 of their purposes, engaging in, organising, planning, facilitating, supporting, or otherwise conspiring to engage in, serious criminal activity; and

(ii) who, by their association, represent an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community; or

(b) a declared street gang.

So the street gangs can be declared by whom? I already know the answer to that, but also is there any limitation? Is it any serious offence? 'Serious criminal activity', which is referred to in the definition of street gangs, is defined as 'the commission of a serious offence'. Is that any serious offence?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the two questions, the first one was in relation to street gang definition, particularly (b) 'a declared street gang'. That refers to one who has been declared by a court. It is not as the original bill was: it can be declared by regulation. That has to be declared by a court. So that is if there is already a declaration in place and that significantly increases the threshold, rather than it be an executive order as the original bill contemplated.

In relation to the second question, commission of a serious offence, yes, the member, I am advised, is correct. A serious offence is an offence that is an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of five years or more.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In paragraph (ii) of that same definition, one of the other means by which these can be declared is by association where they represent an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community. Is unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community defined anywhere?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that that will be up to the court to interpret those words. But I will point out, and I think one of the other contributions at the second reading stage talked about the definition of street gang, just to be very clear, on advice it is not that you pose an unacceptable risk or that you have this for a purpose, it is an 'and'. It has to be both of those. Again, this is deliberate. It is not a low threshold, so it cannot just be that you pose an unacceptable risk. It has to be the first part as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is it correct that the onus in relation to proving that a person is not part of a street gang falls on the child or young person involved, as opposed to the other way around?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that is not the case. My advice is that the police have to put it before the court and establish it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The guardian's original submission raised serious concerns about the implications for people with disabilities and noted that the bill was silent on disability. I acknowledge that was a previous incarnation of the bill. She went on to say:

…an omission that is unacceptable and with serious consequences. Children and young people with disability, particularly those in out-of-home care or involved in the youth justice system, are already amongst the most over-policed and under-protected in our legal and institutional systems. Without explicit safeguards, this Bill risks further entrenching a pattern where the effects of trauma, cognitive impairment, or psychosocial disability are misread as risk indicators or criminal intent. Legislation that fails to consider disability—and its intersection with child protection, poverty and institutionalisation—does not merely overlook complexity. It actively compounds it.

What changes were made to the draft bill to address this serious concern?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I think that one of the changes made was in relation to how a street gang can be declared. It can only be a court doing it: it cannot be done by regulation. Being a participant in a street gang in and of itself does not create any criminal offending. It is only if subsequently there is a further application to a court in relation to an individual for whom there is a control order or it is sought, and certainly any specifics to that individual can be taken into account by the court.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have two further questions. The Attorney in his second reading and, indeed, as part of the plan points to the fact that we have the second lowest rate of youth offenders across Australia, after the ACT. There has been a significant and continuing decrease in the youth offender rate to 1,268 per 100,000 in 2022-23 but then a slight increase of 1,161 per 100,000 in 2021-22. I think those figures are the wrong way around, but notwithstanding that, we then hear the Attorney tell us about the fact that there is a small cohort of offenders who are responsible overwhelmingly for crimes being committed.

Can the Attorney just address the point of the disproportionate impact that this has on Indigenous children by telling us, out of those figures that have been arrived at, how many are actually Indigenous?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: How many?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Those figures that you have pointed to in your plan.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have information in relation to that, but I can say in relation to the point the honourable member raises that, whilst we do have a comparatively low rate of youth offending compared to other jurisdictions in Australia, we want to make sure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to ensure that that stays the case. This is directly aimed at disrupting what street gangs do. I think it has been publicly reported that the majority of participants in street gangs are not young people but are over the age of 18. This is unapologetically about trying to make sure that young people do not become involved in street gangs, particularly elements that create the offence for recruitment, too.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am very grateful for that answer because the Attorney might just want to elaborate on that. There are two points under the plan: one is sentencing and the need for something to be done in relation to the current scheme around sentencing, and the other is in relation to youth gangs. Does this bill pick up on both or just youth gangs, and is it likely that the issues around sentencing will remain because the same people are not necessarily involved in the two lots of offending?

So sentencing is one issue, youth gangs is another—does this pick up on both, and is it likely that we still have issues with sentencing because there is a cohort of kids or minors or young people committing crimes that are not part of that gang activity that has been referred to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The honourable member will be pleased to know that the second bill that we have traversed, where the consultation has now closed and we are considering feedback, picks up on that sentencing aspect.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just before we move on, I did want to put on the record my deep frustration at the way that this bill has been handled and my disappointment in particular at the opposition for working in concert with the government to pool a quorum so that we could not have a discussion around whether or not we should suspend standing orders to refer this matter on to a committee.

I think the Hon. Tammy Franks made some very good points in terms of her rationale for seeking to refer this on to the Social Development Committee. I think the discussion that we have had today demonstrates the benefit that could have flowed from referring it on to the Legislative Review Committee, given the complexity of the bill, and I am disappointed that the two major parties in this place were not even willing to give the crossbench the opportunity to have that discussion and to debate that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will not keep on about this, but I just want to put one potentially final question to the Attorney. That same plan—and the Attorney refers to this—says that:

It now appears that the pattern of offending by the cohort of young offenders who are causing the greatest concern differs from adult serious repeat offenders, with higher rates of reoffending often involving lower-level offending…

failure to comply with bail agreement (19%)

dishonestly take property without consent (17%)

damage building or motor vehicle (7%)

I acknowledge what you have just said about the next bill, but given that we are talking about lower levels of offending in your report, none of that will necessarily be captured by this bill if we are only dealing with serious offending; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is correct. The issues that the honourable member has raised are intended to be addressed by the next bill that is coming.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is there a reason we could not consider these two bills side by side so that we know what the totality of the package looks like?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable question for her question. It is a matter of resources. We necessarily consider many things in this place. I know that the officers from the Attorney-General's Department work extraordinarily hard, but it is about making sure we have enough time to properly consider feedback, because I am sure if we did not consider feedback and made no changes to a draft, I would be even more heavily criticised, and probably quite rightly.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 4), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:22): 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