Thursday, 18 June 2026

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Violence Reduction, Minister for Finance) (15:06): Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of Bill

The Bill seeks to protect and promote community safety, by introducing a new offence into the Crimes Act 1958 to prohibit adults from recruiting children to engage in criminal activity, that is conduct that constitutes an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of 15 years to life imprisonment. The adult must know or be reckless as to whether the subject of the recruitment is a child. The new offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The Bill also amends the existing offence consistent with the new offence to capture where an adult is reckless as to whether the subject of the recruitment is a child (in addition to the current knowledge element). The existing offence will apply to criminal activity that is conduct that constitutes an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of 5 to less than 15 years imprisonment.

Human Rights Issues

Under the Charter, rights can be subject to limits that are reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. Generally, the Bill promotes a number of fundamental human rights. Where there are any limitations on human rights, I am of the view that they are justified and reasonable, as discussed below.

The Charter rights that are relevant to the Bill are:

• the right to life (section 9);

• right to privacy (section 13);

• the right to the protection of families and children (section 17);

• the right to property (section 20);

• the right to liberty and security of the person (section 21);

• the right not to be tried and punished more than once (section 26);

• the protection against retrospective criminal laws (section 27).

For completeness, in addition to these primary rights affected by the Bill, it is acknowledged that the new offence may lead to more custodial sentences, which involves the limitation of other rights, including freedom of movement (section 12), the right to privacy (section 13(a)), the rights to practice religion and enjoy cultural rights (sections 14(1)(b) and 19), freedom of expression (section 15(2)), right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16), the protection of families and children (section 17) and the right to property (section 20). This is the result of the deprivation of liberty and the powers held by officers in charge of custodial facilities that are necessary to maintain good order and security of the facilities and the welfare of detained persons. The family unit will also be affected when a family member is made subject to an imprisonment order. As all these limitations are a lawful and necessary consequence of a sentence of imprisonment, I do not propose to discuss these secondary impacts in detail, beyond acknowledging the wide range of human rights that are limited by a sentence of imprisonment.

Promotion of various human rights

Every person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life (section 9). The Bill promotes this right by targeting adults who recruit children to commit serious crimes that can result in significant harm and even death, such as murder and serious drug offences. It similarly promotes community and victim rights to liberty and security (section 21).

A person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law (section 20). Similarly, the right to privacy (section 13) protects the home and family from unlawful or arbitrary interference. These rights are promoted to the extent that the new offence applies to target adults who recruit children to commit offences that may infringe upon a person’s home and property (e.g. recruiting a child to commit a home invasion or arson).

The Charter recognises the family as the fundamental group unit of society and entitles it to protection by society and the State (section 17(1)). It also recognises that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in their best interests and is needed by them by reason of being a child (section 17(2)). The Bill recognises that children are particularly vulnerable and can be more easily influenced by those who try to take advantage of them. It is in their best interests to protect them from such conduct. The Bill also recognises that recruiting children into crime has significant and lasting impacts on their families and the community more broadly. The Bill promotes this right by providing that adults who deliberately recruit children to engage in serious crime will face significant consequences.

In addition to promoting the above rights, the Bill engages certain rights protected under the Charter. As discussed below, in my view, to the extent that any of these rights are limited, this is justified and reasonable under the Charter.

The right to liberty and security of the person (section 21)

Section 21 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to liberty and security and that a person must not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. As outlined in Victorian Toll v Taha (2013) 49 VR 1 (at [197]), the right to liberty is engaged where a person is at risk of imprisonment. A person’s liberty may legitimately be constrained only in circumstances where the relevant arrest or detention is lawful, in the sense that it is specifically authorised and sufficiently circumscribed by law, and not arbitrary, in that it must not be disproportionate or unjust.

I acknowledge that the new offence carries a significant maximum penalty of life imprisonment. This is comparable to the maximum penalty for incitement to commit other level one offences (such as murder or serious drug offences) but is greater than the available sentences for incitement to commit offences that carry a maximum penalty between 15 years but under life imprisonment.

The Bill also introduces a recklessness fault element for both the new recruitment offence and the existing recruitment offence. It is sufficient that the adult is reckless as to whether the subject of the recruitment is a child.

However, this distinction in maximum penalty is appropriate given the significantly greater culpability that attaches to recruiting a child to commit these offences. The maximum penalty clearly denounces the recruitment of a child by an adult, particularly those involved in organised crime or criminal gangs, to commit very serious crimes that cause significant community concern. Further, I consider that the introduction of a recklessness fault element is appropriate to acknowledge the seriousness of the conduct, even where an adult does not know, but is reckless as to whether the subject of the recruitment is a child.

These serious and sometimes violent acts can have a profound impact on victims, the community, the child and their family. In this regard, it is necessary to consider the effect of the conduct addressed by the offence on the rights of the community to liberty and security (section 21), life (section 9), property (section 20) and privacy of the home (section 13).

The Bill does not limit the courts’ ability to sentence adults to a period of imprisonment that is proportionate to the gravity of their offending, facilitating community safety from further unlawful and dangerous behaviour. As the scope of the Bill may capture a broad range of conduct, the courts will also retain the discretion to sentence offenders, including young adults, according to their relevant culpability including imposing non-custodial sentences, if appropriate.

Whilst the right to liberty is engaged, I consider that any detention under the Bill is sufficiently circumscribed by law and not arbitrary, and any limitation on this right is reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. The maximum penalty and recklessness fault element are appropriate given the legitimate purpose of the Bill to promote community safety and address growing community concern with the prevalence of organised crime and the recruitment of children to engage in criminal activity in Victoria.

The right not to be tried and punished more than once (section 26)

Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which that person has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law.

It is possible that conduct that constitutes the new offence could also support a conviction for incitement or the existing recruitment offence. Further, given the broad scope of the Bill, it could also include recruitment to engage in criminal activity that constitutes related offences (e.g. recruitment for carjacking and aggravated carjacking would both be captured by the new offence).

However, I consider that the new offence will not limit the right not to be tried and punished more than once. Clause 7 of the Bill amends existing section 321LD of the Crimes Act, which provides that an adult is not liable to be convicted in respect of the same conduct for these offences. Section 51(1) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 also provides that a person is not liable to be punished more than once for the same act or omission. Further, the Bill does not abrogate the common law rule against double jeopardy nor the rule against duplicity, which protect an accused from being the subject of multiple prosecutions or convictions arising out of the same set of facts.

Protection from retrospective criminal application

Section 27(1) of the Charter provides that a person must not be found guilty of a criminal offence because of conduct that was not a criminal offence when it was engaged in. This reflects the principle, long recognised in criminal law, that there can be no crime and no punishment other than as established by the law.

The Bill protects this right by ensuring that the new offence has prospective application only and includes an express transitional provision to ensure that where offending conduct occurs between two dates, one before and after the commencement of the Bill, the existing recruitment offence will apply.

The Hon. Sonya Kilkenny

Attorney-General

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Violence Reduction, Minister for Finance) (15:06): Under the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I table a statement of treaty compatibility:

1.   In my opinion, the Crimes Amendment (Recruitment of Children for Criminal Activity) Bill 2026 (Bill) is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

2.   The purpose of the Bill is to create a new offence to capture an adult recruiting a child to engage in serious criminal activity. The Crimes Act 1958 currently provides that it is an offence for an adult to recruit a child to engage in criminal activity punishable by 5 years imprisonment or more, knowing that the other person is a child. The maximum penalty for the current offence is 15-years imprisonment.

3.   Modelled on the existing offence, the proposed new offence in the Bill would apply when an adult recruits a child to engage in serious criminal activity, which itself is conduct that constitutes an offence punishable by 15 years to life imprisonment. The adult must know or be reckless as to whether the subject of the recruitment is a child. The Bill provides that the new offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

4.   The existing offence will continue to apply when an adult recruits a child to engage in criminal activity that is conduct that constitutes an offence punishable by 5 to less than 15 years imprisonment. However, the Bill amends the existing offence consistent with the new offence to capture where an adult is reckless as to whether the subject of the recruitment is a child (in addition to the current knowledge element).

5.   The purpose of the Bill is to promote community safety and target adults who recruit children to commit serious offences, which can have a significant impact on victims, the community, the recruited child and their family.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

6.   Due to the recent establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl, it was not possible to give the First Peoples’ Assembly the opportunity to advise on the Bill or for them to otherwise make representations about the effect of the Bill on First Peoples.

Compatibility of the Bill with each of the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

7.   I have considered whether the Bill is compatible with the objects at section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 (Treaty Act):

(i) advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples; and

(ii) addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

(iii) ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

8.   I note that the Bill does not include any provisions which apply specifically to First Peoples, as it creates an offence that applies equally to any adult.

9.   However, the Bill may, in its practical effects, engage with the objects at section 66(3)(d) of the Treaty Act in light of the overrepresentation of First Peoples in the criminal justice system. For example, I note that First Peoples represent less than 2 per cent of the Victorian population but in 2025 made up 14 per cent of alleged offenders proceeded against by police via arrest or summons as a result of alleged offender incidents.

10.   The new recruitment offence for serious criminal activity introduced by this Bill carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, while the existing recruitment offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years. The Bill also introduces a recklessness fault element for the new and existing recruitment offence. It is therefore expected that these amendments may lead to more prosecutions and increased custodial sentences for adult offenders which has a risk of further increasing First Peoples overrepresentation in custody.

11.   This may include young adult offenders. As the new offence applies to any adult aged 18 years and above (consistent with the existing offence), it may capture conduct where a young person recruits a friend or family member who is a child to commit a serious offence (e.g., an 18-year-old may encourage a 17-year-old friend to commit a carjacking with them, which would involve recruitment conduct). There is therefore a risk that the new offence may have an impact on young Aboriginal offenders, who are similar in age to children they have recruited, by leading to increased custodial sentences for this group.

Advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples

12.   I acknowledge that the exercise of the right to self-determination will necessarily be limited by the criminal justice system, given the loss of liberty inherent in aspects of policing, court processes and the conditions of custody. However, particular consideration has been given to whether, within the context of the residual liberty afforded to individuals in the criminal justice system, the Bill further affects the right to self-determination.

13.   While the government seeks to enable self-determination rights in the justice system where possible, for example through the operation of Koori courts and by supporting Aboriginal programs and access to culture in prisons, settings such as the nature of criminal offences, when individuals are charged and prosecuted and broader policing, judicial and custodial systems are not self-determined. As the Bill introduces an additional offence within these broader system settings, these amendments do not further limit self-determination.

14.   To the extent that the new offence introduced by this Bill may lead to increased overrepresentation of First Peoples in the criminal justice system and in custody, this may impact some inherent rights of First Peoples as outlined in the United Nations Declaration into the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

15.   The Bill may, in practice, limit the right to culture (article 11) noting the significant disruption that imprisonment presents to access to Country (see also articles 25 and 26) and places of spiritual significance, cultural practices and cultural connections, including kinship networks. A term of imprisonment may also limit the right to improvement of economic and social conditions (article 5) and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (article 24).

16.   However, with regard to the above considerations, in my opinion the Bill is nevertheless compatible with the object of advancing the inherent rights of First Peoples due to the importance of preventing this offending conduct and the nature of the limitations, as detailed in the proportionality assessment below.

Addressing unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples

17.   To the extent that the new offence introduced by this Bill may lead to increased contact with the justice system and incarceration of First Peoples, it may compound the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation.

18.   The Yoorrook for Justice report considered the significant impact of First Peoples over-representation in the justice system, including the disruptions to family and the community when people are imprisoned. The report notes that “[r]emoving them from their community can have devastating effects on their personal and social wellbeing, with many families experiencing ongoing trauma and grief as a result.”

19.   While courts will continue to have the full range of options for sentencing offenders, including non-custodial options, the scope of the new recruitment offence in the Bill captures a wide range of serious criminal offences and the proposed maximum penalty of life imprisonment may lead to more custodial sentences.

20.   However, with regard to the above considerations, in my opinion the Bill is nevertheless compatible with the object of addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation due to the importance of preventing this offending conduct and the nature of the limitations, as detailed in the proportionality assessment below.

Ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples

21.   While the Bill applies neutrally to any adult who recruits a child to commit a serious offence, I acknowledge that the Bill may indirectly limit the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of First Peoples, due to their overrepresentation in the prison population. I consider that the Bill may indirectly engage human rights, including the rights to liberty (section 21, Charter), freedom of movement (section 12), right to privacy (section 13(a)), the rights to practice religion and enjoy cultural rights (sections 14(1)(b) and 19), freedom of expression (section 15(2)), right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16) the protection of families and children (section 17) and the right to property (section 20). As noted above, the Bill may also engage First Peoples’ inherent rights, particularly the rights to culture and country.

22.   These rights may be limited as a result of a possible sentence of imprisonment, which requires the deprivation of liberty and the exercise of powers held by officers in charge of custodial facilities necessary to maintain good order and security of the facilities and the welfare of detained persons. The family unit will also be affected when a family member is imprisoned. As I have raised above, the new recruitment offence may lead to more custodial sentences. In circumstances where First Peoples are subject to disproportionate detention, this may limit the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

23.   However, with regard to the above considerations, in my opinion the Bill is nevertheless compatible with the object of ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples due to the importance of preventing this offending conduct and the nature of the limitations, as detailed in the proportionality assessment below.

Proportionality assessment

24.   While the Bill may limit the achievement of the objects in section 66(3)(d)(i)–(iii) as outlined above, in my opinion the limitations are proportionate and therefore compatible with them having regard to the importance of preventing the harm caused by this offending conduct and purpose of the Bill and the nature of the limitations, noting:

24.1 the Bill universally applies to any adult that recruits a child to engage in serious criminal activity, not specifically or only to First Peoples;

24.2 the Bill acknowledges that marginalised and vulnerable children, including far too many Aboriginal children, are at greater risk of entering the criminal justice system. The Bill recognises that children are particularly vulnerable and can be more easily targeted and influenced by adults who wish to take advantage of them. The new offence will further criminalise behaviour by adults who deliberately recruit children to engage in serious crime. It aims to denounce this conduct to deter children from getting involved in or carrying out serious criminal activity and reduce the contact these children have with the criminal justice system;

24.3 the new offence targets serious conduct that may have a significant impact on victims, the community, the child and their family. Whilst it may lead to more custodial sentences, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment is appropriate given the significant culpability of an adult who knowingly or recklessly targets and recruits a child to commit these serious offences;

24.4 the scope of the new offence is limited to the extent that it only applies to adults, who must know that the child subject of the recruitment is likely to carry out the criminal activity. Further, to the extent that the new offence may apply to a range of conduct, the courts will retain discretion to sentence adult offenders, including young adult offenders, according to their relevant culpability, including imposing non-custodial sentences if appropriate.

24.5 the Department of Justice and Community Safety will work with First Peoples communities on the implementation of the new offence to monitor impact on communities including any disproportionate impact.

25.   For the reasons set out above, in my opinion the Bill is compatible with the objects specified in section 66(3)(d)(i) to (iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025.

The Hon. Sonya Kilkenny

Attorney-General

 Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Violence Reduction, Minister for Finance) (15:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

There is growing community concern that organised crime groups are recruiting children to carry out serious crimes. Introducing children to crime has a significant impact on community safety, increases the likelihood of escalating a child’s criminal behaviour and risks their lifelong participation in criminal activities. The Bill delivers on the government’s commitment to strengthen laws surrounding the recruitment of children by organised crime networks to commit serious offences, specifically, the commitment to introduce a new offence with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for recruiting children to engage in serious and violent offending.

The Bill introduces a new offence into the Crimes Act 1958 for recruiting a child to engage in serious criminal activity that constitutes an offence with a maximum penalty of 15 years or more (including life imprisonment). The new offence is modelled on the existing offence of recruiting a child to engage in criminal activity contained in section 321LB of the Crimes Act 1958. The new offence will apply when an adult recruits a child to engage in this serious criminal activity, knowing or being reckless as to whether that person is a child. The Bill also amends the existing offence to apply when an accused is reckless as to whether the subject of recruitment is a child. This will improve the application of the offences, in particular to organised crime and criminal gang recruitment.

The offences captured by the Bill are some of the most serious offences of community concern in Victoria and have significant impacts for victims, the recruited child and the community. This includes recruitment to commit offences including murder, home invasion and carjacking (and their aggravated forms), armed robbery, kidnapping, arson and extortion with a threat to kill or inflict injury. As is the case with the existing recruitment offence, the adult must know that it is likely the recruited child will engage in the criminal activity, however, it is not necessary that the child carries out the activity.

The existing recruitment offence, which carries a 15-year maximum penalty, will continue to apply to conduct that constitutes an offence with a maximum penalty between 5 years and less than 15 years imprisonment.

The Bill provides that the new offence will carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. This sends a clear message that those who recruit children to engage in serious criminal activity should receive sentences that reflect their high criminal culpability.

This reform is part of Victoria’s Serious Consequences – Early Interventions plan to reduce violent youth crime and builds on previous community safety reforms passed by Parliament late last year including increasing maximum penalties for specific violent offences that cause a high level of fear or harm to victims, introducing a new knife offence, and ensuring children aged 14 and above who commit specified violent crimes face the prospect of adult sentences in adult courts.

The introduction of this new offence also follows the Australian Crime Intelligence Commission’s (ACIC) findings in its Opening the books report on the impact of serious and organised crime in Australia. The report highlights that youth gangs and vulnerable people are being targeted online to carry out violent acts in public. Organised crime groups are deliberately recruiting vulnerable young people to carry out violent acts as they are cheaper to hire, more easily influenced, impressionable and easily accessible online.

As is evident from recent reporting, organised crime networks are recruiting children to commit serious offences such as arson, highlighting the need for further deterrence and greater penalties for the adults profiting from these crimes. The Bill aims to clearly denounce and criminalise this conduct. This will help protect and strengthen victim and community safety and ensure perpetrator accountability.

Together with the existing recruitment offence, the introduction of the new offence is another step towards addressing this alarming trend of organised crime networks recruiting vulnerable children to carry out their criminal agenda. However, as noted in ACIC’s report, the recruitment of children by organised crime groups and criminal gangs also needs collective solutions. Finding and charging people for this offence is complex, with many hiding online or offshore.

Victoria will continue to work with stakeholders and other jurisdictions to tackle and disrupt child recruitment by organised crime and gangs, and to develop collective solutions to support the investigation and prosecution of this conduct.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:07): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday 2 July.