The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (16:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Ensuring community safety is a key priority for the Minns Labor Government. Reports from communities in regional New South Wales, and statistics from the Bureau of Criminal Statistics and Research [BOCSAR], indicate that our regions have been experiencing higher rates of crime than metropolitan areas. Although this is consistent with trends in other States and is a long-term trend in New South Wales, we have heard the people of our regional communities when they say this is not good enough.

During the 2022-23 period, we know that there were specific increases in offending by young people under the age of 18 for motor vehicle theft and break and enter offences, and that this increase has caused our communities in New South Wales, and particularly in regional New South Wales, real concern. We have also heard the concern that young people have been driving these trends, with reports of repeat offending on bail and a developing trend of some people filming themselves engaging in car theft and serious break and enter offences, sometimes involving weapons, to post on social media. Our Government is listening and is taking decisive and immediate action to address these concerns. We know that crime rates have been persistently high in the regions. We also know that this is not the first time that our communities in regional New South Wales have raised concerns about these crime rates. The bill is the first step in a suite of measures that this Government is progressing to meaningfully and comprehensively start to address these problems.

The bill introduces two targeted measures: a time-limited Bail Act amendment, which will ensure that young people aged between 14 and 18 who are alleged to have repeatedly engaged in break and enter and motor vehicle theft offences are not released on bail unless the bail authority has a "high degree of confidence" that they will not commit a serious indictable offence while on bail, subject to any proposed bail conditions; and a Crimes Act amendment introducing a new offence of "performance crime", targeting all offenders who commit motor vehicle theft or break and enter offences and disseminate material to advertise their offending conduct. The Bail Act change in proposed new section 22C is a time-limited, targeted amendment. It has been purposefully designed as a "circuit breaker" to address repeated alleged offending by young people aged between 14 and 18 who have been charged with serious break and enter, motor vehicle theft or performance crime offences while on bail for another offence of that type.

When committed by adults, this type of repeat alleged offending whilst on bail would attract the "show cause" test, which would require a bail authority to refuse bail unless the accused person could show cause why their detention is not justified. The "show cause" provisions do not apply to children and this additional test does not impose a show cause requirement or a reverse onus. As a Government amendment in the other place made clear, the onus to establish that bail should be refused will continue to rest with the prosecution. Instead, the new test will create an additional threshold for a bail decision-maker, directed at the consideration of the risk of certain young persons committing further serious indictable offences whilst on bail. Bail authorities, including courts, are responsible for applying this new test and determining whether it has been satisfied in each individual case. The unacceptable risk test will also continue to apply.

The Government is aware that tightening bail laws, especially for young people, gives rise to concerns about the risk of increasing the number of young people in detention and the ability for the Government to meet its Closing the Gap targets. This proposed change has been approached cautiously in light of the potentially serious consequences for young people and, in particular, Aboriginal young people. That is why this change is time‑limited and specifically targeted at young people who are already alleged to have committed at least one relevant offence whilst on bail for another relevant offence. It has been carefully developed to address a particular cohort of young people who may pose a greater risk to community safety as a result of repeat alleged offending, while also avoiding, as much as possible, broad or unintended adverse consequences. The provision will sunset after 12 months, with an evaluation to take place at the end of that period.

I seek leave to have the balance of my second reading speech incorporated inHansard.

Leave granted.

This bill also introduces a new criminal offence that targets "performance crime". We have heard troubling reports, particularly from our communities in regional New South Wales, of offenders posting footage of their offending behaviour on social media, particularly in relation to motor vehicle offending. There have also been high profile examples of this behaviour in the context of serious break and enter offences, sometimes committed in people's homes while they are asleep.

Disseminating recordings of offending behaviour online may encourage others to engage in similar dangerous criminal behaviour. It might send the message to impressionable young people, or other people in our community, that criminal acts are socially acceptable. It may also provide people with information or ideas about how to commit criminal offences.

Posting videos of crimes that involve breaking and entering into the homes of other people can also cause further harm or distress to, or re-traumatise, the victims of these offences, especially where it leads to public ridicule, humiliation or shaming of the victim.

The new offence in new section 154K of the Crimes Act applies where an offender commits a motor theft offence or a breaking and entering offence, including where they are liable on the basis of a joint criminal enterprise, and disseminates material to advertise their commission of or involvement in these offences. It reflects the community's disregard for conduct that encourages the commission of offences that violate the sanctity of people's homes and that place the community at risk.

Following Government amendments in the other place, the performance crime offence in new section 154K will be triable summarily in certain circumstances.

Other measures to address regional crime and youth offending

Before I turn to the detail of the bill, I want to reiterate that these legislative measures are just the first part of the Government's significant and multifaceted response to regional crime.

Addressing offending by young people, and addressing persistently high crime rates in regional New South Wales, requires a multi‑pronged and long-term approach. We know that the best outcome for everyone is avoiding contact with the criminal justice system in the first place.

Importantly, we recognise that our Government needs to work with the community to deliver a long-term plan that works.

These legislative amendments will work in tandem with a suite of measures and supports that aim to provide therapeutic and community-based solutions to address offending behaviour and support regional communities, so that they can continue to support and care for their young people.

We are expanding Youth Action Meetings [YAMs] to nine additional police districts. YAMs enable a coordinated approach that brings together government agencies and non­government organisations to identify children and young people at risk of harm or committing a crime. YAMs develop an action plan based on the young person's circumstances, including referral to services or assistance from health and education where required.

The Safe Aboriginal Youth Patrol Program [SAY] will also be expanded to an additional five Closing the Gap [CTG] priority locations, to be determined in consultation with communities. SAY is a safe transport and outreach service for young Aboriginal people who are on the streets late at night, to transport them to a safe home or safe activity. It is modelled on a "physical drop-in centre" where community members with a connection and rapport with Aboriginal young people to do outreach, rather than waiting for young people to reach out.

The roll out of $7.5 million in justice reinvestment grants also continues, with grant funding available to recipients as early as June 2024.

In addition, the Government will be progressing targeted and important work in Moree to address crime, support young people, and improve community safety.

Additional judicial resources will be made available in Moree, along with additional Aboriginal Legal Service funding.

A new bail accommodation and support service will be established in Moree, which will be co-designed with the community. This service will provide an alternative place for young people to go instead of being remanded in custody, will include community-based accommodation and will link young people with Indigenous organisations, Elders, and cultural and family supports from their own communities. Skilled, qualified, trained and consistent staff will be on site 24 hours a day, every day, providing child-safe care.

An Action Plan is also being developed within six months to optimise service delivery to ensure that services in the Moree area provide maximum benefit to the community. One focus of this work will be improving the availability of night time and out of hours services and youth places.

We have also listened to the community in Moree about the impact of a lack of activities, entertainment and community infrastructure for young people in Moree. In partnership with the Moree Plains Shire Council and Aboriginal controlled community organisations, we will deliver out of hours activities for young people in Moree.

Finally, the NSW Police Force will continue its surge in operations in the Moree area and continue Operation Youth Safe, which combines education and early intervention to at risk children, to meet community needs and maintain community safety.

The targeted place-based response in Moree, designed with the local community, will act as a pilot program that will inform actions to address similar concerns in other regional communities. What we learn implementing these significant measures in Moree will help to inform future projects and approaches across the State.

I now turn to the specifics of the bill.Schedule 1 introduces a new additional temporary test that applies to the granting of bail to a relevant young person in relation to certain serious offences.

New section 22C provides for a new test that will act as a final step in the bail decision making process and will require a bail authority to refuse bail unless the bail authority has a "high degree of confidence" that a young person charged with committing a relevant offence on bail will not commit a further serious indictable offence while on bail.

Schedule 1, item [1] inserts new section 22C into part 3, division 2A of the Bail Act 2013. New section 22C (1) provides that a bail authority must not grant bail to a "relevant young person" who has been charged with a "relevant offence" alleged to have been committed while on bail for another offence of that type unless the bail authority has a "high degree of confidence" that the young person will not commit a further "serious indictable offence" while on bail, subject to any proposed bail conditions.

New section 22C (5) defines a "relevant young person" as an individual aged between 14 and 18 years old at the time of the relevant offence. The new bail test specifically targets young people between the ages of 14 and 18, as this is the group with the highest rates of offending amongst young people for motor theft and serious break and enter offences.

New section 22C (5) defines a "relevant offence" as a "serious breaking and entering offence" or "motor theft offence".

A "serious breaking and entering offence" is defined as an offence in part 4, division 4 of the Crimes Act 1900 that is punishable by imprisonment of 14 years or more. This includes offences of breaking and entering into a dwelling and committing a serious indictable offence in that dwelling, and offences committed in "circumstances of aggravation" and "special aggravation" as defined in section 105A of the Crimes Act 1900. "Circumstances of aggravation" include where the young person is armed, in the company of another person, inflicts violence on another person, or knows there is a person in the place where the offence is alleged to be committed.

A "motor theft offence" includes offences of taking a conveyance without consent of the owner, taking a motor vehicle or vessel with assault or with an occupant on board, and stealing a motor vehicle, vessel or trailer.

A Government amendment to the bill passed in the other place makes clear that the new offence of performance crime, in new section 154K (1) of the Crimes Act, is also included as a relevant offence for the purposes of the bail reforms, where the underlying offence is a motor theft offence or serious breaking and entering offence as defined in section 22C.

"Serious indictable offence" has the same meaning as in section 4 (1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which is an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of five years or more. This is not limited to only serious breaking and entering or motor theft offences.

New section 22C (2) clarifies that the bail authority may only make a decision under the new provision after making an assessment of bail concerns to determine whether there is an unacceptable risk, and after considering whether any bail conditions could reasonably be imposed to address any bail concerns or risk that the young person will commit a further serious indictable offence.

If there is an unacceptable risk, there is no need for the decision maker to go on to consider the new test, as bail will be refused. In contrast to the "show cause" requirement, where the onus is reversed and rests on the accused, the onus for the new provision will continue to rest on the prosecution to establish that bail should not be granted. This is consistent with the recommendation of the Hatzistergos review of the Bail Act that "show cause" and the reverse onus for bail should not apply to children.

A Government amendment to the bill was passed in the other place, which inserts subsection (2A) into new section 22C of the Bail Act 2013.

The amendment clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that the requirement to establish that bail should be refused rests with the prosecution under the new test in new section 22C.

New section 22C (4) specifies that the provision will sunset 12 months after commencement. This is in keeping with the intention of the proposed provision to be a short-term "circuit breaker" to immediately address the issue of youth crime. The provision will be monitored by the Department of Communities and Justice while it is in place, and will be evaluated.

Schedule 1, item [2] will insert into schedule 3 to the Bail Act 2013 a transitional provision that clarifies that the application of the amendments made by the bill extend to offences committed or alleged to have been committed, or charged, before the commencement of the amendment. This is necessary to capture young people who are alleged to have already committed relevant offences prior to the commencement of the new provision, and are subsequently alleged to have committed a further relevant offence whilst on bail after its commencement.

Schedule 2, item [1] to the bill will introduce new section 154K into the Crimes Act 1900, which is the new offence of performance crime. A person will be guilty of the offence if their act or omission constitutes a "motor theft offence" or a "breaking and entering offence", and the person disseminates material to advertise their involvement in the offence, or the act or omission constituting the offence.

The performance crime offence captures a person who is a passenger in a car that they know to be stolen, as well as a person who is liable for the underlying motor theft or breaking and entering offence on the basis of a joint criminal enterprise, who also disseminates material to advertise the commission of the offence, or their involvement in it.

The offence in new section 154K is similar to an offence in Queensland, in section 408A, subsection (1B) of the Criminal Code Act 1899, which targets the act of advertising motor vehicle offending on social media. The offence in new section 154K goes a step further than the Queensland offence, as. it also targets offenders who disseminate material to advertise their break and enter offending.

For the purposes of the offence in new section 154K, a "motor theft offence" is an offence under section 154A, 154C and 154F of the Crimes Act. A "breaking and entering offence" is an offence under part 4, division 4 of the Crimes Act.

New section 154K defines "material" to include anything that contains data from which text, images or sound can be generated. "Advertise" is defined to mean attracting the notice and attention of the public or a limited section of the public. "Disseminate" is defined to include sending, supplying, exhibiting, transmitting or communicating material, including through social media and other electronic methods.

Importantly, the offence in new section 154K requires the person to disseminate material for the specific purpose of advertising their involvement in or commission of the relevant motor theft offence or breaking and entering offence. This is to avoid overreach and ensure that the offence does not capture other scenarios, such as accidental filming of an offence by a member of the public, or filming and publication of criminal acts by journalists for a media report.

The maximum penalty under new section 154K is the total of the maximum penalty for the relevant motor theft offence or breaking and entering offence, and imprisonment for two years. In other words, this provision will add a further two years imprisonment to the maximum penalty available for the relevant motor theft offence or breaking and entering offence. This approach recognises the seriousness of "performance crime" and the community's denunciation of this behaviour, which can encourage similar criminal offending by others, trivialise the harm caused by the substantive offence, and re­traumatise the victim of that offence.

New section 154K (3) provides that, for the avoidance of doubt, if an offender is convicted of a performance crime offence the offender cannot also be convicted of a motor theft offence or breaking and entering offence in relation to the act or omission constituting the performance crime offence. This clarifies that, while the prosecution is not precluded from bringing alternative charges against a defendant, the defendant cannot be convicted of both the substantive motor theft offence or breaking and entering offence, as defined in new section 154 (4), and the performance crime offence in new section 154K (1).

Schedule 2, item [1] also introduces new section 154L into the Crimes Act. This provides that a review of the policy objectives of the new offence, and the way in which the objectives are achieved, must be undertaken two years after new section 154K commences. A statutory review will enable the operation of this new offence to be monitored and assessed.

Schedule 2, item [2] to the bill provides that new section 154K only applies to an offence alleged to have been committed on or after commencement of the section.

A Government amendment, passed in the other place, insertedschedule 3 into the bill.Schedule 3 makes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to enable the performance crime offence to be triable summarily in certain circumstances.

The performance crime offence covers an array of break and enter and motor theft offences that are Table offences under schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure Act. It also covers break and enter offences that are strictly indictable, and would therefore always be dealt with in the District Court.

Schedule 3 to the bill provides that the performance crime offence will be either a table 1 offence, where the underlying motor theft offence or breaking and entering offence is prescribed in table 1, or a table 2 offence, where the underlying motor theft offence or breaking and entering offence is in table 2. This does not preclude the prosecution electing to have a matter heard on indictment when appropriate. It will also mean that if the underlying offence is strictly indictable, the performance crime offence will also be strictly indictable.

I further note that another Government amendment, passed in the other place, consequentially amended the long title of the bill to reflect the changes made to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 by schedule 3 to the bill.

Second Reading Debate

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (16:14): I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024. The bill is clearly a response to community concerns about rising regional and youth crime. The Coalition has been speaking up for our community in this House, and in other places, and calling on this Government to provide real answers to the question of community safety. The Government tells us that the bill is its response to those issues and has described it as "the first step in a suite of measures" that "the Government is progressing to meaningfully" address regional youth crime.

This legislation was first announced in a press conference, with an accompanying press release, only a week before being introduced into Parliament. It is yet another example of this Government not addressing issues when they emerge but waiting until an issue reaches fever pitch in the media, and then crafting an often ill‑considered, kneejerk, media-based response. In that respect, only a few hours before the bill was to be debated in the other place, I note that the Government was introducing amendments to its own legislation. The reality of the bill is that it is a rushed response aimed more at addressing headlines than actual problems which are directly affecting the people of our State. But any response is better than none, and we need to work with what the Government is prepared to give to the people of New South Wales.

Insofar as the bill works to address the issue of regional youth crime, the Coalition is happy to support it. However, this rushed response contains significant gaps and untested decision-making. I foreshadow that the Coalition will move amendments to the bill to address those problems. Schedule 1 to the bill seeks to make changes to the Bail Act, to address youth crime. However, it only addresses offenders aged between 14 and 18 years. We know that youth crime is a problem from the age of 10. We all understand the importance of early intervention, but we see nothing in the bill to address offending between the ages of 10 and 14—no additional diversionary measures, no changes to bail thresholds, nothing which addresses the perceived issues with doli incapax. Nothing.

We acknowledge that the offenders in the 14- to 18-year-old age group are more numerous, but there is also significant offending by those aged 10 to 14. Perhaps because the 11-year-old who has been before the courts more than 70 times lives in Dubbo rather than Moree, problems with this age group have dropped from this Government's narrowing range of vision. But problems still exist, and this Government is not addressing them in this legislation. A young person who has appeared before the court before he is even old enough to hold a job is not only a serious issue for that young person and for their local community; it is a serious failing on our part as members of society, Parliament and our systems of justice. More must be done. Yet this Government's measure does nothing to address this. It looks only at the ages of 14 to 18 and introduces a new test in which the bail authority must have:

… a "high degree of confidence" that they will not commit a serious indictable offence while on bail subject to any proposed bail conditions …

This is a novel and untested standard. It is unclear what impact, if any, it will have in the community. That is why the Coalition will move an amendment in this place, to ensure that Bureau of Criminal Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] reports are tabled in this Parliament after the program has been in operation for six, nine and 12 months so that Parliament may observe how this intervention has been operating. I note that in the other place the Attorney General opposed this amendment on the grounds that the work and resources required to ensure that BOCSAR may make those reports is too large, especially for a bill with a sunset clause after 12 months. I make two comments in response to that.

In the first place, it remains unclear why the bill contains a sunset clause of 12 months, as if the issue will simply go away after a short time. I note that most of the rest of the suite of Government measures are focused on only one part of the State and are unlikely to be fully operational in the north‑west of New South Wales when this bail measure will be sunsetting. Is this bail measure a real and continuing measure to address youth crime or a bandaid fix in which the Government has no real confidence?

The second argument—that it is too costly to examine whether an intervention works—is frankly unacceptable. We are being presented with a novel amendment, which has not been seen in this State before and which the Government is proposing as its answer to improve community safety. But the Government is saying it is too costly to test whether it works. It implies to me, I must confess, that the Government does not actually believe in the new test, is afraid that it will have no real impact and that BOCSAR reports will simply highlight that failing. It smacks of a "look over here" measure, rather than real and lasting reform. If I am incorrect and in fact the measure will be effective, I will gladly be proved wrong after the first BOCSAR report, if our amendment is passed.

On a more positive note, I commend the Government for introducing the new criminal offence of performance crime and that the crime is not limited simply to young offenders but covers all offenders. The issue of performance crime is growing and the introduction of the new offence recognises changes in our society due to the ever-present mobile phone. Social media must not be used to glorify crime or to recruit ever younger criminals. However, the bill has a serious gap in that regard, either as a result of the Government's rushed response or because the intention is to address headlines rather than regional crime. The offence of performance crime in the bill only extends to motor theft and serious breaking and entering offences. It does not cover all occasions on which crimes are recorded and uploaded to social media platforms.

The Government's legislation will not extend to situations such as those that have been reported over the past couple of days of youth "fight clubs" and, even more disturbingly, will not extend to cover the circumstances of a recently reported case in the Supreme Court, where a murder committed by minors was filmed and posted on social media. That is appalling and the gap needs to be addressed. The Government has provided no reason as to why the new offence has been limited to certain types of property crime. Why would it not extend to posting and boasting about murder or, indeed, all serious indictable offences? In short, we wholeheartedly support a response that addresses the serious and rising issue of regional crime, especially regional youth crime. But we do not see it in the bill. Although we will not be obstructionist about any measure that may improve community safety, we will attempt to improve the bill. That is why we will move amendments during the Committee of the Whole. We can and, frankly, must do better than this bill.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (16:22): The Greens simply will not and cannot support the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024. We have heard much in the last week about the great regret of the Attorney General and the deep reluctance of the Premier to introduce this legislation that, in the Premier's own words, will lead to increased incarceration for young people. The contrition they show is unearned. It is obvious that neither the Premier nor the Attorney General have thought seriously about what it really means and what it really feels like to stand before a court in a criminal matter or to be thrown in prison, least of all as a child. And why should they? Neither the Premier nor the Attorney General has ever been at any particular risk of incarceration. Neither are First Nations. Both attended private schools. Both attended university twice. Both, I am sure, made the kinds of stupid and careless decisions that all of us make when we are very young.

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Not me.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON: Except for the Treasurer. But most of us in this Chamber and the other place have had, while growing up, the love and support to learn safely what a meaningful risk looks like, and that is the prerogative of every child. But not every child has had the opportunities of that full prerogative. That inequality is not a function of a child's moral character nor is it the function of chance; it is historically, materially, socially and structurally determined. The Government claims to recognise that the best outcome for everyone is avoiding contact with the criminal justice system in the first place. But this proposed law will do the opposite. I simply cannot reconcile with the part of the Attorney General's second reading speech where he suggests that incarceration is an appropriate circuit breaker for children and young people. Incarceration is not a circuit breaker; it is a spirit, soul and life breaker, which has implications for all of us.

We know exactly who this legislation will hit hardest: First Nations kids. It is galling to see the bill in this place after a withering progress report from the Productivity Commission on Closing the Gap targets and after Minister after Minister conceded in budget estimates the many ways we are failing young people, especially First Nations young people, in regional communities. Over 60 per cent of young people incarcerated in New South Wales are First Nations kids. At June 2023, New South Wales had the highest proportion of Aboriginal young people in incarceration on record, of whom almost four in five are on remand.

The most recent annual report of the Department of Communities and Justice specifies that the main offences contributing to that population are car theft, break and enter, and robbery. In response to those old and deep harms, the causes of which are now well understood and come from this very place, the Minns Labor Government has, in a cowardly fit of empty "tough on crime" posturing, introduced these bail reforms precision engineered to smash First Nations young people and their families again. The changes read like a deliberate affront to the effort to close the gap. As if describing this very legislation, the Productivity Commission's Closing the Gap progress report states:

It is too easy to find examples of government decisions that contradict commitments in the Agreement, that do not reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's priorities and perspectives and that exacerbate, rather than remedy, disadvantage and discrimination.

It goes on specifically to identify:

This is particularly obvious in youth justice systems.

As the Government pushes through this legislation, which has been roundly condemned by the Aboriginal Legal Service, AbSec and over 500 other legal experts, I remind members of another observation from the progress report, decrying the way that:

… governments have limited the extent to which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have determined the pace and direction of reform, and have made other policy decisions that have undermined and contradicted these policies (such as rebutting presumptions of bail and increasing sentences for youth offences).

In a way, this legislation is, frankly, just the latest in a 200-year-old tradition of colonialism. That includes laws that just last century prohibited personhood and citizenship to First Nations people; laws that allowed young First Nations children to be taken from their families, as they continue to be taken from their families today; and gross and expansive new police powers in recent years that are, as we have seen this week, enthusiastically and disproportionately deployed against First Nations young people. But there is an important difference this time. For every member in this Chamber who supports this bill, including those who are parents, there are simply no alibis anymore. There is nowhere to hide. The evidence is unambiguous. Every member who votes to support these reforms is complicit in an entirely political decision that will further destroy the lives of Aboriginal children. They know it.

Three years from now, if Labor members are lucky enough to still be in government—which is far from sure, given their signature policy to date will be locking up more young people—they will feign shock when yet another Productivity Commission report shows that New South Wales is no closer to hitting the Closing the Gap targets to which we have committed. We also know that those young people are extremely likely to already suffer from complex traumas, developmental disorders, mental illness and disabilities. We know that 30 per cent of young people are experiencing abuse or neglect when they are incarcerated. In Queensland 80 per cent of Aboriginal kids in custody suffer from mental illness. Many more are affected by fetal alcohol syndrome and other developmental disabilities that specifically impair the regulation of risk-taking, antisocial behaviour, aggression and mood. They suffer from the sort of complex trauma and disability that is solved not with the chest‑beating bravado of men in suits in this place but rather with the extraordinary compassion, care and support from family and community.

They are young people trying to understand themselves in regional communities that are collapsing, where—we have heard over and over again—if they become sick or injured, there is no guarantee of adequate health care and they are learning in chronically underfunded schools that up‑and‑coming teachers do not want to teach in. These are towns where the only public service available to the community later than 5.00 p.m. is the police. Yet in the face of all of these well‑understood, current, historic and material conditions that are forcing young people into bad decisions, and in spite of the intergenerational trauma and the cycle of poverty, the Minns Government is going to further punish these kids and put them behind bars. It is obvious that the Premier and Attorney General have not thought seriously about what it means for a person to have their family blown up in this way because the Premier and Attorney General know their families will not be.

There is no fundamental difference between the moral value or moral potential of these children and our own. We must act like it. It is important to name out loud, in this Chamber full of people who have mostly never so much as even visited a prison, that incarceration is not abstract. It ruins lives and it completely crushes young people. I want to make sure that all members understand that is what this legislation will do. The Minns Labor Government will take a child who has made a mistake—lots of mistakes—and who is likely in great need and cut them off from their friends, family and community. They will put them in a courtroom before a magistrate who, under these laws, will in many cases have absolutely no choice but to lock the kids up in an institution that we all know is failing. The duration of their incarceration does not particularly matter. The most recent annual report of the Department of Communities and Justice is plain: Youth detention is closely associated with incarceration in adult life. Avoiding short-term remand can provide a young person with a chance for a more positive future.

Thanks to the harrowing 2020 Youth Justice exit interviews, it is obvious why. From court, this child will be taken by police to a youth detention facility in the back of a truck. The drive may be hours long. They may not be given food, water or a toilet break, even when the officers pull up and grab pies for themselves at the servos. This is what happens. They will arrive at an unfamiliar and hostile detention complex full of guards and other young offenders. Inside, they will be searched and they will be stripped of everything they think of as their own. The centre will make no effort to support them if they are Muslim and need to be woken up for prayers—nor if they are Christian or if they practise Aboriginal spirituality—because that is the way the prison works. These are all real stories. The centre may also confiscate and cut off the child's access to psychiatric medication. One inmate said, "My mental health was so far off, I was screaming. I'm lucky to still be okay after them just refusing to give me my medication."

In Queensland, almost 80 per cent of Aboriginal kids in custody suffer from mental illness. At the Banksia Hill Detention Centre in Western Australia there were over 350 instances of self‑harm reported in 2022 from just 100 inmates. The child's days will be largely confined to a squat grey cell. They are liable to be locked in for hours at a time without notice. If they do not already experience mental illness, which they likely do, it may make them feel like "a mental patient", "no bench", "disgusting room", "TV's all the way at the top of the roof so you can't put something around it to neck yourself". These are the words of kids, spoken from prisons. Their brain is at its most plastic, lively and adaptable stage. They will be bored. They may feel "sick and tired of everything and just want to burst". The only way they will feel heard is if they yell and scream.

They will be afforded no sense of purpose and no sense of identity. They cannot play or learn or take on risks on their own terms. They can do none of the crucial work of childhood. Their emotional development will be stunted. They will do worse at school. They cannot get better. They are unable to be bailed to attend rehabilitation services. They are unable to participate in community‑led justice programs like the Youth Koori Court, which demonstrably reduces the likelihood of further contact and reoffending. It is the view of the Law Society of New South Wales that these laws will wreck the rehabilitation prospects of the children and young people they impact.

In their cell, the child is under constant surveillance. Out of their cell, they are under constant surveillance. They will spend the days of their formative years watched from guard towers, through thick metal gates and through razor wire. They may be watched by guards through the gaps in the shower curtains. They will have no say over what they eat. The food is generally disgusting. Some meals are served raw. Some meals are riddled with bugs. As their bodies transform through puberty, no meals are particularly healthy. These are the stories of the young people. This is real.

Their life will be regimented by guards from whom they are likely to experience racist attitudes and a lack of respect in communication and operations: ignoring requests, ignoring specific children, favouritism and bias—that is if they are the lucky kid. If they are unlucky, they may be pushed to the ground by a guard "for fun", as it is described. They may be kneed in the face. They may be thrown against the walls of their cells. They may be taunted and bullied. They may be ordered to remove their tampons in front of staff. These are real stories of kids in detention now.

They may be put into solitary confinement. Young inmates agree it is "the worst place: four white walls and that's it. Mattress, graffiti, blood, cockroaches on the floor". If they spend time in solitary, they may experience nightmares about it for nights after. If they dance, guards complain. If they train with weights, guards may complain. If they speak their first language, the guards may complain. If they wish to make a complaint about staff, the form must be provided by staff and may be withheld. What will they do then? In the words of one child, "You can't do anything. Nobody cares."

Their new social circle will comprise of other young people who have committed crimes. They will talk about prison and committing crimes. If they survive to their release date, they are almost guaranteed to commit another, more serious crime in the community into which they are released. Prior contact with the justice system is an established risk factor for suicide and self‑harm. If they are a First Nations young person, as more than half of these children are—and as far more than half of the children touched by these laws will be—the most likely cause of your death after your release is suicide. Released inmates have said, "Being in custody is the worst feeling that anyone can ever endure."

Every single child locked up because of these changes is a life utterly disfigured. If they had really thought about the data, these communities or the stories of these kids, the Premier and the Attorney General could not countenance the idea of locking children up in this way anymore. What is most heartbreaking is that these kids can articulate with greater clarity than anyone in this place what is wrong and how to fix it. Another inmate said, "Just cause they live in a bad environment, doesn't mean they're all bad. We come in here because we don't get much care and love on the outside, so that's what we need." This terrible compromise, which we have been told is necessary in the name of community safety, is naked, dishonest political cynicism. The evidence is singular: Locking children up makes nobody safer. It frays the social fabric. It shatters families. It disrupts the lives of children in need of help.

It makes crime more likely. This position is corroborated by everyone who thinks seriously about crime and its causes. A report prepared for the Standing Council of Attorneys‑General in 2020 that has, at best, been ignored and, at worst, wilfully suppressed showed that children naturally grow out of risky, impulsive behaviour that often leads to crime and that this process is actively impaired by detention. The authors go as far as to say that the current youth justice system causes crime. Their recommendation states:

The Commonwealth, State and Territory governments should raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 years of age without exception—

as detention creates lifelong negative outcomes. This touches upon another notable failure of this Government. The Attorney General boasted in his budget estimates hearing that he could raise the age of criminal responsibility tomorrow but would not. Karly Warner, the CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Service, spoke frankly about these changes at a press conference last week. She called the decision "a panicked reaction" and "a betrayal that will end in disaster". She told the press that the reforms ignore decades of evidence on how to reduce youth crime. She stated:

The evidence demonstrates that incarceration of children increases crime by compounding the trauma vulnerable children have already been through, and giving them an apprenticeship in the criminal world that leads to more serious offending later in life.

She warned:

"Tougher" bail laws have been tried and failed. Police officers have previously stated that you cannot arrest your way out of social problems.

The Bar Association has slammed both the ambitions and the execution of these laws. It expressed grave concern at the introduction of legislation that will result in greater incarceration rates of children. It said:

Of still greater concern is the likely disproportionate impact upon the incarceration rates of Aboriginal children in New South Wales.

It altogether rejects the amendment to the Crimes Act that would introduce a new offence for performance crimes, reasserting that courts already consider the capturing and posting of offences on social media in sentencing. It warns of a disproportionate impact on young people with cognitive disabilities who do not appreciate the consequences of misuse of social media. It slammed provisions in the legislation that would see children denied bail for serious indictable offences that would never result in a term of imprisonment.

The law as written would see kids locked up on remand for months while matters were finalised for offences such as slapping a sibling in a way that leaves a mark, shoplifting an item of food, staining a carpet in an out-of-home care facility or throwing an item at a sibling causing it to break. These are really wicked laws, terribly written and grossly conceived. Quite instructively, the Bar Association describes these offences as "immature behaviour", and it is right. This is how the actions of bored, desperate and vulnerable children must be understood. This behaviour has consequences, of course, and we must take care of those who have been hurt by young people who make mistakes, but it is an insult to the victims of crime in regional New South Wales to pretend that putting kids in jail is justice. Eighty-one per cent of them will commit crime again upon release. Reoffence is more likely because of their prior interaction with the justice system.

The Law Society of New South Wales has also condemned this legislation. In an open letter, it expresses concern that these reforms will destroy whatever benefit arises from the diversionary measures and early intervention support services that have been working to prevent crime. They challenge the Attorney General's suggestion that incarceration is "an appropriate circuit breaker" for children and young people. They go as far as to say, rightly, that these reforms are inconsistent with most of the principles set out in section 6 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 about the rights of young offenders, they are inconsistent with Closing the Gap targets and they breach the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It says this Government is making "a sacrifice" of these young people.

It is telling that when Queensland reformed bail laws to put children into a new category of accommodation, as this Government is doing with this bill, it had to suspend its Human Rights Act. It is revealing that when the Northern Territory introduced similar bail reforms in 2022, it broke records for Aboriginal kids in custody, and neither of those measures stopped youth crime. The consensus on what does keep communities safe is unambiguous. It will not please shock jocks or columnists, or Premier Chris Minns who is beholden to them. It is compassion. It is deep and long-term investment in communities.

The school of First Nations health at the University of Wollongong states that in order to achieve the best outcomes for young offenders and the general public, community-based, empirically supported intervention practices must be adopted as an alternative to incarceration. The Aboriginal Legal Service and AbSec have called for job training, safe social activities in sports and art, and an education that inspires social cohesion, and to fast‑track the community-based services and supports that have been promised under Closing the Gap. They have called for three immediately actionable solutions:

1.Resources allocated for local communities to support after-school, evening and weekend activities that engage at-risk young people.

2.Intensive and targeted programs and responses for at-risk children with appropriate referral services.

3.Formal community partnerships between police and Aboriginal controlled services.

These demands have been co-signed by over 500 legal experts and 60 community groups. These measures can work quickly today, without incarcerating children. Our very own Department of Communities and Justice is experimenting carefully and in consultation with communities as well. The Youth on Track program has shown extraordinary promise in Dubbo. It is a holistic cooperation between department and caseworkers, and young people at risk, their families and their communities. In 2021-22 participants that had been in the Youth on Track program for six months reduced their offending risk by 79 per cent. Aboriginal participants reduced their offending risk by 75 per cent.

Hard work is being done in this State by people in those communities, by hardworking public servants and even by Cabinet members, and it will be trashed by sloppy and punitive changes. Surprising even myself, I turn toThe Daily Telegraph for solutions to one of the articles that triggered Minns's kneejerk law-and-order response in the first place. In the article Mayor Russell Webb of Tamworth Regional Council said that kids offend and end up back on the street because "there are no diversionary programs". He continued:

We need to see government funding for diversionary programs, places where they can be sent to a safe environment where they can get fed and receive things like career help.

I do not think he or anyone meant "lock them up". I suspect that members of the Minns Government, in spite of their support for this disastrous legislation, know that too. It is why the bail reforms were announced as part of a package. A press release made sweeping promises of new community consultation, support services and diversionary measures, but so far we have just two price tags. One is the $7.5 million in the continued funding for the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program.

That is not new funding; it is continued funding. It is a shame there is not more because that is what is needed. It is a community-led project born of the understanding of what truly drives crime and of the pathetic limitations of incarceration to rehabilitate offenders or truly keep communities safe. It starts not with police, not with magistrates and certainly not with refusing bail for trivial offences, but with communities coming together to identify the best way to prevent and reduce contact with the criminal justice system altogether, and using the strengths of community, cultural knowledge, lived experience and data to design initiatives that will actually work.

The other figure in the package is $8.75 million for new bail accommodation. The Premier and Attorney General may sleep easier knowing they have carved out some lean semantic space between this new complex in which children will be detained against their wishes and a youth detention centre, but it will be of very little comfort to the young people who languish in custody or to their shattered families. It is worth noting that both of those figures pale in comparison to the eye-watering waste that is the extraordinary cost of locking up children in the youth justice system in New South Wales. Last year in New South Wales the average cost of a young person in detention was $2,759.13 per day. That is over $1 million a year. When pressed at budget estimates on his disinterest in raising the age of criminal responsibility, the Attorney General conceded with typical tact that—and this is verbatim—"we could save a bucket of money" by not locking up kids.

Premier Chris Minns and the Attorney General assure us that they gravely regret locking up kids, but they have not earned that contrition. This bill is the legislation of cowards. Against the wishes of their Cabinet—and, I have no doubt, against the advice of experts and against the best interests of young people and the community—they will victimise children because they are not their own. These are overwhelmingly First Nations children and children with mental illness and disability. They are children going hungry and without a consistent roof over their heads. They are young people who need help. To prevent crime and truly keep a community safe requires extraordinary compassion, understanding and support, and it calls for leadership.

As a mother, a solicitor and someone who has lived her entire life in regional New South Wales—and as someone who receives letters from intelligent, compassionate inmates wasting away in the prison system daily—I beg every member of this place to reflect seriously and deeply on whatever moral instinct brings them to this place, be it Christian or compassionate, a love of liberty, a belief in equity and opportunity without prejudice, or the duty to right the great lacks in our regional homes. We know exactly what this legislation will do: In the Premier's own words, it will lock up more kids. It is unconscionable and we must not support the bill.

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY (16:51): I speak in debate on the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024. It is obvious that more needs to be done to address youth crime and the serious impact it has on regional communities. People have the right to feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. However, the evidence shows that incarceration does not lead to improvements in community safety in the long run, due to increased recidivism, amongst many other factors. Today of all days is National Close the Gap Day. Clause 7.18 of the Labor Party's platform at the last election committed to reducing the rate of incarceration of Indigenous young people. Labor committed to Closing the Gap. Even though the bill has been designed with the best of intentions and is coupled with large new spending on support services, it will ultimately send more Indigenous kids to jail. Despite my personal objections to the bill, I will be voting for it, as that is the decision of my caucus, which I am bound by.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (16:53): The Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024 is a short‑term, kneejerk reaction to a complex problem which germinated from one quick visit by the Premier to Moree. These proposed bail laws, which would make it harder for young people to get bail, were not preceded by any meaningful consultation. They also directly contradict promises from the Labor Party in the lead‑up to the 2023 State election. Before the last election, in a letter to the president of the Law Society of New South Wales on the subject of youth justice, Attorney General Michael Daley wrote:

Labor is acutely aware of the implications of early contact with the criminal justice system. Every opportunity to safely divert young offenders away from the criminal justice system, whilst ensuring community safety should be taken.

Those are hollow words from the Labor Government because the Premier is now trying to do the opposite. Again, I quote from Attorney General Daley's letter. He wrote:

Labor is committed to exploring initiatives to reduce the interactions between young people with the justice system. Appropriate frameworks, support mechanisms and diversionary programs focusing on care and education are vital to ensuring young people do not become involved in a recidivist offending cycle.

Let us get it straight: Labor promised to keep kids out of jail before the election and now it just wants to lock them up. This approach not only undermines their chances of successful reintegration into society but also perpetuates a cycle of criminality and recidivism. Let me be clear: I do not condone criminal behaviour, nor do I advocate for leniency in cases of wrongdoing. However, I staunchly advocate for a justice system that acknowledges the unique vulnerabilities, developmental stages and potential for rehabilitation among young individuals. Instead of investing in punitive measures that further marginalise and alienate our young people, we should be prioritising preventive measures, rehabilitation programs and community-based interventions that address the root causes of criminal behaviour. I am certain that the inquiry into community safety in regional and rural communities, which was announced just yesterday, will find in favour of ways to help these kids instead of just locking them up. The bill does little or nothing to provide young offenders with the support they need to make positive changes in their lives.

While the bill purports to address concerns about rising crime rates in regional New South Wales, it point‑blank fails to recognise the complex underlying factors contributing to these trends. Crime rates are influenced by myriad social, economic and systemic factors. The simplistic legislative response of imposing stricter bail conditions does little to address the root causes of offending behaviour. Locking kids up for longer will just exacerbate the marginalisation and alienation of vulnerable youth populations, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. When I speak of disadvantaged backgrounds, let me not beat around the bush—no pun intended. Fifty-nine per cent of young people in custody are Aboriginal, a staggering 80 per cent of whom are on remand awaiting their day in court. The system is totally stacked against them. As the Law Society of New South Wales rightly points out, the reforms in the bill will block the ability of First Nations children and young people to access the Youth Koori Court because participants must be on bail to participate fully, as they need to be bailed to attend rehabilitation services.

The numbers speak for themselves. Research indicates that incarceration at an early age is more likely to lead to a higher incidence of criminal behaviour later in life. Figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that in 2022, 64.4 per cent of young people released from detention were convicted of another offence within 12 months. That compares with the much lower figure of 44.3 per cent for young people who were re-convicted after receiving a non-custodial sentence. Locking kids up does not break the circuit. It breaks the continuity of education, rehabilitation, and family life. Surely a preferable approach would be to amend the legislation to mandate intensive court-based bail supervision for the targeted cohort of children and young people if they are granted bail. That way the community feels safer and the bailed kids are being supervised rather than incarcerated for an offence they are likely to be found not guilty of.

The Hon. EMMA HURST (16:59): On behalf of the Animal Justice Party, I indicate my strong opposition to the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024. The bill is a disgrace and it should never have been brought before Parliament. I never thought I would need to explain to the Labor Government why a bill that intentionally puts more vulnerable kids in jail is a bad idea, but here we are. The bill seeks to introduce an additional bail test for kids aged 14 to 17 who have been charged with a break and enter or motor theft offence while they are on bail for another offence of those types. This new bail test means that these children can only be granted bail if there is a "high degree of confidence the young person will not commit a serious indictable offence". This is an incredibly strict test that is currently unknown in criminal law, and it is much harsher than any bail test that currently exists for adults in New South Wales. It will virtually guarantee that any child subjected to this new legal test will be refused bail, forcing them to remain in detention until their proceedings are concluded. This includes children who are not guilty of the offences they have been charged with, or who are unlikely to receive a jail sentence even if convicted. This is an objectively bad idea.

Let me be clear: The bill will not make anyone in the community safer. In fact, it will do the opposite. Decades of evidence shows that stricter bail conditions do not work to reduce crime rates. Rather, once bail is denied, children are more likely to be enmeshed in the criminal justice system. It will exacerbate pathways to adult imprisonment, noting the high rates of recidivism following youth detention. By locking up more young people, the bill will continue the destructive cycle of disadvantage, offending and reoffending. There is overwhelming evidence that imprisonment causes young people and their families lifelong harm and entrenches disadvantage and hardship. Perhaps the greatest concern is the disproportionate impact the bill will have upon the incarceration rates of Aboriginal children in New South Wales. It flies in the face of the Closing the Gap targets, which the Government claims to be committed to, and will take us severely backwards in reducing Aboriginal incarceration rates.

The reasons for youth offending and reoffending are complex, and they will not be solved through incarceration. I simply cannot understand why the Government would want to further target and harm the most vulnerable young people in our society rather than offering them the support they need. Instead of this kneejerk political response, Aboriginal-run organisations and legal centres working in this space are calling for the implementation of a three-point crime prevention plan that is compassionate and evidence based. Their proposed solutions include allocating resources to local communities to support after-school, evening and weekend activities that engage at-risk young people; investing in intensive and targeted programs and responses for at-risk children with appropriate referral services; and implementing formal community partnerships between police and Aboriginal-controlled services.

I cannot understand why the Government is not urgently implementing these solutions, which will not only make communities safer but also be much more cost effective in the long term, noting the incredibly high costs of youth incarceration. On top of these changes to bail laws, the bill also inserts new section 154K, which criminalises the promotion or dissemination of material—such as videos or photos posted online—that advertises a break and enter or a motor vehicle offence. The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment, on top of the penalty for the underlying offence. It is unclear how simply establishing this new criminal offence—and creating more opportunities to put vulnerable young people in jail for longer—is going to make communities safer. I am also concerned that this section, which criminalises filming or advertising a break and enter offence, may have unintended consequences, particularly around the implied freedom of political communication. I attempted to raise these concerns with the Attorney General's office but, frustratingly, he does not seem to be open to any amendments to clarify this aspect of the bill and correct any unintended consequences.

The bill was brought into Parliament like all bad bills: in a rush and without any proper consultation. But despite only being dropped on Parliament last week, the bill has quickly attracted major opposition from the legal community, including peak bodies like the New South Wales Bar Association and the Aboriginal Legal Service. Over 500 legal practitioners, community workers and academics have written to the Premier expressing their grave concerns about the detrimental impacts of the bill. The level of opposition to the bill gives an indication of how concerning its contents are. In fact, I am not aware of a single body that supports the bill, which is why it is so disappointing that the Liberal-Nationals Opposition has chosen to simply allow the bill to sail through. I would have expected a better approach to law reform under the leadership of Mark Speakman. There is simply no justification for this draconian response from the Minns Labor Government that we know will not work and will simply cause more harm to vulnerable children, their families and the community. I urge all honourable members to join me in opposing the bill.

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (17:05): I speak in support of the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024. I am conscious of and respect all the contributions that have been made. It is certainly a complex issue. I hope that in a year, when the sunset clause arrives, we will have seen a substantial drop in crime in regional New South Wales. I also hope that the range of support services, particularly for children in Moree—statewide initiatives—have been successful because that could be a significant start to a true process of justice reinvestment in New South Wales. The theory is that if one invests in certain social services one can slowly transfer expenditure from police and prisons and spend less as crime reduces in accordance with that expenditure.

As I said, I respect all the contributions that have been made but there has been an absence of focus on the sunset clause. This is not an amendment to the Bail Act that is being made for all time. It sits in the context of an undeniable sharp rise in crime in many parts of regional New South Wales. I have been interested in issues of crime across regional New South Wales for some time and have focused on the statistics that the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research produces. It is a valuable agency because it lets us stay abreast of crime statistics as well as policy issues. It issues policy papers as well.

My interest in this area comes initially from working at the Aboriginal Legal Service in Dubbo from 2010 and onwards for quite a few years and then serving a term on council. I had conflicting experiences in that regard. When I worked at the Aboriginal Legal Service my focus was not exclusively but very much so on assisting offenders, but then, when I came to serve on council in Dubbo, including as mayor for a period, I saw the other side of the equation more. People often bring issues about criminal offending against them and their concern about crime rates to their council. What all of these experiences have well and truly brought home to me is that the reality of sustained and entrenched high crime rates in regional New South Wales is not well understood in the city.

There are parts of Sydney that have comparable crime rates. I am not suggesting otherwise. But there really is nothing to compare in this sense to the entrenched high crime rates in many of our regional towns and cities, which is sitting at three and four times the State average. That translates to real people being victims of real crime. That picture of sustained entrenched high crime rates has worsened. Crime rates vary between parts of regional New South Wales. I emphasise that we need to look at five-year statistics; there is no point in looking at one- or two-year statistics, let alone jumps over quarters, because that is normally nothing short of misleading.

Over a five-year period in Moree—a relevant statistical period—there was a 24 per cent increase in car theft. That translates to a whole lot of people having their cars stolen and also a whole lot of dangerous driving and related offending, causing fear and terror in the community. In June last year I went to Moree and met with many community members and organisations. I distinctly remember sitting down to lunch with a fella from Moree that I know quite well and listening to him telling me that his house had been the subject of a home invasion a week or two before. From memory, he was still carrying some sort of injury from that incident. There is a disturbing increase in crime in certain parts of regional New South Wales, and the bill responds to that.

I understand very well that incarceration is criminogenic, and I understand very well the theories that flow from justice reinvestment theory—how that can be true on a community level and how it can devastate communities and entrench high rates of offending. But incarceration has a role in our criminal justice system, and the bill will provide a 12-month circuit breaker. It is not being deployed in a simplistic or one-sided way, because significant announcements have been made alongside it, which are particularly significant for Moree. Around half of the $26.6 million total package will go to the relatively small community of Moree, which will, in effect, become a justice reinvestment trial for New South Wales in a discrete regional community that clearly has a need for it.

Comments were made about the introduction of performance crime offences, the enhancement of the maximum penalty and why that would not apply to other offences. I recall that similar criticisms were made by The Nationals in the other place during question time, when questions were asked about whether the amendment would apply to domestic violence offences and sexual offences, which was a rather cheap bit of political theatre. It is not as if the previous Government introduced bail laws that would have applied in those circumstances either, and it would not have contemplated doing so. Frankly, if the policies expressed in those questions asked in the other place were put into place, we would need to build multiple new prisons. The previous Government did not have those policies, and nor should it have had. There is always a tendency on this front to say, "Why aren't you going further?"

I respond to the comment made by the Hon. Susan Carter about why the performance crime offence does not apply to murder and so forth. I am sure the Minister with carriage will speak in reply, but I suspect that is a response to a distinct phenomenon happening in society. I know about this phenomenon because, in my community of Dubbo, performance crime has been an issue for two or three years, as I recall. Popular TikTok and Instagram pages with catchy names show kids stealing cars, stealing keys and driving cars at frantic speeds of over 200 kilometres an hour. It is a form of competition. I have received advice from the police that this form of competition is a material driver of crime rates. Members can question why it does not apply to murder offences, but I suspect that there has been no need to apply it to that offence because we are dealing with a distinct phenomenon.

The amendments to the Bail Act and the Crimes Act cannot be viewed in isolation because this is, in effect, a 12-month trial with a sunset clause. I highlight the announced investment for Moree. Additional judicial resources are earmarked for the jurisdictions of the Local Court and Children's Court, including associated Legal Aid, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and police costs, as well as the Aboriginal Legal Service. Excitingly, from a justice reinvestment point of view, an $8.75 million investment will go towards a bail accommodation and support service in Moree. We need those types of initiatives if we are going to reduce the involvement of young people in the criminal justice system, particularly for offending on bail and breaching bail conditions. That initiative will be co-designed by government and community stakeholders and provide police and courts with more options to put a young person on bail with higher confidence that they will not reoffend.

Young Aboriginal people in Moree will be linked to Indigenous organisations, Elders, and cultural and family supports from their own communities, with skilled, qualified, trained and consistent staff onsite 24/7 to provide child-safe care. The Government is targeting investment in Aboriginal community controlled organisations that support a focus on culture and address Closing the Gap priorities. There will also be measures to improve the availability of night-time and out-of-hours services and youth places. That will include activities delivered alongside Moree Plains Shire Council and Aboriginal community controlled organisations, including potentially subsidised entry and extended hours at facilities such as the Moree Artesian Aquatic Centre, the Moree Sports Health Arts and Education Academy and the PCYC.

I understand that the NSW Police Force is continuing its operations in the Moree area to meet community need. That includes continuing to surge operational resources to meet needs as they arise. In addition, the youth command will continue Operation Youth Safe, which combines education and early intervention for at-risk children. Given the comprehensiveness of those initiatives, I look forward to seeing the results of the pilot in Moree and the benefits from a sustained focus on the causes of youth crime and its impact. I appreciate that the bill has received serious criticism in this place and from external stakeholders, and I understand that criticism, but we should not lose sight of the exciting announcements that have been made.

I have advocated for a long time, including when I was on council, for a trial of a true justice reinvestment approach in a significant regional community. I advocated for Dubbo and significant investments were made in Dubbo, but Moree will be the site of a significant trial. Those two things are intimately connected. A 12-month strengthening of bail laws is connected to the trial in Moree. I hear all the criticism, but I hope that in a year there will be a significant drop in crime rates in Moree and other parts of regional New South Wales. I hope that the programs being rolled out in Moree and elsewhere will have been successful, and that these initiatives can then be rolled out further. But there is a circuit breaker in the bill and the pressure felt by regional communities since the spike in the crime rate will be lifted.

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (17:17): I contribute to debate on the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to ensure that our community feels safe. Under the Minns Labor Government, crime has been increasing across regional New South Wales. In recent months we have heard terrible stories of people fearing for their lives, with break-ins, robberies and violent assaults. Over a week ago the Minns Government announced that it would be introducing legislation and several programs to address youth crime; however, there is little detail to those programs.

For months the Opposition and numerous organisations have been calling for an inquiry to ensure that the issues of regional youth crime are properly examined and a whole-of-government solution is presented. Labor was clear at the time that it opposed an inquiry. However, I note that, as of yesterday, it has done a backflip. I also note—and this is no reflection on the other place—that it is a Government-controlled inquiry as opposed to an inquiry run by this place. The Legislative Council is very good at running inquiries and it also has a broader approach across the crossbench, Government and Opposition.

The report of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research released last week indicates that crime in rural and regional New South Wales is far higher than any metropolitan area. The Liberals and The Nationals understand the importance of comprehensive whole-of-government strategy in proactively addressing the risk of reoffending and meeting the diverse needs of the individuals involved in the youth justice system. The Government has decided to deliver a pilot in Moree, again with little detail on a set date of commencement and how it will be evaluated. Because of its desire to be seen to be doing something quickly, the Government has announced this pilot but chosen to ignore many other regional towns across New South Wales that are also experiencing crime.

To address youth crime we need a whole‑of‑government approach that includes justice, health, housing, education and child protection. We need all Ministers and departments involved, not a top‑down approach from the Premier. We all know that the best outcome for young people is to avoid contact with the criminal justice system, but to achieve that the Government must implement a plan and programs to divert young people away from crime and address the causes of their behaviour. Early intervention is a shared responsibility, with the safety and wellbeing of children being the concern not only of government agencies but also of non‑governmental organisations, parents and the broader community, and it has to be adequately funded. It is essential to prioritise decreasing the number of young individuals encountering the youth justice system as well as disrupting the cycle of disadvantage.

Furthermore, it is crucial for the Labor Government to uphold the multiagency approach initiated under the former Liberal‑Nationals Government. We aimed to ensure that supports were provided to young people within the justice system, incorporating diversion programs, preventing short‑term remand through crisis accommodation, as well as bail decisions, and connecting young people with essential services while on bail. I note that the Minister for Housing is in the Chamber. Addressing youth crime across the State is a challenge, so it is particularly important to have a whole‑of‑government approach to ensure that support services and crisis accommodation are provided for young people who are dealing with Youth Justice NSW.

Dr AMANDA COHN (17:21): As The Greens spokesperson for youth, I join my Greens colleagues in condemning the premise and substance of the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024. This bill carries the Government further along its trajectory of criminalising young people in this State, without addressing the social determinants, the underlying reasons, that young people are being put in desperate positions. This bill sets out measures that will further devastate the lives of vulnerable young people and their families by imposing harsher and crueller bail restrictions on young people aged between 14 and 18 years. This will land heaviest on the young people who this State is failing the most: regional youth, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, kids barely surviving in poverty, those in unstable living situations, and young people with disability. The first contact that these young people have with authority and with government can shape the rest of their lives.

Some regional communities are heavily impacted by crimes committed by young people. I wonder whether those communities know that, on average, detaining a young person costs over $1 million per year in New South Wales. That is nearly $3,000 a day. It would be cheaper to hand this funding directly to those regional communities concerned about crime to invest in local programs. The Mayor of Tamworth gets it. He said, "The kids get pulled up by the cops but then the courts throw them out because there are no diversionary programs. We need to see government funding for diversionary programs, places where they can be sent to a safe environment, where they can get fed and receive things like career help."

But what is being pursued with this bill will exacerbate the problem. It will push young people into an overcrowded, unsafe, punitive and expensive justice system that is notorious for failing to rehabilitate. Detention is known to create lifelong negative outcomes. The relevant Ministers know this and have acknowledged what the real solutions are. There is no excuse for pursuing such punitive measures over the overwhelming evidence base for community-based support and engagement strategies that the data, community organisations and experts agree are needed and require investment. How does the Government respond to the outpouring of criticism of the bill from legal, human rights and Indigenous groups for its "betrayal" of Aboriginal children? How can the Government defy Karly Warner, the chief executive officer of the Aboriginal Legal Service, who responded:

Throwing our children in jail will actually make crime worse, not better. Locking up children has never worked and will lead to devastating outcomes for communities, families, and those children.

What is the Government's response to the NSW Bar Association, that said it holds grave concern for "the disproportionate impact that such legislation would have upon the incarceration rates of Aboriginal children in New South Wales"?

This bill is a step backward. It disregards the decades of research and advocacy that show the importance of harm reduction, intervention and support over incarceration. This bill will pour money into the extremely expensive recidivism machine that is our youth justice system, instead of into the projects and supports identified by young offenders themselves to mitigate crime. Dangerously, this bill and its focus will interfere with, damage and potentially reverse what little good work government has been able to do to address this issue.

The Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People, for example, is undertaking genuine engagement through peer workers with the young people convicted of these crimes, including in Moree, to find out why and what it would take for them to stop. It is the New South Wales Government's own problem that the only people resourced to work in the regions after 5.00 p.m. are the police—not workers in the community sector, those who drive public transport, or those who run social activities or out‑of‑school programs that people can afford. In this debate members have spoken about the importance of justice reinvestment, and whole‑of‑community and whole‑of‑government responses. It is absolutely outrageous to say that and still support this bill.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (17:24): I stand with all the fair‑minded people in New South Wales who are appalled at these proposed bail laws in opposing the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024. It is absolutely devastating to be in this place today, dealing with another set of abhorrent, racist laws. Just yesterday we had a lengthy debate about the history of this House and the role it has played in the genocide, dispossession, incarceration, death and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians for 200 years, and the House passed a motion essentially saying that we should do better. Within 24 hours, here we are committing to lock up black kids. That is what this bill is about. It is a scare campaign run by the right‑wing media and the National Party. What we have had is—

The Hon. Chris Rath: It's Labor's bill.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: That is right. Wait for it. What we have had is a pathetic kneejerk reaction from this Government that—

The Hon. Sam Farraway: How did we get pinged for Labor's bill?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It's a bill you're voting for. You will be voting for it.

The Hon. Chris Rath: We're not the Government.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: You're the ones who have beat the bushes, and then the Government, pathetically, has—

The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order: Members should direct their comments through the Chair and debate only the terms of the bill.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: To the point of order: Wide latitude is given in second reading contributions. Context is important. I will debate what I want to debate in this place, rather than be dictated to by the Treasurer.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Ms Abigail Boyd): I uphold the first part of the point of order. When speaking at the lectern members are not to direct comments to other members. Members will direct their comments through the Chair. Wide latitude is given to contributions in second reading debates. The member will proceed.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Minns Government members are exactly where they want to be—on morning television shows, defending their hardline approach to youth crime. They want to be tough on crime, tough on black kids out in Moree. This bill is just another in the set of thousands of regulations and laws that this Parliament has passed in its 200 years that have entrenched disadvantage and poor outcomes for Aboriginal Australians—and for regional Australians, which is where the focus is. It is absolutely appalling. I stand with those who oppose the bill. In particular, I stand with the great Labor figure and Mayor of Inner West Council Darcy Byrne, who has said, "It's heartbreaking to see the Government seeking to put even more children behind bars." He is calling on the Minns Government to desist and to take this matter to Labor's State Conference.

The Hon. Mark Latham: Where is he mayor of?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Inner West Council.

The Hon. Mark Latham: Inner Moree.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Thank you very much. He said:

Labor Party members who campaigned passionately for Yes in the recent referendum are shocked and saddened that just a few months after the New South Wales Government is proposing to make it easier to incarcerate Aboriginal children.

Karly Warner of the Aboriginal Legal Service has said that these "dangerous changes to bail laws for children is a betrayal of Closing the Gap" and they "will fail to reduce crime". During budget estimates hearings the Premier and Government Ministers wrung their hands and said, "We have made these commitments to Closing the Gap. We do not know why it is not happening." They then turn up and bring in laws and statutes that make sure that we criminalise, incarcerate and disadvantage a whole new generation of Aboriginal people. The Government has already said, "This is just a trial, but we are rolling it out. It is coming to your neighbourhood soon." It is absolutely appalling.

Who knows it? The Attorney General knows it. The Attorney General has been sent out to do this business. As a man of the law and a man of justice, he would look at the evidence and say, "We have been down this road before, and it does not work." When the bill was amended in the other place, the Attorney General said, "The best outcome for everyone is avoiding contact with the criminal justice system." What is ''contact with the criminal justice system"? That is a warning. We know that one of the best things that can happen when it comes to policing is to receive a warning, and we saw that with drug prohibition. But contact has varying degrees. Someone can get a warning, be brought in for questioning or spend weeks and weeks in jail, on remand, in an incredibly detrimental environment, which can have massively deleterious impacts on their wellbeing and psychology while associating with other criminals. For a child, that locks them into a pathway that has all kinds of mental health, overall health and social outcomes that should be avoided.

I acknowledge that the spike in regional crime must be addressed. However, jailing young people will achieve short-term political gain, only resulting in making the situation worse. Chris Minns was happy to be on morning television, being the hard man on Aboriginal kids in Moree. According to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the number of Aboriginal young people on remand increased by over 84 per cent between September 2021 and September 2023. It is already going up; it is not working. So wrong way, go back. The statistics and the evidence tell us that. This measure undermines the $26.2 million announced by the Government for various programs like justice reinvestment that support young people and help to prevent crime. Much of that money will be spent in Moree.

Yesterday this House was almost unanimous in honouring the history of dispossession and disempowerment of Aboriginal people. Yet here we are again, doing the same old things that do not work and that are incredibly damaging to children. I note the open letter signed by 60 human rights and Aboriginal organisations, pleading with the Government to rethink this legislation. It is opposed by Amnesty International, the Redfern Legal Centre, the Aboriginal Legal Service, the Law Society of New South Wales and the New South Wales Bar Association, among others.

The Hon. Mark Latham: And Darcy Byrne.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: And Darcy Byrne.

The Hon. Mark Latham: That is the big one.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Yes, I stand with Darcy on this one. They call this law a ''devastating betrayal of Aboriginal children". Of all the people we should be taking the time to look after, it is Aboriginal children in this State. Further, they say that it ignores decades of evidence of how to reduce youth crime, which will make the situation worse, and it will fail in closing the gap. The Law Society of New South Wales argues that, far from being a circuit breaker, this legislation will ''sacrifice a cohort of children and young people to the long-term criminogenic effects of incarceration". I completely concur with that. The Law Society further stated:

We suggest that a likely unintended consequence of proceeding as proposed will be to further compromise community safety in the medium and long term.

After those young people have been in jail, they are more hardened criminals. They will do worse things. The evidence says that. That is the toxic impact of contact with the criminal justice system if it involves incarcerating and locking up kids. The Law Society also has an issue with the retrospective application of the legislation, the proposed "high degree of confidence" that a young person will not reoffend if they are granted bail and the wide sweep of offences covered. All of these measures will increase already appalling incarceration rates for young Aboriginal people in this State at enormous cost to those individuals, to their families and to us all. It will also be at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. It has been put that $1 million a year is spent to keep a child in jail—thousands of dollars a day. Could we spend that money better? Yes, we could. The New South Wales Bar Association is entirely opposed to the bill, describing it as "rushed" and produced without proper consultation. President Ruth Higgins said:

The Association is gravely concerned at the introduction of legislation that will result in greater incarceration rates of vulnerable children—

which is what it is clearly designed to do, "Lock them up. Who cares about the long-term consequences? Let's just hope that we get through the next month, the next news cycle"—

which risks normalising criminal associations, undermining development, and producing more reoffending.

I stand with the Bar Association. I stand with the Law Society. I stand with the Redfern Legal Centre.

The Hon. Susan Carter: And with Darcy.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I stand with Darcy. I stand for human rights. The Labor Party does not have a mandate for this. The left of the Labor Party should stand with Darcy and stare down Chris Minns, stare down the shock jocks, stare down the National Party and stare down The Daily Telegraph on this issue. The bill will not work. It has been tried before with incredibly adverse outcomes and incarceration rates continue to go up. The Legalise Cannabis Party is appalled by the bill and will vote against it.

[Business interrupted.]