The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for Western New South Wales) (17:05): On behalf of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Last year, the Government listened to calls from the community for action on youth crime, particularly in the regions.

At that time, there were concerns about young people under the age of 18 committing motor vehicle theft and break and enter offences, including when those young people were already on bail for those types of offences. The people of Moree expressed particular concern about the impact that this type of youth crime was having on their community.

The Government introduced a multifaced response to combat youth crime, including:

legislative reform, which this bill seeks to extend; and,

therapeutic and community initiatives, which continue to be implemented. This included a targeted package for Moree to address crime, support young people, and improve community safety.

In April 2024, we introduced section 22C of the Bail Act. This legislative reform introduced a temporary, additional bail test for young people aged 14 to 17 charged with committing a serious break and enter or motor theft offence while on bail for another offence of that type. Under this test, unless the bail authority has a 'high degree of confidence' that the young person will not commit a serious indictable offence while on bail, bail is to be refused.

The additional bail test was intended as a circuit-breaker. It offered an immediate response while the broader community-based programs were implemented.

Section 22C was initially intended to sunset 12 months after it commenced, on 4 April 2025.

While we had hoped that 12 months would be sufficient to address community concerns, as the sunset approaches, it has become clear that community concern remains high. More time is needed to fully implement and expand on the measures in Moree and other regional areas to address youth crime.

This bill replaces the current sunset provision so that the temporary additional bail test will sunset four years after it commenced, on 4 April 2028.

This step is not taken lightly, recognising that it has very real impacts at an individual and system-wide level.

However, the provision remains a time-limited and specifically targeted test.

It is not being made permanent.

Rather, this extension is intended to keep the additional bail test in place – and keep the community safe – while efforts continue across Government to reduce youth crime through therapeutic and community-based solutions that aim to minimise a young persons' contact with the criminal justice system over the longer term. Additional funding is being allocated to further develop and expand these programs.

I will say more about this broader program of work to support community safety now.

Last year, the Government announced a place-based response in Moree. This multifaced project continues to be implemented:

Almost $900,000 of the $1 million funding for additional after-hours activities has now been allocated. Programs for young people are seeing strong engagement:

Miyay Birray's StreetBeat bus completed over 1,000 pickups in its first three months of operation and both the PCYC and SHAE Academy programs are attracting dozens of kids per night.

The small grants program has distributed over $215,000 for the delivery of 20 diverse after-hours activities, from sports and arts activities, to mental health peer support.

A consortium of three local Aboriginal organisations has been chosen to design and deliver Moree's Bail Accommodation Program.

The consortium consists of Miyay Birray Youth Service, Pius X Aboriginal Medical Service and SHAE Academy.

While the program is expected to open later this year, Youth Justice NSW is also boosting resources in Moree by establishing additional temporary caseworker roles to supervise young people on bail.

A temporary Acting Magistrate has been appointed to the New England Circuit.

Key themes and findings from a review of services supporting young people in Moree have been identified, and proposed recommendations and actions are now being developed with the local governance group established to oversee this work.

Beyond the place-based response, additional services and resources have been allocated to Moree since March 2024:

In February 2025, the New South Wales Government announced an additional place-based investment in Moree of $2 million over four years from July 2025, to address youth crime and strengthen community safety.

NSW Police has undertaken more than 30 surge operations in Moree over the past year, with Operation Mongoose identifying 255 offenders across the Western Region.

The Safe Aboriginal Youth (SAY) program will be delivered by SHAE Academy from April 2025 for two years, providing activities and transport to Aboriginal young people aged 12-17 years old.

The Casework Support Program (CSP) will be delivered by Miyay Birray from April 2025 for five years, helping young people meet practical needs and goals as part of their case plan, such as enrolling in education, getting ID, finding work, and applying for Centrelink payments.

A new Legal Aid office is opening, with two Aboriginal-identified roles advertised and four lawyers to be based permanently in Moree.

An additional NSW Health Adolescent Court and Community Clinician role at the Children's Court to help more young people access diversion services have been established.

Additional teachers have been recruited throughout the year.

The Government is also expanding assistance to other communities struggling with youth crime, including regional communities across New South Wales.

In February 2025, the New South Wales Government committed $4 million over five years (including the current financial year) in Bourke and Kempsey, to match the Commonwealth Government's investment in the Stronger Places, Stronger People program, which supports community-led place-based responses to local issues.

The funding for Bourke and Kempsey will be used to fund backbone teams to facilitate local planning, inclusive engagement, measurement and evaluation, joint decision-making, governance, and local action. The Backbone teams work with, and are accountable to, local community leadership groups, supporting the community in developing and implementing their tailored strategy and plan of action.

The Australian Government Department of Social Services is planning to undertake an evaluation of the Stronger Places, Stronger People initiative to capture learnings and insights from the first phase, to inform the forward approach and understand the effectiveness of community-led, collective impact measures. This will be undertaken in partnership with Stronger Places, Stronger People communities and state and territory governments.

The three-year extension of section 22C proposed in this bill will also allow more comprehensive data to be obtained, and for other work relevant to the issues of youth crime to be considered.

At present, the final checked data regarding the impact of section 22C is limited to a nine-month period from March 2024 to December 2024. Extending the temporary additional bail test will enable a detailed analysis of the relevant data trends and the effects of the temporary bail test prior to its sunset in April 2028.

An amendment agreed to in the other place also provides for a statutory review to be tabled as soon as practicable 12 months from the commencement of the measure in the bill. It makes it clear that the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) will be consulted and provide information to inform the review.

In addition, the Government is expected to receive and consider the recommendations of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Community Safety in Regional and Rural Communities in this period. The inquiry held community hearings in Bourke, Kempsey and Broken Hill. The final report of the inquiry is due in November 2025.

This additional information will provide valuable insights and inform further work to be done to reduce youth offending.

Schedule 1 replaces the current sunset provision in subsection (5) with a new provision specifying that section 22C will be repealed at the beginning of 4 April 2028.

The amendment agreed to in the other place inserts section 22D, which imposes a requirement to review the operation of section 22C 12 months after the commencement of this bill. The review will determine whether the objects of the amendment remain valid and whether the terms remain appropriate for achieving the objectives.

BOCSAR will be consulted and provide the relevant data to inform the review, which will be tabled in each House of the Parliament.

The Government is committed to addressing the causes of youth crime at their core, with the long-term aim of curbing the offending behaviour of young people in our community and their contact with the criminal justice system.

However, our Government cannot and will not ignore the fact that the lived experience of youth crime in many communities is one of genuine fear, concern and frustration.

The time-limited extension of section 22C is intended to support community safety, while the extensive broader program of work undertaken by this Government to comprehensively address youth crime continues to be implemented.

I commend the bill to the House.

Second Reading Debate

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (17:06): I speak on behalf of the Coalition in debate on the Bail Amendment (Extension of Limitation on Bail in Certain Circumstances) Bill 2025. This bill seeks to extend the operation of section 22C of the Bail Act for a further three years, until 4 April 2028. When section 22C was originally inserted into the Bail Act, it was to have a 12-month sunset clause. This was by design. In the second reading speech to the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024, given by the Attorney General on 12 March last year, he said of this new provision:

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 or motor vehicle theft offences while on bail for another offence of that type.

That bill introduced a new test under section 22C: that the bail authority must not grant bail to offenders between the ages of 14 and 18 charged with those offences while on bail for another offence, unless the bail authority has a high degree of confidence that the young person will not commit a serious indictable offence while on bail. The test of "high degree of confidence" still has to be developed in terms of what it means, with several Supreme Court justices observing unfavourably that it is a test that is not known to the law. For the judiciary to say that something is not known to the law is usually not a flattering observation. In his 2024 second reading speech, the Attorney General made it clear that the new bail test for young repeat offenders has "been approached cautiously". He continued:

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 …

He continued:

The provision will sunset after 12 months, with an evaluation to take place at the end of that period.

In his second reading speech on the current bill, which seeks to extend that sunset clause, the Attorney General did not suggest what the results of that evaluation have been. There was no reference at all to crime data and the impact of section 22C on the relevant offences, on different localities or on youth crime offending generally. The closest we got to an evaluation was a concession that section 22C does not appear to have worked as the Government had hoped. In his second reading speech on this bill, the Attorney General said:

… the extension is intended to keep the additional bail test in place and keep the community safe while efforts continue across government to reduce youth crime through therapeutic and community-based solutions that aim to minimise a young person's contact with the criminal justice system over the longer term.

Last year the Opposition sought to amend the 2024 bill to require reporting by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR], the New South Wales criminal data research agency. We wanted that agency to report data about the operation of section 22C and related matters, including the number of relevant offences committed; the number of offences committed by 10- to 14‑year‑olds, 14- to 18-year-olds, and those under the age of 10; and whether the relevant person or other individuals referred to were on bail at the time the relevant offences were alleged to have been committed.

We wanted the data reported in a timely fashion at regular intervals, because all members are concerned about what is happening in the community. We want to make sure that measures are properly targeted. Without data, without any information, it is difficult to know. That data has not been made available. If it was available to us now, we would be in a stronger position to make decisions about the legislation before us. Recent events have confirmed the importance of this House making fully informed decisions about legislation with all of the information available to it. To yet again have to make a decision without full information puts us in a difficult position.

The Opposition will again seek the provision of government data to this Parliament on how section 22C is operating. Given the delay in the provision of statutory reviews, and the recent example of the Government in relation to provision of information, it is not enough that this data is provided to the Minister. All members in this place should have access to it. We hope that the Government and the crossbench will support us, as members of the Parliament, and the broader community having access to this data. It will provide transparency in the operation of this law, which is the Government's only youth crime legislative initiative. All members are keen for this to work well, but we need to know what is happening to make that assessment.

Provision of the data was previously opposed by the Government on the basis that it was said to be only a 12‑month provision. However, it is clearly not going to be a 12-month provision if the Government wants it to continue longer. Twelve months later, no data has been provided to this House. We urge the Government to reconsider its position in relation to that. In the Attorney General's second reading speech on the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024, he said that section 22C 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.

This is a very important part of what needs to be a total response to youth crime rather than merely a legislative response. Indeed, the provision of the data about how the legislative response is working would also inform the nature and type and the spread of supportive measures that should be part of this approach to youth justice. In his second reading speech on the bill currently before the House, the Attorney General indicated:

Additional funding is being allocated to further develop and expand these programs.

That is very welcome. It is good that additional funding has been allocated, because, sadly, it appears that a number of the originally planned initiatives have stalled. For example, I understand that some 12 months later, there is still no bail accommodation for young offenders in Moree. I understand that we are "close", which is a word that we are used to hearing, and that "soon" a tender may be issued for bail accommodation in Moree. That is simply not good enough. We cannot be focusing on legislative initiatives but letting the other part of the suite of measures that is meant to accompany those initiatives lag. We want the data so that we can effectively debate what is happening with this issue as a whole. One of the reasons that the Opposition will be moving amendments in relation to the sunset clause is so that the whole response can be reviewed in a timely manner. We all agree that the best response to youth crime is to prevent it altogether.

The problems with youth crime have continued notwithstanding section 22C and the wraparound services that have been promised by this Government that perhaps do not wrap all the way around all of the youth that they need to. The problem of youth crime has, sadly, increased since the State election and is not limited to regional areas or to certain areas in the regions, such as Moree, even though that has been the particular focus of the Government initiative. It is occurring all over the State. It is harming communities. It is harming people. It is making elderly people, especially, scared to travel and to be in their homes. It is also harming the young people who are caught up in crime. We need an appropriate response.

This Parliament needs to constantly review and monitor what is happening with respect to youth crime. It is not a sufficient response for the Government to take scrutiny of its response under section 22C away from this Parliament for three years, with a sunset clause pushed out to April 2028. The Opposition will be moving amendments to make the sunset clause end on 1 October 2026. That gives a 2½ year period after the Act's commencement for evaluation and should be sufficient for us to evaluate whether this provision is working, how the provision is working, and what changes should be made to the provision to help it work better. We could then consider a possible extension by this Parliament—again—if, after true consideration with full data, that is the appropriate response to the continuing issue of youth crime. That is also an appropriate time to let the Government's wraparound services operate, and for us to assess the impact of the total response of which section 22C forms one part.

With respect to how the courts are applying the "high degree of confidence" test for the granting of bail, it is fair to say that there has been a mixed response and there has been some unwillingness by the courts to apply this test and refuse bail. It appears that, perhaps, the interpretation of this test by the courts was not that which was intended by the Government when the test was introduced. Decisions such asR v TW,R v BH,R v TB andR v JS show a judicial concern, rising in some cases to opposition, of the fact that a different and harsher test is in place for children aged between 14 and 18 than for adults, even on a show cause offence under the Bail Act.

The result is Supreme Court justices being satisfied, on a review of bail, that they have a high degree of confidence under section 22C that an indictable offence will not be committed on bail with appropriate conditions. The usual condition of bail granted by Supreme Court decisions, if the matter falls under section 22C, is for either home detention or at least a curfew between the hours of 8.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. If the courts are going to continue to give bail in circumstances covered by section 22C in a significant number of cases, then the Government should be doing everything that it can in the interests of community safety to ensure that bail conditions are complied with. To that end the Opposition will move amendments to require the following conditions, in the event that bail is granted for a section 22C offence because the bail authority has a high degree of confidence the young person will not commit a serious indictable offence on bail: First, in the interests of community safety, there should be always a curfew on the relevant young person between the hours of 8.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m.; and, secondly, to ensure that curfew is met, the young person should be subject to electronic monitoring.

It is to be remembered that the Government introduced this legislation not for all offences but for the most serious offences. Therefore, if bail is to be granted to serious offenders, it is not unreasonable that public safety is protected by the use of ankle monitoring to ensure that the conditions of bail are being complied with. Electronic monitoring of youth offenders is used in a number of Australian jurisdictions. It is not novel, and neither is the idea of a curfew. Electronic monitoring has dramatically reduced reoffending in domestic violence parole cases, as measured by BOCSAR. It is reasonable to think that a similar result would be achieved with regard to reoffending rates by young persons with a history of committing serious break and enter or motor theft offences.

Electronic monitoring has more recently been introduced for bail granted in domestic violence offences, where the Government followed the private member's bill brought forward by the Opposition. The introduction of electronic monitoring is a further support to judges who grant bail to enforce the conditions that they impose, as the court would no doubt want. Courts do not make orders without them wanting and expecting that those orders will be complied with, and these conditions of bail fall into that category. Any bail granted under section 22C, under the amendments to be proposed by the Opposition, would be revoked in one of three circumstances: first, failure to comply with bail conditions; second, the young person is charged with another crime; or, third, any interference with the electronic monitoring device. In order to ensure that this revocation operates appropriately, bail can be granted again only if the breach of bail was for a trivial breach, such as exceeding the curfew by a few minutes or if there are other exceptional circumstances. This is not a mechanical test. It needs to be looked at in the individual circumstances of the young offender.

It is a privilege for repeat serious offenders to be granted bail, having regard to the seriousness of their offences. By having clear consequences for their reoffending, the Opposition believes that the existing laws, as amended by our amendments, will be tailored in favour of community safety. We have had the opportunity now to see how this legislation is being interpreted by the courts, how it is operating in practice and whether there has been a reduction in youth crime. The Opposition amendments will address what we now know, 12 months down the track, in order to better protect the community, and that surely is the aim of all of us in this place.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON (17:21): Here we are, another proud Minns Labor Government moment, extending bail laws—appalling laws—on the basis that we have locked more kids up in prison, so they must be working. I start with the utmost, radical and frank honesty that that is what we are doing. This is what we call another fundamental "Minns mess", and it is a gravely tragic one. It will come as no surprise that The Greens strongly oppose the Bail Amendment (Extension of Limitation on Bail in Certain Circumstances) Bill 2025. Listen to the name—it sounds absurd, because it is absurd.

These bail laws should not have passed through Parliament a year ago, and they certainly should not be extended today. These laws, as we know already, will only incarcerate more vulnerable—and predominantly First Nations—young people, and they will fail to prevent crime from happening in the first place. These laws deliver headlines for the Minns Government but nothing but harm for communities. The bill is another cowardly response by the Minns Government to additional right‑wing intolerant shock-jock politics and media. It is a continued kneejerk reaction to what are false claims surrounding the so-called crisis and wave of youth crime. But, hey, we started on this, so we will just bunker on down and keep going, because that is what this Government seems to do when things are not working well for it.

Law and order politics are ill informed, cheap, nasty and crass but, more importantly, they are dangerous. In fact, the most recent Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] data for the last quarter of 2024 shows that over the two- and 10-year trends, youth crime remains stable, and further breaches of bail conditions are in fact down 6.6 per cent over the two-year period. But I have a feeling that those stats do not mean a whole lot to the people who are introducing these laws in this place. As we know, the laws are in response toThe Daily Telegraph, 2GB, some in the National Party and a small cabal of country mayors—none of whom are in fact the elected government of New South Wales and yet, somehow, it appears that way. The laws before us would appear to make that case.

I note that the country mayors—and I mean this as no attack on them at all—who have been to Parliament came in good faith to talk about youth crime, and I know that all those voices came with a concern for the victims of crime. Absolutely nothing that this Government has done or is doing again here remotely helps victims of any crime. It is about time that the Minns Labor Government starts to honestly talk about the victims of crime and what we can do to the very broken system of justice when it comes to them. This Labor Government has no courage to take on the hard issues when it comes to justice, and it cannot stand on its own two feet when it comes to law and order.

As we debate this legislation, State and Territory governments across the country stand shoulder to shoulder with this New South Wales Labor Government in introducing disastrously punitive laws to lock up more young people, driven by dangerous rhetoric and moral panic. The Queensland Liberal Government has suspended its own Human Rights Act yet again, sentencing kids in more or less the same way as adults in the criminal justice system. The Northern Territory Liberal Government has undone previous nation-leading and evidence‑based policy, which had raised the age of criminal responsibility and has now lowered it back to 10. After life‑saving bail reforms, the Victorian Labor Government is now vowing to introduce the "toughest bail laws in Australia" and remove the principle of remand as a last resort for young people. This race to the bottom is happening right now on our watch, and this is against the most vulnerable young people amongst us. These unconscionable law and order agendas are effective for an easy headline for the government of the day but, in reality, they lead to years of trauma and despair for vulnerable young people and undo any progress made in making the criminal justice system work more fairly, effectively and holistically for them. Ultimately, they lead to more crime.

I will now discuss the real implication of these laws and echo the plethora of voices who share these concerns. Section 22C of the Bail Act, inserted by last year's legislation, imposes an extraordinary bail test for 14‑ to 18‑year‑olds—a test that is completely unknown to criminal law. The "high degree of confidence" bail test that was so willingly rushed through Parliament is a dangerous step beyond the bounds of a sound legal system. In fact, as pointed out by those in the judiciary such as Justice Rothman in the Supreme Court, this bail test is stricter than the "show cause" bail test applied for adults committing serious offences, including murder. I recall the outrage by so many when we moved to the show cause test. It is very alarming and we must all be cognisant of the fact that when we start going down the slope, when we get to the next step, we are a long way from where we started. This incrementalism is terribly dangerous. We must remind ourselves that we are not here to start from the last bad laws that were passed and make them even worse. We should remember the time when our laws were better and use that as our baseline and our starting point.

It has been pointed out that such a bail test is likely to be stricter than the bail test applied for terrorism offences under Commonwealth law. That is not my analysis. That is the judiciary's analysis by Supreme Court justices who know a heck of a lot more about these laws than all of us in this place put together. In what world can motor vehicle theft or break and enter offences be, even vaguely, compared to murder or terrorism offences? The overreach of the bail laws cannot be understated. I implore the Government to take genuine notice of the expertise and perspective of judges in the highest courts in our State who are speaking out against the laws. They have to deal with the operation and application of the laws. They do not make criticisms for no reason. They are the most qualified and knowledgeable experts on the law in this State. Justice Rothman of the Supreme Court has made numerous important points about the true impacts of the laws. Referring to the laws, he pointed out:

It would … mean that two co-offenders before the court who are otherwise in the situation where they are assessed identically in terms of the unacceptable risk posed by each of them to the community, in accordance with the bail concerns and the provisions of ss 17 and 19 of the Bail Act would need to be treated differently if one of the co-offenders was 18 years and 1 month and the other co-offender was 17 years and 11 months, with a more onerous situation applying to the person who is 17 years and 11 months.

I plead with members to understand the gravity of that prospect. An 18-year-old, an adult under the law, would be treated more favourably than a 17-year-old, a minor under the law, in being granted bail, with the younger person being treated more stringently by a court—because of members in this place—than their adult counterpart. In reality, our bail laws apply a cruel double standard. It is not theoretical; it is quite perverse. Members need to remember that. Members should not let themselves think that they are doing it for the benefit of young people. It is a legal and moral wrong that young people are now held to a higher criminal standard than adults for being granted bail. Shame on everyone if the bill gets through this place to extend the laws that have already been passed in this place. Justice Rothman goes on to say:

While I am prepared without argument to concede that the legislature may exercise power in a manner that defies the principles of equal justice, I am minded that there are contrary arguments to that proposition. However, it is clear that the application of equal justice and the application of justice in a manner which is neither capricious nor arbitrary is a requirement on courts and some tribunals.

That is a significant statement made by a judge of the highest court in the State. For a representative of the judiciary to conclude that the Legislature has ultimately defied the principles of equal justice in passing those bail laws is damning. The laws are not only morally wrong; they have the potential to be at odds with our Commonwealth Constitution. Justice Rothman argues that point by saying:

A nice question arises that if this legislation requires the Court to treat persons, who are relevantly equal differently and worse, whether the Court is acting in a manner which prevents it from acting on its fundamental tenets and offends its position as a Supreme Court, guaranteed by the provisions of s 73 of the Constitution.

Justice Rothman concludes:

It is a ham-fisted attempt to deal with a political difficulty in a manner which, in my view, creates significant problems for the administration of justice and does not deal with the problem that was sought to be overcome.

That has to mean something to members who claim to be able to create such serious laws. The comments made by Justice Rothman have not been made lightly. However, the judiciary, in its application of justice, is speaking out against the Government's flawed "tough on crime" agenda, because these laws are no less than dangerous. Similarly, remarks made by Justice Lonergan in the Supreme Court highlight the contradiction of the bail laws with other legislation applicable to young people. Justice Lonergan points that out by saying:

These considerations highlight a lack of coherence between the bail court's obligations to comply with ss 4 and 6 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act and the requirements of s 22C, which treats a relevantly charged child's freedom in a less favourable way than an adult's freedom in exactly the same circumstances …

The Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 is the governing Act for the criminal trial process for young people and is designed to place greater emphasis on rehabilitation for young people charged with a crime. Section 6 of the Act sets out the principles, which include:

…

(b)that children who commit offences bear responsibility for their actions but, because of their state of dependency and immaturity, require guidance and assistance,

(c)that it is desirable, wherever possible, to allow the education or employment of a child to proceed without interruption,

(d)that it is desirable, wherever possible, to allow a child to reside in his or her own home,

…

(f)that it is desirable that children who commit offences be assisted with their reintegration into the community so as to sustain family and community ties,

…

The bill does none of that. The laws directly threaten the application of legislation that has previously been upheld to achieve better results for children and young people, and they compromise the court's ability to provide alternatives to incarceration. Justice Rothman and Justice Lonergan are not alone. There are several other judges in the District and Supreme courts putting their concerns and criticism of the laws on the public record. Opposition to the laws does not stop there. Last year 560 lawyers, community workers and academics signed an open letter to members of this House expressing "grave concerns" over the proposed laws. The Law Society of New South Wales noted the inconsistency of the bail laws with the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, Closing the Gap targets and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The letter states:

… it will likely result in the incarceration of children and young people who would otherwise not have been incarcerated. It is also likely to result in the incarceration of some children and young people who are unlikely to be found guilty of any offence.

It continues:

We query the wisdom of increasing the remand population of children in this way, particularly when the child remand population is already high.

Twelve months later, it is clear that the concerns raised by the Law Society and other critical stakeholders are accurate. I pause to say do not do that thing where members say, "We are doing it for their own good. We are doing it for the kids. We are doing it for them." Remember that one? Members should stop their minds from going there, because it is not right. All of the evidence says that it is not right. The most recent BOCSAR statistics show a 31.6 per cent overall increase in the youth custody population and a 34.4 per cent increase in the youth remand population over the past year. That is what Chris Minns has achieved. That is what he has done. He has really put his foot on the accelerator and got the number of incarcerated kids up there. It is a rate of increase that has never been seen in this country.

Human rights advocates, community legal centres and judges are, without doubt, distressed by those figures. But who isn't? The Premier and the Attorney General. The Government is satisfied by the fact that more young people are behind bars under laws that it pushed through the Parliament. We should not be proud of more young people in detention, and yet those words came out of the Premier's mouth and the Attorney General's mouth in budget estimates hearings over the preceding weeks. "Our laws are working. There are more kids behind bars." Honestly, it is unfathomable. We know from all the evidence available to us that youth detention centres are places of deprivation and despair. On that moment, I reflect right now.

When I asked the Attorney General if he had been to a youth detention centre, he said, "Yes, when I was the police Minister." I am wondering how long ago that might have been because he was the police Minister a long time ago. He is putting people into places he has not even been to. I put on record that I ask the Premier—and I would like the know the answer—whether he has been to a youth detention centre. If so, was it only in the past few weeks? That would be a curious answer. Did he go to a youth detention centre before he brought these laws to the Parliament? The incarceration of a young person can do unimaginable and lifelong harm. When a young person is imprisoned, they are separated and disconnected from their families and communities, deprived of education and re-exposed to trauma.

Academics of the Nova Southeastern University in the United States researched the impact of youth incarceration and discussed a range of findings in their 2024 publication entitled "Systematic review: Impact of juvenile incarceration". Those findings are so consistent with the findings from report after report about the impacts of juvenile detention. This is interesting. The publication particularly noted the significant impact of youth incarceration on adult mental health, including that individuals incarcerated as children showed a higher incidence of depressive syndrome, suicide risk and suicide risk as adults. Further analysis showed that youths who were recently incarcerated showed lower levels of overall psychosocial maturity, temperance and responsibility. The publication revealed in a study of 97 previously incarcerated young men from a Connecticut detention centre that just 10 per cent had graduated high school and three individuals had pursued college education.

Youth prisons are overwhelmingly filled with the most vulnerable young people—17.4 per cent of young people in detention have a disability, despite making up just 3.5 per cent of the population. More than one in four young people in detention have been in out-of-home care. Those cohorts are already suffering greatly to properly integrate into and gain belonging in society. These vulnerable young people need care, not custody. Youth crime is not a random occurrence. It is a symptom of the deeper social issues that have been neglected in our communities by successive governments over years and years. The issues are poverty, homelessness, domestic and family violence, substance abuse, and lack of access to health care and education. Where is the urgency to address these deep causes of crime in the laws being brought before the Parliament, if that is what it takes? No, we are not seeing that. This bill is the opposite of what we need now.

Devastatingly, 59.8 per cent of young people in custody right now are First Nations. That is despite the fact that, of young people in this State, just 4.5 per cent are First Nations. Again, just in case that did not sink in, 59.8 per cent of young people in custody are First Nations. That is despite the fact that, of young people in the State, just 4.5 per cent are First Nations. That is so despicably racist. Laws like the bill before the House only continue the violent colonial legacy of this Parliament right here on this carpet, these tables and these seats. This State was already locking up First Nations people disproportionately at alarming rates, but it has only gotten worse as a result of these laws. The latest Closing the Gap quarterly report shows that First Nations young people refused bail by courts have now increased 25.7 per cent over the past 12 months. First Nations young people in detention has increased 17.2 per cent since 2022.

Are members ready for the next stat? Only a couple of members are left in the Chamber. The sentenced custody population of First Nations young people is up 105.3 per cent since 2022. There we are, folks. Does everyone feel like going home? Should we pack up and go? You know what, it would be a damn sight better for this State if we all did. These laws are a deep betrayal of the promises made to close the gap and will send this State down the wrong trajectory, with more First Nations young people incarcerated. Laws like these will only make the Government's obligations to the Closing the Gap agreement not just increasingly unachievable but, I would say, on this Government's watch, impossible. We cannot on the one hand say we are working towards First Nations justice and on the other choose to extend laws that disproportionately lock up First Nations young people. Karly Warner, the CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Service—and this woman is on the front line—stated:

Despite promises to do things differently under Closing the Gap, Aboriginal children are being sacrificed to the Premier's tough‑on‑crime political agenda in a race to the bottom the Labor government can never win.

Yet we will stand in this place and talk about integrity until the matter of public importance runs out of time. A three-year extension of these laws is an extension of the misery that vulnerable young people and First Nations communities have come to expect when making contact with the criminal justice system. The Attorney General has consistently said in response to criticisms of these draconian laws, "These steps have not been taken lightly and the Government simply has no other choice than to enact these laws." I couldn't make it up, honestly. It is not only timid; it is deliberately ignorant, harmful, wildly reckless and self-serving.

The overwhelming evidence has been known for years upon years and still this Government, like so many before it, has failed to listen. Let us go there; I know it is in members' heads—"Think of the victims of these crimes!" Let us talk about the victims. Let us get some real victim compensation schemes on the table and introduce some laws that would help victims. You know what? Nine times out of 10—and I think it gets to 10 out of 10—victims do not want revenge; they want justice. They do not want to see kids further criminalised. They want access to victim schemes that will help them and to experience something that can right the wrong that was committed against them.

New South Wales now spends $2,814 per day to lock up a single person. That is over $1 million per year per young person. Fool on all of you. Imagine if those millions of dollars were actually spent on solutions that address the deep causes of crime—and let us put some into victim assistance while we are at it. This Government could reinvest that funding into early intervention and could keep young people out of the criminal justice system in the first place. I am hearing those voices again, "But we're doing that as well! Lock them up and we will do something else as well." We need long-term sustainable investment into community-driven services such as the Aboriginal community controlled organisations in providing wraparound support for First Nations communities, investment in family support services to prevent children entering the out-of-home care system and investment in mental health programs that could offer young people safe and accessible mental health care. We cannot lock them up and do that as well. That is hypocrisy, nonsensical and a lie.

The Government could choose to address the role that housing insecurity plays in the lives of young people by properly funding public housing and making it accessible for families and young people, and by ensuring safe accommodation for young people who are on bail or unable to return home. That could happen today and would make an impact immediately, unlike the Premier's and the Attorney General's assertions. The Government could choose to reduce youth contact with the criminal justice system by raising the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14. That is what all the experts say. That is the circuit breaker that is needed, not refusing bail and throwing them in prison. The experts say to take the criminal aspect out of it and make the children responsible proper, not criminally. Doing that and expanding diversionary alternatives to detention under the Young Offenders Act are the ways the Government could respond to youth crime and its causes and prevent it from happening. I hear that voice again saying, "Communities just aren't fit; they're not ready." Kids need to be helped proper, and not locked up while that is being done.

The idea put by the Attorney General that the bail test is the circuit breaker, despite having been in place for 12 months and only leading to more young people committing crimes and ending up incarcerated, is the myth. I go further, it is the lie. The only circuit that this bail test breaks is the one for young people getting support and rehabilitation, and maybe the rule of law under the Constitution. The only metric that the Premier has cited as part of the extension of the laws is an increase in bail refusal and concurrently an increase in the youth population. That is the most ridiculous measure of the success of a law. It has no proven link to a reduction in youth crime, and there has been no identification of a reduction in crime at all since the laws were enacted.

What we are doing now is a circle of nonsense, a circle of harm and a circle of absolute destruction in the lives of the young people who have done wrong. I urge the Government and all members of this House to not pass the bill. The Supreme Court judges clearly appear to oppose the laws, which have serious problems. Lawyers and community workers oppose the laws. The resounding evidence does not support the laws. The moral panic driven by dangerous fearmongering and the rhetoric in the media and by some politicians are the only things driving this bill. We have so many options that we could be pursuing, but we have decided this one must be in the mix. Locking up more kids might get the headlines, but it does not and will not stop crime.

I ask any member who talks about the victims to please do it sincerely with honest respect for the victims, because locking up children will not give the victims the justice they deserve. All it will do is provide some very short‑term measure of revenge, and all sorts of studies and research around victimology have shown that in the long run that does not serve victim justice. It compounds the harm. Eventually that little bit of moral law and order retribution rhetoric runs very shallow and disappears, and the victim of any offending is left without real justice. What it has done instead is ensured and locked in crime, criminal behaviour and criminal thinking for the medium and long term. We know that because the evidence of recidivism is so clear. We know that locking up more kids might get a headline but it does not stop crime. The laws that we have before us today reinforce a legacy of more young people behind bars, condemned to trauma and despair and exposed to the life cycles of crime. On that basis, The Greens will not support the laws and will move some very sensible amendments.

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (17:54): I contribute to debate in support of the Bail Amendment (Extension of Limitation on Bail in Certain Circumstances) Bill 2025. The bill will extend a most unusual piece of legislation for a further three years. It represents a political choice made by the Labor caucus and Cabinet, and I support it. Bail, sentence and police powers are quintessentially political matters, and they have been decided in those forums that I spoke of. I was interested to hear the Hon. Susan Carter talk about an amendment that she foreshadowed in relation to crime statistics. I will let the Minister speak on the Government position, but I question why that would need to be included in the legislation in circumstances where parliamentarians and, indeed, everyone in the community has access to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR].

In the lead-up to this debate I asked the Parliamentary Research Service, because I was lazy, to provide me with graphs and tables for the relevant offences that relate to the legislation for a 10-year period in a number of formats and also for statewide statistics in relation to the relevant offences—serious break and enter offences and car theft—and cognate offences. It is important information and BOCSAR produces quarterly reports. I was speaking to my co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Youth Justice Reform, the Hon. Aileen MacDonald, about the availability of those statistics and their relevance to so much of the work we do. I note her presence in the Chamber. We decided as co-chairs to email the parliamentary community on a quarterly basis with a summary of those statistics as they relate to juvenile justice, because BOCSAR is an incredible resource and the State spends money on it.

The crime statistics that BOCSAR produce allow tracking from a quarterly basis up to a 20- or 30‑year period. It is amazing how far back they go, and they show the meaningful trends in crime statistics with points in time when different amendments to bail laws came in. The impact, if any, they had on crime rates can be tracked. We have had many and varied amendments to bail laws over the years that allow us to analyse the impact they had on crime rates, because fundamentally we should be concerned with a safer, more peaceful community when we seek to amend the criminal law.

Unlike most legislative restrictions on the open-ended discretion as to bail that has generally existed under statute—it has been varied at different times but has existed at different times—this piece of law does not fix just on offence types to restrict bail or restrict the circumstances in which bail can be granted. It fixes also on age and applies a previously unused formula, which is the "high degree of satisfaction" formula that the Hon. Susan Carter and the Minister spoke about in their contributions. That fixing on age as an effective disentitlement to bail in most circumstances is why it has been particularly controversial, because it contradicts the general principle found in international law and, generally, domestic law in many countries, if not most, that incarceration is a measure of last resort.

Schedule 1 extends the operation of section 22C of the Bail Act until the end of 3 April 2028. It will place Australia in breach of its international human rights obligations, but that happens on a fairly regular basis and is well within the power of a State and indeed a Federal parliament to do. It is a political choice about quintessentially political matters. The section provides for a limitation on when a bail authority may grant bail to a young person for a relevant offence alleged to have been committed while the young person is on bail for an offence of that type. A relevant offence is defined as a serious breaking and entering offence or a motor theft offence. I note that motor theft is defined quite broadly and includes cognate offences.

The section applies to a young person who is 14 to 17 years of age at the time the offence the subject of the bail decision is committed. As I have said, the limitation requires the bail authority to have a high degree of confidence that the young person will not commit a serious indictable offence, which is a defined term in the Crimes Act 1900. The way the section is operating is now clear. Around 90 per cent of the kids who are caught by the provision are refused bail and spend time on remand. It is important to say that many of those kids would not have received a term of control, that is, had they been bailed, which many would be but for the operation of section 22C, they would never have spent time in a detention centre.

That may surprise some people. It is, after all, certainly a serious set of allegations to be accused of multiple offences of the type captured by the provision, with at least one committed while on bail for at least one other. But the reality is our criminal law is very carefully calibrated in the way it deals with children. A hierarchy of penalties exists and key principles are built in to ensure that rehabilitation and the best interests of children are the key consideration, and the incarceration of children is generally a last resort. The Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 sets out much of the legal framework applicable to children in the criminal justice system. The principles stated in section 6 of that Act require a person or a body that exercises powers under the Act to have regard to them. The principles are:

(a)that children have rights and freedoms before the law equal to those enjoyed by adults and, in particular, a right to be heard, and a right to participate, in the processes that lead to decisions that affect them,

(b)that children who commit offences bear responsibility for their actions but, because of their state of dependency and immaturity, require guidance and assistance,

(c)that it is desirable, wherever possible, to allow the education or employment of a child to proceed without interruption,

(d)that it is desirable, wherever possible, to allow a child to reside in his or her own home,

(e)that the penalty imposed on a child for an offence should be no greater than that imposed on an adult who commits an offence of the same kind,

(f)that it is desirable that children who commit offences be assisted with their reintegration into the community so as to sustain family and community ties,

(g)that it is desirable that children who commit offences accept responsibility for their actions and, wherever possible, make reparation for their actions,

(h)that, subject to the other principles described above, consideration should be given to the effect of any crime on the victim.

It is perhaps curious that the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act does not contain a special regime for bail in respect of children and the Act is generally subject to the Bail Act, which prevails in the event of inconsistency. In all areas of criminal law reform, it is important to identify what a reform will or will not do. A reason for that is that there are many views in the community, held in good faith, as to the capacity of the criminal law to reduce or prevent harmful conduct. Those views find expression in views as to the existence and scope of criminal offences, the penalties available, the operation and content of bail laws and, indeed, the powers for the investigation of offences. They are often expressed vehemently in the wake of certain shocking events or when it is perceived that crime is rising, though rarely, in fact, in our most fortunate society does crime dramatically rise in a sustained way. The truly remarkable thing is how long term the real trends in crime statistics generally are.

Sometimes, but not always, those views are wrong. Often the criminal law and related powers actually cannot realistically reduce offending and reduce harm. It is not a good thing when the focus of community expectations around reform to address a social problem is wrongly directed, not least because it takes the focus off real solutions. Sometimes the reality is that only addressing underlying social problems can truly protect the community. Sometimes the reality is that only population-wide factors will meaningfully impact certain types of offending. That perspective is especially important in criminal law, where there are adverse consequences from many reforms. The more people you lock up, the more crime you create down the track; the more people you refuse bail to, the more innocent people are exposed to the traumatic and criminogenic experiences of jail and the more vulnerable and young people are exposed to the criminal justice system. The impacts will be disproportionate on certain communities, some of which already endure mass incarceration.

There is no doubt about one thing that the bill will do: It will take certain recidivist young offenders off the streets for a period time. Yesterday I attended a presentation by the National Children's Commissioner Anne Hollonds. One insightful and succinct point the commissioner made was that the incarceration of children, whether though onerous bail provisions or harsh sentencing laws, does not drive down crime rates. Indeed, in her view, in the longer term it produces more crime. The reasons for that perhaps somewhat counterintuitive situation are multiple, but in my view they include some of the following factors. Most offences are not detected so the idea that all or even most offending will be interrupted by bail refusal or sentence just cannot be right. I could not find New South Wales statistics but I did find some Victorian statistics in relation to break and enters, which recorded that:

Over the past ten years, the proportion of residential burglaries that has remained unsolved in Victoria has consistently been above 80 per cent of all recorded burglary offences.

That may be different in communities in New South Wales. It may be different for offences involving children or offences in smaller communities if you zero in on them, but it is my view, having worked in the criminal law for about 20 years, that most offences are not solved. Many children refused bail or imprisoned would or might not have offended in the remand period anyway. Most periods of remand, especially for children, will be relatively short. As I indicated earlier, many of those children do not even receive control orders ultimately. Those children emerge at some point and some will commit offences in the future.

The incapacitation factor from short periods of remand will be small at best. Perhaps most importantly, incarceration produces more crime. Those left behind at home—the little brothers and cousins—are more likely to offend. But, most importantly, the child who is the subject of detention is more likely to offend. Any incapacitation effect of detention is perhaps offset by that. Tackling in a transformational way the underlying causes of offending is the answer. That is not a novel insight. Crimes committed by children are a symptom of those social issues. That is easy to say but hard to do and the Government is investing in those matters and I know is committed to doing so.

I dedicated a significant part of my professional life to defending Aboriginal people, including kids, on criminal charges in western New South Wales. It is how I came to live in Dubbo and eventually how I got into politics. I distinctly remember the first time I saw a 10- or maybe 11-year-old in the dock at Dubbo. I missed him as I walked into court because his little head could not be seen over the back of the dock. Life can be so cruel. One of Commissioner Hollonds' more chilling insights was that some institutionalised children could not articulate any particular hopes and dreams and could not comprehend doing so. Some kids do not have a chance; others do not but they make it anyway. Some of the best people I know are former young offenders doing amazing work in the community. One is the legendary Jeff Amatto, who runs intervention programs in New South Wales, including in Wellington, helping Aboriginal people escape intergenerational cycles—"mob helping mob", as he described it to me today. He told me today of the desperate need for more intervention programs. He said:

Yes, I think we are starting early intervention way too late and programs need to be as young as kids in year 3 and have programs for them to transition into when they graduate from each program. It's working really well here in Wellington.

This bill will pass. I will vote for it. The statistics show more kids will be jailed as a result and the Premier has been crystal clear that that is at least part of the intent. It will not reduce crime overall, though it is possible it might prevent some serious offences. But the sad procession of wasted young lives will continue. It will be mainly kids descended from people who were pushed off their lands, placed into missions, subject to cruel paternalism—sometimes having their children taken off them—and then suddenly released from paternalism and told to integrate, after which a particular cruel social dysfunction took over their lives. That is why we have entrenched high crime rates in regional communities.

A friend of mine, Rob Riley of Dubbo, another guy doing amazing community work, once sat me down and showed me some records from the Dubbo Police Station from many decades ago, when Aboriginal families went to seek permission to access their wages. I recognised so many of the family names of the children and adults who I had appeared for. There is a direct connection between the past and the future. I believe one day we will make the drastic investments to more quickly try to vindicate those kids' rights to health, safety, culture, participation, non-discrimination, adequate standards of living and education, which are not being realised. I urge members to read the Children's Commissioner's 2024 report,'Help way earlier!' How Australia can transform child justice to improve safety and wellbeing. That incredibly important report investigates opportunities for reform of child justice and related systems across Australia based on children's rights and sound evidence. For those reasons, I support the bill.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (18:09): There is a saying that if you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always got. The Bail Amendment (Extension of Limitation on Bail in Certain Circumstances) Bill 2025 extends the tougher bail laws introduced last year, but let us be honest: If those laws were working, we would not be here debating their extension. Last year the Government promised that the changes would act as a circuit breaker to stop youth crime. Instead, the numbers tell us we are still locking up kids at the same rate, cycling them through remand and expecting a different result.

As of December 2024, there were 173 young people in custody in New South Wales. But here is the catch: The majority had not even been sentenced. Those kids were sitting in detention not because they had been found guilty but because we do not have the right support systems in place to manage them in the community. A 15‑year‑old with no home, no transport and no support is not a flight risk; he is a kid whom society has already failed. Let us be clear: When a young person spends weeks or months in detention, only to be found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence, we have not solved anything. We have disrupted their education, severed their support networks and increased their risk of reoffending.

Every kid we fail to reach early is another future inmate, another crime statistic, another victim. Do we want safer streets or just bigger detention centres? The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has already shown us the facts: 64.4 per cent of young people who leave detention will be convicted again within 12 months. Compare that with 44.3 per cent of young people given non-custodial sentences. The numbers do not lie. Detention does not stop crime; it fuels it. We know exactly whom this bill will hit the hardest. As Ms Sue Higginson has already said, over 59 per cent of young people in custody are First Nations, and the majority of them are on remand and not convicted. We are not only failing these young people; we are setting them up to fail.

I support community safety. I support giving police and courts the tools they need to deal with repeat offenders. But I cannot support the fantasy that tougher bail laws alone will solve this crisis. If we are serious about reducing youth crime, we need to stop chasing headlines and start funding what actually works: intensive bail supervision, so young people are not just left to fail; regional youth case management, so kids in the bush have the same support as those in the city; and early intervention, because if we step in before kids reach the courts then we can stop the cycle before it starts. If we want fewer victims, we need fewer offenders. That means real solutions, not just tougher headlines. I will say it again: If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always got. The bill buys us time, but it is not the answer. The real question is what the Government will do with that time. Communities do not just need tougher laws; they need real solutions. I urge the Government to not let this be the end of the conversation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): I welcome the friends of The Greens NSW to the gallery.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (18:13): I welcome them all. I speak on behalf of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party in especially strong support for the Bail Amendment (Extension of Limitation on Bail in Certain Circumstances) Bill 2025. We acknowledge the complexities of youth justice. We know that many young offenders, particularly those aged between 10 and 13, come from traumatic and disadvantaged backgrounds. According to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR], in 2023, 82 per cent of those children were identified as being at risk of significant harm, 56 per cent had been victims of violence and 60 per cent had a parent who had been in custody. Those harrowing statistics highlight why early intervention and community support are vital. We recognise the genuine work being done through programs like those in Moree, such as the Streetbeat Bus, after-hours youth activities and the Moree Bail Accommodation Program, which are all aimed at breaking the cycle of crime. Those programs are critical.

However, although rehabilitation is essential, it cannot come at the expense of community safety. The reality is that the statistics are not just numbers; they reflect the very real impact being felt in our regional communities. In Moree alone, the NSW Police Force conducted over 30 surge operations last year, identifying more than 250 young offenders. That trend is far from isolated. BOCSAR's data confirms that the rate of legal proceedings against children aged under 14 is more than three times higher in regional and remote areas compared with metropolitan areas. Meanwhile, Aboriginal children make up 60 per cent of youth detention episodes for that same age group. We must not give in to the bleeding-heart elites, the ideological left or The Greens, who continually harangue us, calling us troglodytes and other names. They would have us believe that firm action is unwarranted—that the victims are to blame, not the perpetrators.

If we do not hold our young criminals accountable today, we will only see them become repeat offenders tomorrow. Take the recent situation in Bourke as a stark example of the worsening crisis. On Saturday 22 February 2025, officers from the Central North Police District were called to a caravan park on Becker Street after two offenders broke into an Isuzu ute and tried to force their way into a caravan. A 62-year-old man attempting to protect himself and his partner was slashed with a knife and required hospitalisation. Both will now live with the trauma of that night for the rest of their lives. The violence does not stop there. Only hours earlier, a group of four armed offenders broke into staff accommodation at a motel on Anson Street, threatening and robbing a 24‑year‑old man at knifepoint. The same gang then broke into another room, where they threatened and injured a 52‑year‑old man before fleeing in a stolen white Holden SUV, which was later found dumped in Orange. That brazen, coordinated offending leaves no doubt: Regional towns like Bourke are being overwhelmed by rising lawlessness.

We must act now before Bourke and other regional towns follow the same trajectory as Alice Springs, where the current Northern Territory Government has been forced to scramble in the face of an uncontrolled youth crime wave—a legacy of the weak, left-wing former Northern Territory Government. In Alice Springs, businesses have shut down, families live in fear and social order has broken down entirely. We cannot allow regional New South Wales to spiral into the same crisis. The writing is on the wall. Without firm intervention, Bourke risks becoming the next tragic headline in the national story of government inaction and failure.

That is why the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party supports the extension of section 22C of the Bail Act. It provides communities with a much-needed circuit breaker to stop the revolving door of bail for serious repeat offenders. It is not a permanent solution but a necessary, time-limited measure to give breathing space to communities under siege while longer term, community-led programs continue to be developed. As regional representatives, we hear constantly from constituents who feel abandoned by a justice system that seems more focused on the offenders than on their victims. We must remember that the justice system must protect young people but also protect the communities they are harming.

We think that section 22C strikes the right balance. It ensures that, in cases where there is not a high degree of confidence that a young person will not reoffend, bail can and must be refused. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party will always support a justice system that combines compassion and accountability. We commend the programs aimed at addressing the root causes of youth crime. We equally stand behind the tough but fair provisions in the bill. Community safety, from our point of view, is totally not negotiable. We stand the victims and with families and businesses across regional New South Wales crying out for peace and security. Accordingly, we support the bill.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (18:19): I make a contribution to debate on the Bail Amendment (Extension of Limitation on Bail in Certain Circumstances) Bill 2025. Community safety should be a key priority for all governments. At the moment we are experiencing a juvenile crime wave. It is happening all over the State, including in metropolitan Sydney, but it is more pronounced and acute in regional New South Wales. One only has to pick up the paper to read about the havoc the youth crime wave is wreaking upon rural towns and cities. There has been a concerted cry from community leaders, rural mayors, councillors and local police in those towns asking for assistance from the Government to control the crime wave. Young criminals are tearing the heart and soul out of hardworking, proud communities. A response, if we could call it that, has brought us to this debate today.

Some members may say, "Hang on a second, I have heard those words before." They would be right, because that is taken directly from my speech in this Chamber on 21 March 2024, when we debated the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill. I ask members, "What has changed?" Absolutely nothing. As I said on 21 March 2024, "This bill will go nowhere towards fixing the problem." In fact, the bill does little to change the status quo in policing youth crime at the moment. The youth crime rate will drop only once the legal system makes young people accountable for their actions.

We are not talking about kids who have gone into a shop and done a bit of shoplifting for a dare. We are talking about young offenders who are committing serious crimes, such as breaking into homes. The victims of those crimes are always soft targets—normally, elderly people who cannot defend themselves. Imagine how they must feel living in fear inside their homes. The fear of an armed person breaking into their home as they sleep at night carries across the board. The fear does not change whether the offender is 15 years of age or 50 years of age. As I have said, we need to look at the Bail Act and section 16A (1) is the pertinent section. It states:

A bail authority making a bail decision for a show cause offence must refuse bail unless the accused person shows cause why his or her detention is not justified.

I note that a bail authority is either a police officer or a properly constituted court. This section is known as the show cause requirement and applies to the most serious of crimes and includes continuing to commit crimes while on bail. As I said, we are not talking about shoplifting a packet of chewing gum on a dare. Why is section 16A of the Bail Act not being used at present? That is because section 16A (3) states:

This section does not apply if the accused person was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offence.

I have said in the past that the answer is staring us in the face. This bill should have sought to amend the Bail Act by removing section 16A (3), thereby rendering those under the age of 18 subject to the provisions that apply to show cause offences. Again, youth crime will drop once the legal system makes young people accountable for their actions. Clearly this Government does not have the stomach or the spine to make hard decisions. The burden of proof for obtaining bail should be transferred to the offender, as happens in the adult system. The bill is just window‑dressing. It is another flag-waving exercise in an attempt to hoodwink a concerned public into thinking the Minns Government has heard its message and is getting tough on crime. In reality, the bill will do nothing but appease to the hand-wringing apologists who subscribe to a theory of blaming everyone else except the young person who has committed the crime.

The Hon. Aileen MacDonald used a quote in her contribution. I will do the same thing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Nothing has changed in society since this Chamber passed the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill on 21 March 2024. In fact, they have got worse. What are we doing? We are going to do the same thing all over again, only we are going to extend the period until 3 April 2028. Conveniently—and no other member else has mentioned this—puts the end date past the 2027 election. That decision was made in the hope that something different will happen. That bill has made no difference in the past 12 months and I can guarantee it will make no difference in the next 12 months. After that time, as I said on 21 March 2024, we will be back in this place doing this all over again. Clearly my words were right!

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for Western New South Wales) (18:25): On behalf of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey: In reply: I thank all members for their contributions to this debate today: the Hon. Susan Carter, Ms Sue Higginson, the Hon. Stephen Lawrence, the Hon. Aileen MacDonald, the Hon. Robert Borsak and the Hon. Rod Roberts. In the Attorney General's second reading speech in the other place, he ran through numerous measures that our Government is progressing to tackle youth crime. The single measure in this bill is only part of a much bigger picture. We continue to work on a multifaceted response to address youth crime and community concerns. Extending section 22C for a further three years will allow the test to remain in place while work continues across government to fully implement and expand on measures being implemented to support young people and tackle youth crime.

We recently announced additional funding for Moree and over $4 million to support similar place‑based responses in Bourke and Kempsey. That funding will bolster successful local teams working with the Government to tackle identified issues. It will also provide time for our Government to receive and consider the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into community safety in regional and rural communities. Finally, it will give us time to undertake a review, informed by longer term Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] data and stakeholder feedback. Given ongoing serious community concerns about repeat offending, particularly repeat offending by young people in relation to break and enter and motor theft offences, allowing section 22C to expire on 4 April 2025 would not be in the public interest.

I will now address some of the matters raised by members in debate. The Hon. Susan Carter raised the lack of evaluation of section 22C. Since the introduction of section 22C, the Department of Communities and Justice [DCJ] has closely monitored the provision and engaged with justice stakeholders through a specially dedicated monitoring group, which regularly exchanged information and updates on the operation of the temporary bail test. The monitoring group includes representatives from DCJ and the courts, the NSW Police Force, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Legal Aid NSW, the Aboriginal Legal Service, the Public Defenders, Corrective Services NSW, Youth Justice NSW, the Cabinet Office and the Premier's Department.

At the time we introduced the bill, the checked data on youth crime trends since the implementation of section 22C covered six months, from March 2024 to September 2024. This period is not sufficient to track long‑term crime trends. The three‑year extension of the test will allow for data on relevant crime trends to be collected and analysed over the longer term to inform a comprehensive review of the provision, to analyse the impact and inform the decision as to the provision's future at that time. The amendment passed in the other place will also see the section reviewed in 12 months and the report tabled in both Houses. It also makes it clear that BOCSAR will be consulted and provide information to inform the review.

Ms Sue Higginson and the Hon. Aileen MacDonald criticised the section 22C test for incarcerating vulnerable children and Aboriginal children. The test was introduced to address, on a temporary basis, real community concerns about a specific youth crime trend, particularly in regional areas of New South Wales. It was anticipated that the test would lead to a limited cohort of young people being more likely to be imprisoned. That is why the test was carefully designed and appropriately limited to specific categories of offending, but, importantly, it is not the only measure being progressed by our Government. The test was introduced with a package of broader non-legislative initiatives aimed at reducing youth offending and supporting vulnerable young people and their communities, especially Aboriginal young people. This includes linking young Aboriginal youth to Indigenous organisations, Elders and cultural and family supports, with skilled staff providing 24/7 child‑safe care. For example, the Moree bail accommodation will be led by three local Aboriginal organisations to provide the most culturally appropriate leadership for this novel facility.

The Government remains committed to working with communities and our Closing the Gap partners to develop long-term therapeutic and community-based approaches to address offending by young people on a broader scale. Section 22C continues to serve as a temporary legislative measure to support community safety while a range of long-term solutions are implemented, including community-based solutions to divert children from criminal activities and interaction with the criminal justice system. For example, some of the programs we have implemented in Moree are doing exactly that. Miyay Birray Street Beat bus completed over 3,500 pick‑ups since October 2024, and both the PCYC and SHAE Academy programs are attracting dozens of kids per night. The small grants program has distributed $225,000, excluding GST, for the delivery of 21 diverse after‑hours activities, from sports and arts activities to mental health peer support.

In response to the comment from Ms Sue Higginson that the Attorney General has not visited a youth justice centre, I can advise that he has visited Cobham Youth Justice Centre. Ms Sue Higginson and the Hon. Aileen MacDonald also raised the impact of incarceration on young people. Our Government is committed to addressing the causes of crime at their core, with the long-term aim of curbing the offending behaviour of young people in our community and their contact with the criminal justice system. However, our Government cannot and will not ignore the fact that the lived experience of youth crime in many communities is one of genuine fear, concern and frustration. Section 22C serves as a temporary legislative measure to support community safety while a range of long-term solutions are implemented, including community-based solutions to divert children from criminal activities and interaction with the criminal justice system.

The Hon. Aileen MacDonald said we need real solutions to youth crime, and we agree. Youth crime is a long-term problem that needs to be tackled with a number of solutions. That is what our Government is doing. Our Government is addressing youth crime in a meaningful way across the State by introducing a comprehensive suite of measures. We are not focusing on Moree alone; we are extending programs across the regions. In addition to the multifaceted programs introduced in Moree, last year we announced an investment of $12.9 million to fund and implement a range of statewide regional crime prevention initiatives, including the expansion of youth action meetings in nine police districts; the expansion of the Safe Aboriginal Youth Patrol Program to an additional five Closing the Gap priority locations, to be determined in consultation with communities; and reducing the risk of young people being victims of crime and the risk they will become persons of interest in relation to a crime.

We are also continuing to roll out $7.5 million in Justice Reinvestment grants, with grant funding available to recipients as early as June 2024. This year we have allocated $4 million to Bourke and Kempsey, as I said, to match the Commonwealth Government's investment in the Stronger Places, Stronger People program, which supports community-led place-based responses to local issues. Other programs are being developed in other towns, such as the rugby program in Dubbo. Section 22C applies across the State. Extending the temporary bail test for three years will help to keep the community safer while the Government continues efforts to reduce youth crime and minimise young people's long-term contact with the justice system.

Progress is being made constantly. For example, the Moree bail accommodation—a novel facility—will commence operating around the middle of the year. Time was needed to select the most appropriate organisations to lead it, and, as I have said, three Aboriginal organisations have been chosen to lead this culturally appropriate initiative. The Hon. Susan Carter said that a shorter extension of 18 months is appropriate. We are seeking to extend the test for three years, rather than a shorter time frame, to allow sufficient time for these multifaceted, long‑term initiatives to become fully operational. The three-year extension provides communities, legal practitioners and the courts involved in bail proceedings certainty about the status of the temporary bail test while this work is ongoing.

In conclusion, it is clear that there is ongoing community concern about youth offending, particularly serious break and enter and motor theft offences committed by young people on bail. This extension will help keep the community safer while the Government continues efforts to reduce youth crime and minimise young people's long-term contact with the criminal justice system. The Government believes more needs to be done and that the temporary bail test should remain in place while this important work is underway. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Instruction to Committee of the Whole

The Hon. SUSAN CARTER: According to standing order, I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that it has the power to consider amendments related to section 22C of the Bail Act 2013 and for related purposes.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: On behalf of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey: I move:

That consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole stand as an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Motion agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst): I shall now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8.00 p.m.