Tuesday, 13 August 2024

Youth Justice Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:29): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution to the Youth Justice Bill 2024. This is a very large bill; it would be correct to say that it is a doorstopper. It is a bill that has been a long time coming, but it is here now, and I will make some comments about this. The government has shifted and changed its position repeatedly, and I do not think that the government’s approach on a lot of this has been satisfactory.

The background to some of this bill – and I will step through aspects of it in a minute – is the government’s longstanding promise to lift the age of criminal responsibility for young people, from 10 to 14. This was a promise made by the current Premier and the former Premier and others within the government. The government is now fleeing from that commitment. It does not want to lift the age to 14. It now is saying it will only lift the age to 12. I say that Labor, with its strong ideological position, its strong position against victims’ rights and its strong position against clear law and order policies, would be a very serious risk if it were returned at the next election – that it would follow through on its earlier solemn commitment to lift the age of criminal responsibility to 14. I think what we have seen today for Victorians is a short reprieve. I think what we have seen is a backdown by the government, a backdown of monumental proportion by the Premier, and a pausing of Labor’s agenda, which will be resumed if they are elected in 2026.

What I think is also important here is to understand that we do have a significant surge in youth-related crime. There are many reasons for that, and that is not an easy discussion. But the truth of the matter is youth-related crime, and serious crime, has been on the rise. People have been injured and hurt. I perhaps put this in the context of my electorate and local areas within my electorate. We held a community forum in Mount Waverley recently. We had about 60 people there, community people – it was quite a successful forum – after brochures had been distributed and emails and so forth sent out and Facebook posts. There were a number of people who did not come who wrote in and made commentary on a wide variety of matters or who filled in surveys to give their views on a number of issues. Then there were others who did attend and came along to have their say.

A member interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I can advise that the amendments are still being processed and are not ready for circulation.

David DAVIS: If I perhaps bring the house into the confidence of the discussion with the clerks and the Acting President: I had understood that the amendments would be able to be circulated. The Greens are the same. But that is not the case, as I understand it. The amendments will be a little longer, and I give my apology to the house. I know that Brad Battin, our Shadow Minister for Youth Justice, had done quite a lot of work on these amendments, and there are many hundreds of them, so I understand the complexity of that. He had put those to the parliamentary counsel and the clerks a little earlier. I am just recording that they are not ready. I gave a different commitment to the Government Whip just earlier, so if I am unable to fulfil that commitment, Government Whip, I am remorseful.

As I was saying, one of the things that became very clear to me at the series of forums that we have had – beginning with Mount Waverley and another one recently in the Glen Iris and Ashburton area – is that there is a real community fear and a real community concern about youth crime and rising violent youth crime. This is not the sort of concern that could be pointed at publicity or otherwise. It is founded on actual individual, personal experience. I had people come along to the forum and indicate that areas of Mount Waverley that they had moved into – up to 50 years go, some of them – which had been relatively safe had become much more violent and much more threatening. There has been a series of home invasions – this is suburban Mount Waverley – and a number of older people who have been in the area from early days are very, very worried about what is now occurring. Either they have had individual incidents of home invasions in their own home or they have had immediate or close-by neighbours have those sorts of impacts.

In a similar way, at the forum that we recently conducted in the Ashburton and Glen Iris area a significant number of people raised this issue either informally around the discussion or during the forum itself or by email or survey in and around the forum. I am not reverting, as it were, to formal police statistics here, although Brad Battin, our shadow, has made it very clear that the recent statistics make it clear that in fact there has been a significant surge in violent youth crime. Those local examples are different from formal statistics – they are significant anecdotal examples, not on a narrow front but on quite a wide front of cases where youth-based violent crime is increasing and increasing in areas where it has not traditionally been. My colleague in Brighton Mr Newbury has talked about this at length. Other areas of Southern Metro have also faced this particular problem.

There is a youth crime crisis. This is of the government’s own making. I have to say that the decision just a few years ago to weaken bail laws has been a part of this problem. It was entirely an initiative of the state government itself to remove the penalty for those who commit an offence whilst on bail. This is just an example of this government’s lax and weak approach – an approach that puts the community at risk by sending a signal that it is okay to undertake violent crime, to be bailed and then whilst the bail is in operation to go out and commit a further series of crimes, including violent crimes. I think these are important bits of history that need to be put on the record.

The notable elements of the bill relate to the age of criminal responsibility. The age must be raised to 12 no later than 30 September 2025. Any delays will require an amendment to the act. There are no exceptions to this for serious offences committed by young people aged 10 to 11. It should be noted that the diversionary elements proposed in chapter 4 do not apply to young people under the age of 12.

The government is seeking to codify doli incapax, which is a longstanding, long-established legal principle held by the courts. It is a common-law principle. This bill seeks to codify this principle, so that protection is there. The essence of the doli incapax, as I understand it – I am not a lawyer, but I have spoken to a number of barristers about this matter – is that it basically says that children who do not have the capacity to understand what they are doing will not be held responsible. But the government’s approach here to lift the age of responsibility, notwithstanding the doli incapax, begs the question: if a child at age 11, for example, is able to understand what is going on and does have the mental capacity, they would not be protected by doli incapax, but they would have the mens rea to actually make the decisions for which, in my view and the opposition’s view, they should be held responsible. The doli incapax actually protects those whose mental capacity is not sufficient to hold them responsible, but for those where it is possible to show that they are responsible it will be a case that they could be held responsible. The government’s bill here will remove that point.

It does have some specific matters with respect to Aboriginal children and young persons, and there are a set of questions around that. The ‘Police power to take into care and control and transport a child aged 10 or 11 years old’, chapter 3, says such force as is reasonably necessary can be permissible to be used by police when transporting a child aged 10 or 11 into care, not to arrest or custody. Further, the Chief Commissioner of Police must keep records of every situation in which a child has been transported.

There is another part, chapter 4, which deals with diverting children away from the justice system. It says participation in caution, warning and diversion conferences proposed in this bill can be refused by a young person. Should a young person refuse all such diversion options, as detailed in clause 92, it seems unlikely that a criminal proceeding would be commenced. There is a presumption against imposing sentences of detention, and that is part 7.13, division 1. Proposed clause 324 will decree that a child must not be sentenced to any form of custody unless it is a category A or category B serious youth offence or any other offence against a person that the court considers to be serious and violent and the court declares the person is a serious risk to the community. There are a number of serious hurdles there.

‘Sentencing generally’ at part 7.6 – and I note clause 240 says whereas this was previously a menu of options available to the court, there is proposed to be a clear hierarchy of options. It is worth putting this hierarchy of options on the record because people will understand as you read it. It says:

(1) In sentencing a child for an indictable offence or a summary offence, the Children’s Cout may –

(a) dismiss the charge without a formal warning … or

(b) if satisfied that paragraph (a) is inappropriate in the circumstances, dismiss the charge with a formal warning … or

(c) if that paragraph (b) is inappropriate in the circumstances, impose a fine or make a good behaviour order; or

(d) if satisfied that paragraph (c) is inappropriate in the circumstances, make a community service order; or

(e) if satisfied that paragraph (d) is inappropriate in the circumstances, make a probation order; or

(f) if satisfied that paragraph (e) is inappropriate in the circumstances, make a youth supervision and support order; or

(g) if satisfied that paragraph (f) is inappropriate in the circumstances, make a youth control order; or

(h) if satisfied that paragraph (g) is inappropriate in the circumstances, make a youth justice custodial order.

Eight layers indeed to get to that position where a youth justice custodial order might be made.

Chapter 10 deals with youth justice custody, and youth justice custody is generally broken down by age, status, remand versus custodial sentence and sex. However, the department is not obligated to apply the sex-based separation presumption in the case of a child or young person whose gender identity is not the same as their sex if satisfied on reasonable grounds it is appropriate to do so. That is clause 465.

Chapter 12 deals with youth parole. The Youth Parole Board will be given instructions not to consider information given by people on the proposed youth justice victims register when assessing a parole application or a child’s right to be on parole. That is clause 622. Information given is only to be considered in the conditions placed on the young person’s parole.

Part 12.4 deals with the youth justice victims register. The Youth Parole Board will be given instructions not to consider information given by people on the register when assessing a parole application or a child’s right to apply for parole.

Chapter 16 talks about system planning, performance, collaboration and accountability, and the bill talks about the obligation of the department to construct and publish an overall youth justice plan. However, it is silent on the date by which the plan should be committed. We have seen other plans in government just not eventuate. Classically, the transport plan of this government, which was mandated by the Transport Integration Act in about 2009 or 2010 – I could be wrong by a year – has never been promulgated and has never appeared. The closest was in the Baillieu period of government. But this government has not produced such a plan, and the auditors carefully looked at that and said, ‘Actually there is no such plan.’ They said there are a whole heap of ramshackle bits and pieces but they do not add up to an overall plan. I am giving that by way of an example of another area of government that says a plan is mandated but has not actually been delivered. A question for the minister in committee on a different day, I think Thursday being the likely day, will be about how that plan would actually be mandated, how we would see that it is coming and when it might come – 2050?

Transitional provisions and consequential amendments relating to minimum age of criminal responsibility are in chapter 19. They lay out that any criminal offence committed by a 10- to 11-year-old person before the commencement date is rendered null and void. That means, no, they are just not going to be charged. That means police cannot lay charges even if the investigation has commenced. Court proceedings must not be started. If they have been started, they must cease immediately. Anyone serving a sentence for such an offence is immediately released unconditionally from custody, and any court orders such as community service or community supervision made are immediately set aside and permanently closed. Mr Battin notes that during the departmental briefing the Department of Justice and Community Safety noted that this was consistent with the changes made when the Northern Territory increased the age of criminal responsibility.

Chapter 22 talks about a trial of monitoring of children on bail in certain circumstances. Under the trial, courts will be able to order young people who have been charged with a serious offence to be subject to electronic monitoring as part of their bail conditions. If noncompliance is detected, such as breaching curfew, the monitoring will alert authorities and police and they will be able to file for bail to be revoked. My level of confidence here is low, given the way the bail system has worked in the more recent period in any event. The trial will include dedicated youth justice staff who will advise the court about suitability and closely monitor the bail compliance and progress. Court-based youth justice staff will deal with breaches.

The bill lays out the two-year trial. The government has stated it will be limited to 50 people only. There is nothing in the bill that requires it to be limited to 50 people, although the budget allocation of $32 million over two years is expressed to cover only 50 people. On questioning, the Attorney-General’s office said the secretary would work with the courts to manage the number of people subject to monitoring. This suggests the government will direct or at least influence the courts as to which bail conditions will or will not be available at different times. I think that that is a concern from the perspective of the independence of the judiciary. Legislated bail options such as electronic monitoring, open to a bail decision maker, should not be withdrawn at the direction of a bureaucrat based on budgetary or other similar considerations. We certainly do not oppose trials of electronic monitoring. We see that that is a relevant option and a relevant part of the choices that can be put in place.

If I start to list out a number of the areas of concern, we are concerned with raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. I have already explained the fact that the legal principle of doli incapax already protects children aged between 10 and 14 because it presumes that they will not have the mental capacity. But if they are shown to have mental capacity and are able to have the mens rea, they can at that point be held responsible.

There is no mention in the bill about strengthened measures to target young people before they commit a crime – or what used to be a crime. All the initiatives in this bill are aimed squarely at people who have committed an offence. In the case of 10- and 11-year-olds that is what would have been an offence. But the lack of prevention as a focus in the bill is a further concern.

Part 19.1 is an attempt to rewrite the law retrospectively, with such serious potential adverse impacts that I think many would be concerned. The bill requires a child’s consent for all interventions, which empowers the child to avoid consequences for their action. Effectively, a child can take a position where they will not comply with any process – like a caution, warning or group conference – under this bill and little, if anything, can be done about that. No punishment can be applied, regardless of the child’s action.

The bill focuses heavily on the concept of restorative justice. Not only does the concept have a questionable ability to influence crime reduction, but it is also extremely cumbersome. It would be costly to initiate its recommended functions in this bill, requiring a department to administer this part alone for questionable outcome benefits.

The effect of chapter 3 is that police have been placed in a welfare responder role. If there is no criminal act committed by a child, then it is not appropriate for the police to be in a position to be the primary responder. That role should be carried out by appropriate agencies that emphasise the best interests and wellbeing of children, one would have thought.

The proposed youth justice victims register – and the functionality that it is proposed to have in clause 659 – falls well short of the adult victims register in terms of information given, notice periods and the ability to make or influence submissions.

There are a set of issues about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children taken into care and control; that is clause 72. Clause 25 of the bill obliges the secretary to seek to develop strategic partnerships with Aboriginal communities by:

enabling the progressive transfer of authority, resources and responsibilities to an Aboriginal-controlled justice system in consultation with representatives of the Aboriginal community on justice-related issues and Aboriginal communities …

An ‘Aboriginal-controlled justice system’ has not been defined. This appears to be a phrase adopted from the Yoorrook Justice Commission, and it is at odds with the principle that all Victorians are equal before the law. It is also relevant that there has been no treaty proposal to put to Parliament or the Victorian people.

There is concern across a wide front. There is concern from Police Association Victoria. They are against raising the age of criminal responsibility because of the current youth crime crisis and the fact that current early identification and diversion services to target young people before they commit a crime are totally and wholly insufficient. The bill does not add any programs here. They are also concerned about the new transport powers which have been placed upon them when dealing with 10- and 11-year-olds who have theoretically not actually committed a crime. There is a whole range of different material I could continue with. There will be an opportunity to explore some of this in the committee stage of the bill, but I think it is very important to actually note that we do have a criminal crisis with young people. We do have families and individuals being hurt and suffering very severely because of what is occurring in our community.

I outlined at the start a number of the issues that are there for local communities within my electorate. This is not nebulous. It is not the case that there is doubt about this. There is a crime crisis that involves young people. Many in the community are afraid. Many in the community have been hurt. This has occurred wholly because the state government has weakened the law, and even the changes that are proposed in this bill will not restore the law to what it was a number of years ago. It will not be stronger than it was previously. The law will still be weaker, and the law will still be wholly such that that these young offenders are in fact not fully held to account.

In those circumstances we register our concern, our opposition, and indicate that in the committee stage we will ask a series of questions. We will also move amendments. I look forward to the clerks getting those amendments into order and developing a schedule that will test our amendments along with the amendments of the Greens and others, and as I understand it, there may well be house amendments as well. It is a bill that the community is entitled to be very suspicious of because of the government’s manifest failure over recent years.

I became very aware of some of these issues when I was called by the Chinese consulate just a number of years ago to come to a house in Ormond where some young Chinese students, young boys studying here – lovely kids – had suffered a home invasion. This was a Sunday morning I was around there. The consul was there. Others senior in the Chinese community were there, and the mother of one of the boys – a Shanghai woman – had flown over in the period. The actual home invasion had occurred on the Saturday morning, and I was there on the Sunday morning. The mother had flown over clearly very distraught, and I am not going to go into the detail of what I heard but suffice to say that a number of violent young men with long criminal histories, out on bail, had conducted this home invasion on a Saturday morning. They had broken glass and got into the house. They had taken vehicles. They had taken computers and phones – electronic goods of various types. And some of the threats that were delivered to the young boys, students at Victorian universities, were – I am looking for the word here. ‘Bloodcurdling’ is the only thing I can really say.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

David DAVIS: No. I cannot circulate my amendments because they are not prepared as yet, as I am informed.

But in that sense I am drawing further examples for the chamber and the community to understand why the opposition is concerned about the government’s response here. The government has been weak. They have been untruthful. They have broken their commitments. And as that has all occurred – weakening of the law – more violent crime has occurred.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (16:59): I rise to speak on the Youth Justice Bill 2024, which represents a significant piece of legislation and progresses a child- and adolescent-focused youth justice framework. While the bill advances some reforms that stakeholders have been calling for for decades, the Greens believe that there are a number of improvements that can be made to ensure that this opportunity to reform youth justice is done as fulsomely as possible. I will also have more to say in the committee stage about changes to the bill in the form of what I believe we will see to be house amendments that have been dropped on us this morning, literally at the eleventh hour.

With regard to the current version of the bill, without house amendments, I would like to start by acknowledging the government’s work on this bill, which has been comprehensive, led by the Minister for Youth Justice and the Attorney-General. It has taken the lead from the sector and wider community in their longstanding and resonant calls for justice reforms that will serve young people in our justice system. In particular I want to recognise the substantial advocacy work done by the Aboriginal Justice Caucus and legal stakeholder groups such as the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Smart Justice for Young People coalition, WEstjustice, Victoria Legal Aid and the Federation of Community Legal Centres, to name just a few.

The bill has positive steps in that it raises the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years. It is a step forward in that there is a clear presumption of doli incapax for 12- and 13-year-olds that will be enshrined in legislation. This is the legal presumption which reflects the reality that children at this stage are still developing and that their mental and emotional capacity is not yet fully formed. Importantly, the bill contains a key section of guiding youth justice principles, including principles and matters specific to Aboriginal children and young persons, as well as cultural support plans for Aboriginal children and young persons. And at long last there is an important legislative prohibition on solitary confinement in youth detention, which is a goal that has been very long and hard fought for. My Greens colleague Dr Tim Read introduced very similar provisions in the other place during the last term of the Parliament, and in fact the Greens Sue Pennicuik MLC, a former representative for Southern Metropolitan, also included a prohibition on solitary confinement when she introduced her corrections amendment bill in 2012, so it is great to see that provision included in the bill.

The Greens also will have a number of amendments to the bill. I am in a similar position to Mr Davis in that those are not presently ready for circulation, and I do apologise to the chamber. We have been working diligently, and I will speak briefly and broadly to the points that those amendments will cover. I did want to take the opportunity to thank the drafters and the clerks for their work in supporting the work of the representatives in this place. I know that they are all working overtime and that a significant amount of work has gone into preparing the bill for this stage, and we thank you in advance for all your work to support the chamber to have this debate and progress it through to committee. Your work is much appreciated by all members here.

The Greens amendments will reflect a commitment to reforming youth justice in a way that respects the dignity and rights of every child while aiming to reduce the risk of reoffending and to improve rehabilitation outcomes. We know that we need to keep young children out of the criminal justice system as this is often the last chance we have to stop them getting pulled into patterns of reoffending. I will now explain why our amendments across a number of areas propose important and necessary changes to the bill.

The first area is the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Our first set of amendments will set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 14 rather than what the bill proposes, which is 12. This change aligns with international standards and evidence that children under 14 are developmentally incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions. In that light it is very, very disappointing to see the backflip from the government this morning on their previously announced plans to support a raise in the age to 14 by 2027. It is absolutely contrary to the longstanding advocacy by stakeholders in this space, it is contrary to the evidence, and the Greens will be standing by that community until we see that change recognised. This bill, however, raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12. Consistent with the recommendation of the Yoorrook Justice Commission, we strongly recommend that it raise the minimum age to 14 immediately and without exception. Failing to do so will see many more 12- and 13-year-olds criminalised, dragged through the system and continue to come into contact with the criminal justice system in the coming years.

Australia has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world. The global average is 14 years old, and we are by far in the bottom third globally. Most of our fellow OECD country members have raised the age to 14, 15 or 16 already. We have been repeatedly criticised by the United Nations, most recently by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, for failure to reform the current minimum age. We also know that Aboriginal children account for almost 65 per cent of young people behind bars around Australia, and it is more than time that we changed that. Victoria has a very important role to play in that national context as well. These kids face a system which is already geared against them, and particularly for First Nations children, which has decades of racism and bias woven into the fabric of the criminal justice system. The age of criminal responsibility being set as low as it is creates a cycle of imprisonment and reoffending among Indigenous children, who are already disproportionately over-represented in the criminal justice system and contact with it.

Our second set of amendments will be around youth bail. Our amendments to youth bail are aimed at ensuring fairness and protecting the rights of young people. The proposal will be to remove reverse onus provisions and establish a presumption in favour of bail. These provisions, which were originally part of the Bail Amendment Bill 2023 and drafted by the government, are a crucial step for ensuring that young people are not unfairly denied bail. The second amendment that we will be putting to the house is regarding removal of the trial provisions for electronic monitoring. There is a good evidence base to show that such measures can be criminogenic and counterproductive to rehabilitation. We need to be supporting young people in this state, not shackling them and stigmatising them.

Moving on to the third-top issue that our amendments will address, we will be seeking to prohibit harmful practices within youth detention and youth justice centres. The amendments will seek to address several harmful practices currently observed in youth detention facilities. The Greens will propose prohibiting the use of isolation unless there is an immediate and serious risk and ensuring that kids that are subject to isolation still receive meaningful human contact. We will call for the legislative elimination of spit hoods in youth justice, as they are both degrading and unnecessary. We will advocate for increased transparency and accountability through public reporting on isolation incidents and the number of unclothed searches. We also believe in enhancing the minimum daily recreation exercise time to at least 2 hours, ensuring better physical and mental health for youth in detention.

The fourth set of amendments we will be looking to move propose establishing a minimum age of detention, at 16. Children under 16 should never be sentenced to detention, regardless of the nature of their offence. This is in line with international human rights standards, which emphasise the need for alternative measures and rehabilitation rather than punitive detention for children. In 2019 the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that all countries increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years of age, and the strong guidance and all medical guidance says that no child under 16 should be in detention. Additionally, children aged 16 and older should not be transferred to adult prisons, which are both harmful and counterproductive, and we will have an amendment that speaks to that change as well to the bill.

In relation to the new police powers proposed under the bill, the Greens oppose expanded police powers in relation to 10- and 11-year-olds, and we advocate for increased oversight should those powers as part of the bill come to fruition. We will have an amendment which addresses the switching on of police body-worn cameras, which should be mandatory during encounters with children aged 10 and 11 where police are exercising the powers under chapter 3. We will also propose removing excessive police powers related to searches, use of force and detention at police stations. We believe it is essential that any use of force and those powers is documented, and we will be seeking rigorous public reporting on those practices and the use of those powers.

The final area we will have amendments on is diversion – diverting children from the criminal legal system. The Greens do welcome this bill’s focus on diversion pathways and alternatives to jail, such as warnings, cautions and group conferences, including family conferences. We think there could be an even stronger focus on diversion. Children should have the right to legal advice before consenting to diversion, and prosecution consent should not be a barrier to adjourn diversion. Furthermore, we recommend making it clear that discretion is not available for early diversion. When police are exercising those powers, they must choose the least restrictive pathway available for the child at that time. We believe that there should be comprehensive data collection on the warnings, cautions and prosecutions under this new framework.

In conclusion, the Greens amendments represent a commitment to a justice system that is fair, compassionate and effective in rehabilitating young people. They have been strongly informed by advocacy that has been quite united from the sector, including First Nations, legal and human rights bodies and those organisations that deal specifically with young people at risk of contact with our criminal justice system. By adopting these changes we can ensure that our youth justice system truly serves the best interests of our children and our community and that it promotes their rehabilitation, upholds their human rights and crucially keeps children and the community safer. There will be more to say on this bill, I am sure, over the coming days, so I will leave my comments there and speak further during committee.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (17:11): I am very pleased to speak on the Youth Justice Bill 2024. This bill builds on the success of our government in the youth justice space. In fact incarceration of young people is so low that we have had to close Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre. It is clear to me that the Allan Labor government is on the right track.

Successful diversion focuses on the child, not punitive punishment. It is vital that we take the focus off age and on to the outcomes that are being achieved. This bill is about bringing outdated legislation in line with modern standards. It draws on what we know from the contemporary research and knowledge about psychosocial development of adolescents. In fact this bill formalises what we have learned from the current practice. It codifies what is already happening for children under 12, and it is being presented in this chamber when there are no children under 14 in prison at this time.

We must acknowledge in law that young people are still mentally and physically developing and that intervention, boundary setting and support have a greater impact than punitive measures or incarceration. This is where we also know that the development of young minds, hearts and souls varies from child to child. That is why it is so important to focus on the particular child and what will work for them. This bill takes the focus off age and on to the child and the effective role diversion plays in setting young people on the right path. The bill codifies the concept of doli incapax. It trials the use of electronic monitoring for some children who are eligible for bail. This bill does something no other state in Australia has done and that is raise the age of criminality from 10 to 12.

Legislation regarding youth crime has not been systematically reviewed since 1989 in this state. That is 35 years of science, development and modernising that is not currently reflected in current law. This bill raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. It will provide police powers when a child under the minimum age of responsibility is apprehended. The bill ensures that there is robust oversight and accountability of the youth justice system. With this oversight it will promote community safety, prevent or reduce offending by children, support rehabilitation and positive development of children and young people, provide victims with appropriate opportunities to participate in youth justice processes and protect the rights of children and young people involved in the youth justice system.

The bill will establish a scheme that provides alternative processes to court proceedings when dealing with children who are alleged to have committed minor offences. These include youth warnings and youth cautions, early diversion group conferences and court-ordered diversion from criminal proceedings. The bill will also repeal certain provisions in the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 and re-enact those inside this bill. The bill will amend the Bail Act 1977 to provide for a trial scheme under which, under certain circumstances, certain courts may grant bail to a child subject to conditions that provide for electronic monitoring of the child. The bill also makes consequential amendments to other acts.

Our youth justice legislation in Victoria, as it stands now, is out of date. It is based on old concepts and outdated preconceptions of youth crime and adolescent developmental theory. Rather than focusing on only defining criminality by age, this bill pivots to defining criminality through an understanding of the child. Any child under 14 years of age is subject to the legal principle of doli incapax. Until now this principle has not been codified in law. Doli incapax will now require proof beyond reasonable doubt that the child knew what they were doing was very morally wrong. It also introduces a presumption against custody under the age of 14, so there are a number of tools that facilitate the diversionary approach. This is not to say that children are not capable of committing crime. This is about bringing in alternatives to the punitive measures we currently have – in fact codifying in law the very strategies that have reduced youth incarceration in this state. The new laws will focus on early intervention and diversion, particularly for first-time and low offending, but of course ensuring that there are still stronger consequences to address those who engage in serious, high-risk or repeat offending. Children and young people who are coming into contact with the youth justice system need a different response to that of an adult. We must recognise a child’s ability to rehabilitate with positive supports and firm boundaries. Formalising much-needed supports and rehabilitation responds to the causal factors of youth crime. We know we will continue to see a reduction in children on that trajectory of lifelong criminal behaviour.

This bill has come about from the Armytage–Ogloff review, conducted in 2017. It identified the need for a standalone act separate from the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. It went on to identify the need to expand the use of restorative justice programs that meet the needs of the victim and the offender and identified the need for the early interventions that have been previously mentioned. With this bill, we are addressing key areas identified within the reviews conducted. This bill enshrines, as I said, the notion of restorative justice, including the perspective of the victim, into the justice process. We are approaching youth justice with a victim-centric approach where victims may participate in the restorative justice process right from the pre-charge phase to the parole phase. The bill establishes a victims register for youth parole, where a victim must be notified ahead of a child being considered for parole. Registered victims may also provide information to the parole board, which may be taken into account when the board imposes parole conditions.

The bill maximises the opportunities for diversion through the introduction of a comprehensive pre-charge diversion process, and this bill increases transparency of decision-making in the diversion process and diverts more children before they enter the court system. Pre-plea diversion is shown to be highly effective, with more than 9000 diversions successfully completed since its commencement in 2017. In 2022–23, 98 per cent of diversions were completed successfully. This is what I mean when I say that this government is already practising many of the principles and mechanisms that are being introduced in this bill.

Along with these immensely positive diversionary processes, this bill introduces a trial for electronic monitoring of a child on bail in certain circumstances. This trial is based around addressing growing concerns for a small group of young people who are reoffending whilst on bail. The trial will enable monitoring that ensures a child is complying with a curfew, shows that they have entered a location or area where they are prohibited from entering and provides after-the-fact evidence of a person being in a place or location. For example, it shows if that child was or was not near the location where an offence occurred.

There is in some regard a protective element to this trial, and I think it will be very interesting to see what results emerge from this trial. There are some elements – not all – of the use of the electronic monitoring that are quite similar to the strategies that parents of teenagers use themselves at home. There is nothing like boundary setting to make a child feel secure, and as much as the electronic monitoring is different, it will have some elemental similarity to that. It is important to remember, however, that electronic monitoring does not replace support and intensive monitoring while a child is on bail. In conjunction with electronic monitoring, further supports will be implemented, including social support, employment programs, cultural support and other initiatives that address underlying causes of offending.

The introduction of the electronic monitoring trial does not mean that high-risk youth offenders will be released into the community. The unacceptable risk test for bail still applies, meaning that if the young person poses an unacceptable risk to the safety or welfare of another person, then they will not be granted bail. This trial will assist in gathering data on what role the electronic monitoring system can play in the ongoing management of young people, and I will be very interested to know what the results are at its completion.

This bill is about modernising an outdated piece of legislation, bringing legislation up to date with already trialled evidence-based tools – rather than emotional or ill-founded punishments that make us feel better but damage the potential for successful diversion for what is a very small proportion of our state’s young people. This bill, in closing, reflects the Labor way: a focus on the child, with clear supports combined with strong boundaries. The data is in, which is why we can all be confident that these groundbreaking reforms can be embraced confidently by this chamber. I commend the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:24): I rise to speak on the Youth Justice Bill 2024. There can be no doubt that under Labor crime is out of control. There can be no doubt really that the Premier Jacinta Allan has completely lost control of the agenda. When it comes to youth crime, when it comes to just about every policy issue in this place, we see last-minute amendments, last-minute policy on the run and last-minute chaos when it comes to the creation of laws and when it comes to dealing with the serious issues of crime and criminal justice in our community.

We have been talking about this for some time. We have been talking about the rising level of youth crime in our communities for some time, because unlike those opposite we actually spend time in our communities. We actually spend time listening to people in our communities about what they are seeing and what they are feeling. I have spent hours speaking with victims of crime – victims of home burglaries in places like Kalkallo and Mickleham – and putting their stories forward in the Parliament in a plea for the government to do something about them, to do something about the fact that those people committing offences are on bail because of the government’s weakening of our bail laws, and now they have tried to come and clean up the mess. They have come forward with a Youth Justice Bill that they are changing at the last minute – the printers are running hot; it is policy on the run – because they do not actually have a plan; they do not actually have a solution. This is a government that is a decade old and is out of time and out of ideas.

In March this year I brought the Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024 into this chamber. It sought to reintroduce a tougher test for those who committed an indictable offence whilst on bail, because we saw too much in our community that since Labor’s weakening of our bail laws last year youth crime had spiked, and people were committing offences while on bail. But now we see, and it was widely panned at the time, that the government will introduce an offence of committing a serious crime while on bail only months after abolishing the offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail. According to an article in the Guardian:

The state’s attorney general, Jaclyn Symes said the former offence had been “unintentionally” capturing low-level offending, resulting in the overrepresentation of vulnerable cohorts …

The Attorney-General said:

What we’re doing is recalibrating and introducing an offence of committing a schedule one or schedule two offence whilst on bail, to recognise that reoffending in that high-end offence range is something the community are concerned about.

You don’t think? You don’t think we have been yelling from the rooftops about this? You don’t think there has been case after case after case in the media? But the belligerence of this government has prevented them from doing anything about it. I even brought a bill back this year to this chamber at first opportunity for the government to acknowledge they got it wrong, to acknowledge that that part of the bill they got wrong, but they still proceeded to both mock the opposition about it and pretend there was not a youth crime crisis. I will just go through some, because I did look up some of the contributions that those opposite made at the time. Ms Ermacora, who spoke before, described my bill and Mr O’Brien’s bill. She said:

This Liberal bill is definitely back to the future.

The only one going back to the future and back to the drawing board and back to the watering well is the Labor Party, who is having to fix up their own mess at our suggestion, who is having to fix up their own mess because too many people are committing offences while out on bail. Three people have died. You are having to clean up your own mess. We also had Ms Watt, who said that she had a list of questions about my bill, but said that she:

… stopped making a list of questions and reaffirmed in my mind why I am a member of the Allan Labor government. It truly is a government that listens …

Really? But of course Mr Galea, as he usually does, took the most pot shots. He said:

The one thing that these reforms cannot be, above almost any other policy area, is half-baked – they cannot be rushed …

We do not even have amendments that are ready, because the government has rushed this. The government announced this today, once the bill was already in the upper house. We have had our amendments for a while. It was once they were already in the upper house; the government did not introduce them in the lower house. They were not originally part of the government’s own bill. He also said:

… that is what happens when you try and amend complex legislation on the fly …

The government is trying to amend its own legislation once it is already in the upper house. ‘We can’t do policy on the run,’ Mr Galea said. ‘We can’t do things on the fly,’ Mr Galea said – the Labor government said. It is just rubbish. He also said in regard to my bill:

We have come to see so many times the sloppy and shoddy work that they put into drafting these bills.

…

And that is exactly what this bill is today – it is a bill in search of a media headline with as much substance as a headline.

That is why, as I say, those opposite cannot be taken seriously.

Ms Symes is literally reintroducing and cleaning up a change that she made last year, a change that we tried to reintroduce at the first opportunity. We gave you the opportunity to actually listen to your communities, as we listen to our communities, and to listen to victims of crime, who are yelling from the rooftops about all these people on bail that are recommitting offences. You do not think your changes last year had something to do with that? Of course they did. But this is what we come to see over and over and over again from this tired, decade-old Labor government. They are out of ideas; they are out of solutions. It is policy on the run. I agree with Mr Galea on that point: we should not have policy on the run. We have got government dramatically changing bills once they are already in the upper house, having very long cabinet meetings, obviously reading the community sentiment after it has already sailed right by them.

I also want to talk about the government change of policy when it comes to raising the age of criminal responsibility, which has been long talked about by this government. They now say they are not proceeding with a change to the age of criminal responsibility to 14 by 2027, which is weird because on 18 June – not long ago, just a couple of months ago, if even – I asked the Attorney-General right here in this place whether there was any change to the government’s plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility, whether there was any change to the timeline. She thanked me for the question and said ‘no change’. What has changed between 18 June 2024 and today? That is what I would like to ask this government: what has changed – perhaps community sentiment; perhaps the fact that there are many, many serious offences committed by those aged between 12 and 14? Perhaps it is also, which I think is probably and likely the case, that those ideologues on the other side from the left of the party were rolled on this issue. We see the Premier-in-waiting, or the real Premier, being Mr Carroll, getting another win. Whether it be on the injecting room, whether it be on the Lord’s prayer or whether it be now on committing serious offences while on bail and raising the age, it seems Mr Carroll is running the show, which I have to say is much better than the ideologues running the show. But we had a clear commitment from the Attorney on 18 June in this place, in Hansard, that there was no change to the timeline. We have seen a couple of months fly by and all of a sudden there is a change to the timeline. We know that this government is in chaos. They are in absolute chaos this week. They are trying to rush bills through, and they have dramatically changed their position.

Youth crime is out of control in Victoria. We have seen a 30 per cent increase when it comes to young people committing offences across the whole state. As I said, tragically, three lives have been lost due to people on bail that should not have been out in our network with the ability to take lives in the community. We have seen very serious offences, particularly in my electorate. Recently Garinda Singh from Kalkallo in my electorate – his mother, wife and two young children were at home when three offenders armed with a gun ransacked his property and injured his mother. The rampage lasted 10 minutes. Particularly in our growth areas our services are neglected, so there is no local police station – the nearest is about 15 minutes away – and of course the vacancy rates are at historic highs. Offenders know they can get away with it in these new estates.

As the member for Berwick pointed out, this bill originally came from a report that was published in 2017 by Penny Armytage and Professor James Ogloff on meeting the needs and reducing reoffending. The Youth Justice Review and Strategy was classed as a landmark strategy at the time on what we needed to do with youth justice. The report said:

The Review provides an opportunity to redesign the system to create an evidence-based response to youth offending and youth crime that is reflective of the needs and attitudes of young people and the broader community.

Since that review we have seen widespread support for some of the things that have been put forward in the past, but the Allan Labor government has done very little when it comes to youth crime here in our state. In the most recent state budget we saw the Allan Labor government cut $20 million from crime prevention at a time when crime is reaching record levels here in our state. I just wanted to go through youth offending in our state by the numbers, maybe to educate those opposite. There has been a 20 per cent increase in criminal incidents by youth offenders – a 20 per cent increase in the last 12 months. Aggravated burglaries increased in that time by 18.4 per cent. In the last six years 137 people have been injured by cars stolen in aggravated burglaries. Since 2014 aggravated burglaries have increased by 114 per cent.

At the most fundamental level we want all young people who have made a mistake to have the opportunity to take their punishment and rebuild their life, but that is not going to happen without forcing them to take on that responsibility and recognise that they have done wrong and putting community safety first. A true justice system, in the simplest words, helps young people and provides them with the tools to build a good life without recidivism.

I join my colleagues, particularly Mr Davis and Mr Battin and Mr O’Brien in the other place, in opposing this bill. I know we will have amendments to move later on, but I just want to highlight the chaos of this government – the chaos that led us to bring in changes to the bail laws, which were laughed at and mocked by a bunch of people reading their talking points opposite. Now they are coming back here and doing the same thing. They are a weak, pathetic government that is playing with policy on the run with youth crime that is out of control.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (17:39): As they say, comedy is all about the timing. I am not really laughing about this, but this monster of a bill has landed at probably the worst time in Victoria’s history to be trying to do what I see as a watering down of the youth justice arena. We are in the middle of a crime wave. A lot of it is to do with the bail laws, I do understand that. But we are right at a time where, if I were running this place – which I will never be, thankfully – I would be sorting out the problems now and dealing with this later.

With a lot of the stuff they bring in here, like the raising of the age of criminal responsibility, I do not know how many people – I only know of one person in this place – have been and seen the carnage that some of these so-called kids can do. Most of them are not under 14, but some of them are. I recall a particular 12-year-old who was basically an animal – at 12. Nature or nurture? It is not up to me to decide. I had to deal with him at the time. To say someone like that has no responsibility for their actions worries me. To raise it to 14 is just a disaster waiting to happen. I do not care what happens in the rest of the world. Every time someone says, ‘Well, we’re following the lead of here’ or ‘We’re following the lead of there’ – I do not care about the rest of the world. We are Australia; we deal with Australian problems in Australian ways. We deal with it that way.

I congratulate the government on not committing to raising the age to 14 for the simple reason that it will send a message. Between 12 and 14 you can work it out. I do believe that with the child offenders – the minor offenders or whatever you want to call them – under the age of 12 there is room to move. It is rare. I mean, I remember the poor little boy that was murdered in the UK by the two 10-year-olds.

A member: James Bulger.

Jeff BOURMAN: Yes. It is one of the hardest things I think for the justice system to deal with, but two 10-year-olds did murder a boy. I really would not have wanted to be on the jury for that one. To a large degree justice was served; the children were dealt with for a number of years. I think one of them still lives in Australia.

To give children a free swipe is just wrong. I have no problems with rehabilitation. I have no problems with giving people chances, depending on the nature of the crime. If I recall correctly, the original proposal was that up to the age of 14 you could not be held criminally responsible, except for some instances – murder, rape and so on. Well, if you know murder is wrong, then you know theft is wrong. If you know rape is wrong, then you know assault is wrong. It is like having a foot in each camp; you cannot do it. It would have just ended up being a shemozzle. And who ends up paying for it? It is the people out there on the streets. It is the victims out there. The victims are the ones that I think rarely ever get thought of in the pursuit of justice in any state in Australia these days.

I am not for floggings and hangings and all that sort of stuff, but I am for making sure that if someone does something of a serious nature – and again, it is not youthful high jinks, it is not stealing a car and dumping it; it is stealing a car and going on a 190-kilometre-an-hour pursuit. The difference is wild. One is a silly act, and one is a dangerous act. We need to be able to diverge the two. If you get a 14-year-old, and there have been a few of late, that has been involved in a seriously high-speed pursuit with a driver, or they may have been the driver, with zero training because they do not have a licence at that stage, the message has got to be sent – not the message that they have got to think about it, have a little bit of introspection and meditate or whatever it might be, but the message that there are some things you just cannot do. Putting people at risk is one of those things.

I live in a good suburb – it was a good suburb – and of late I have just watched it descend. I cannot put a reason as to why. Mr Batchelor gave me a funny look. We had three stabbings in a month, and two of them were murders. I have been in this place for 16-odd years, 17 now, and we had nothing of the sort up until then. In fact we were in a meeting yesterday and I had one of our locals walking down the middle of the road with a plastic sword, screaming at people. It happens. I think if we were to take a holistic approach, it is not to come down hard, it is to come down properly. People that need help get help. People that need incarceration get incarceration. Everyone starts off as a youth. Everyone hopefully does not start off in the youth justice system, but the youth justice system is also about justice. And what is justice? I suppose justice is about what is right and what is fair, not only for the offender but mainly for the victim. I am getting wildly off track here, but I get a little frustrated when I watch things happen, and to me and in my experience, there are some wild changes. The fact that doli incapax is used well now is a reason why we never needed to change it to 12, if the system is already doing it. It also allows the system, for those aberrations where there is someone that has truly known what they were doing, to not put that presumption on people.

Anyway, we will move it up. I have no doubt this will get through. We will move it up to 12 and then from 12 to 14. The doli incapax will, I guess, apply, but now it will be in legislation. One of the things I have never been fond of is putting something into legislation that has never been in legislation, because at that stage it becomes straight and narrow, and you cannot really move it around. I am getting a bit off track here. I will not be supporting this bill. I think we should sort out what is going on now and then deal with it, but I look forward to an extensive committee stage.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:47): I am pleased to rise today and speak in support of the Youth Justice Bill 2024. It is an exceptionally significant piece of legislative reform that has been brought before the Parliament today. Far from some of the denigration of the process that previous speakers have made, this is the culmination of many years of work that a lot of dedicated public servants, ministers and experts have put into tackling the sometimes vexing and often difficult question of how best to construct a system of justice for young people in a way that puts them, and any issues that they may be having as young people that may be leading them towards criminal behaviour, at the centre of how we respond. How we view and how we respond to rates of youth offending is by looking at the children and their circumstances and how we can best respond to them. That is exactly what this legislation seeks to do.

It is the culmination of work that really began in earnest with the tabling of the Armytage and Ogloff report in 2017. From that point, the point where the development of this legislation and this framework began, and it is important to go back and anchor the conversation and debate in that, what that report asked for and said that Victoria and Victorian children needed was a standalone piece of legislation that properly and adequately dealt with the range of issues that confronted youth justice and youth offending in this state that was not part of a different set of arrangements and that established – and that is what this legislation will deliver – a robust, end-to-end framework for Victoria’s youth justice system that is all about the children in it. That is exactly what it should do. It is transformational to the way that youth justice will work in this state, transformational to how we think about youth justice in this state. It will help, yes, keep our communities safe, and that is an absolutely fundamental principle that we should always think about when we think about our justice system, but it will also facilitate us thinking about the children who are in it and what they need.

The bill is making some very important alterations to the way youth justice works in addition to being a complete end-to-end system in the legislation, separating youth justice elements from the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 – a standalone framework that allows us to respond to alleged offending by children and young people. Obviously and, I think, very significantly – for those who seek to criticise – this legislation is increasing the age of criminal responsibility for children to 12 without exception, an historic change that builds on the change that Labor made in the 1980s, when legislation that a prior Labor government brought before this Parliament passed this Parliament, passed this chamber, a chamber that the party of government at the time did not control, to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 10. That Children and Young Persons Act 1989 was a really important marker, and this bill takes the necessary step further to bring the age of criminal responsibility to 12.

Also, and importantly, and this has been raised elsewhere in the debate, it puts into statute the common-law presumption of doli incapax for 12- and 13-year-olds, which will add a layer of protection for those children in the system in terms of how they are engaged within the system – and I will get to that in a little bit more detail – and introduces and facilitates the trials of electronic monitoring, alongside enhanced bail and support services and a range of other matters.

We know that there are, unfortunately, some rates of offending by young people. We know that that causes harm to others in the community. So when we think about how best to create a framework for youth justice in this state, we need to be cognisant of all of those issues. What it will absolutely do in terms of the way the legislation is framed, particularly with the codification of the doli incapax principles which in chapter 1 of the bill are really a foundational reform, really a foundational principle, what that codification does, means that a 12- or 13-year-old child can only be found to have criminal capacity if the prosecution can prove – so the onus here is on the prosecution to prove – beyond reasonable doubt that the child knew that their conduct was seriously wrong in a moral sense, as opposed to being merely naughty or mischievous. It is a doctrine that has existed for a long time in the common law; it is a fundamental common-law principle that acknowledges children under the age of 14 often lack the cognitive capacities to inform criminal intent by virtue of their age and relative development.

We know that development occurs in different ways in different children, and so what this principle allows for is, for a prosecution in any particular case where we do have offending by children at that age, a need to prove that those particular children had the requisite mental and moral appreciation that what they were doing was seriously wrong. That is an important thing to be putting into our statute books. It existed in the common law for a very long time and provides that protection for those who are 12 and 13 years old.

For those who seek to have the age of criminal responsibility raised in this state from 10 to 12, you need to support the bill. Voting for this bill supports raising the age of criminal responsibility here in this state, and to do the opposite means the opposite. They are some of the stark choices that we have to confront, as always, as legislators.

One of the other really important things that the bill does, in chapter 4, is to establish and codify some provisions around diversion and restorative justice. Chapter 4 in the bill establishes a framework for diverting children away from the justice system and introduces into the statute books this hierarchy of diversionary responses – youth warnings, youth cautions and early diversion group conferences – which will enable children, using the principles of restorative justice, to help repair the damage and restore the relationships that they have harmed by their course of conduct. These further provisions that we are seeing introduced in this bill enable greater opportunities for restorative justice to be used as a core principle in the youth justice sector. These are really fundamentally important reforms, because at their core they are about the children that we are seeing in our youth justice system. The purpose of the system is not to train them to become better criminals but to give them the support and the services that they require – the structures, the frameworks and the programs – so that they are not reoffending, so that the system when they have offended has legal frameworks and support services to ensure that they are supported to not offend again. If that is what our goal should be – not seeing offences by anyone in the community, but in this case the youth in our community – we need to put into place provisions that we think and know will ensure that does not happen. There is so much evidence now that restorative justice principles can achieve that, and it is exceptionally important that those are in this bill.

The other really important thing that the bill does, particularly following one of the reports from the Yoorrook commission last year, is imbed principles of self-determination inside the new youth justice framework that is being created. It makes explicit in the bill that guiding principles regarding Aboriginal children and young people exist throughout. It puts into law these principles of self-determination that Yoorrook have told us are important in the way our youth justice system engages with Aboriginal children and young people – for example, giving them the ability and the rights whilst in the youth justice system to support their participation in ongoing cultural activities, making sure that the system as it operates and when it operates does so in a way that reflects the principles of self-determination and heeds the advice on this matter coming out of Yoorrook. We think that is an exceptionally important element as well. I think it is important to talk about these aspects of the bill, because in the broader debate some of these exceptionally important changes – the changes to doli incapax, the inclusion of the restorative justice principles and the inclusion of self-determination as a guiding principle throughout the bill – should not get lost in the context of other debate.

Obviously the government – the minister, the Premier and the Attorney-General – have made some further announcements in recent days about the way that amendments are going to be brought forward by the government to this bill to enable a strengthening of some of the bail conditions and some of the bail arrangements that exist with respect to young people in this state, responding to quite clear need. I think it is a demonstration of how seriously the Premier, the Attorney and the government as a whole understand the importance of these issues in the community and how they are always looking to make sure that our legal framework is best able to deal with the challenges that are confronting it.

One of the things that the proposed amendments will do is strengthen the bail test to make it crystal clear that bail decision makers must assess both the risk to community safety and the risk of further serious offending when they are deciding bail is appropriate and make it explicit that if they believe a young person poses an unacceptable risk of committing a schedule 1 or 2 offence, then that is a clear reason to refuse bail. We will also call out certain crimes that do pose that unacceptable risk. These will obviously be dealt with in far more detail later in the debate, but it is important I think to mention them here, and also things like the new council on bail rehabilitation and accountability, made up by experts to understand what is driving the actions of the offending and reoffending groups in the community.

I just want to say that obviously we are aware that there are members of the community, and I have been speaking to them across the Southern Metropolitan Region, who are concerned about rates of offending. I have been speaking to people like the wonderful people at the Neighbourhood Watch down in Bayside, supporting how I can their great work. I have spoken directly with some parents, who I will not name here but who will understand who I am talking about, who have had a very personal connection to many of the issues that we are dealing with here. I will always be open and willing to talk about difficult matters with the community and use their experiences in this place and elsewhere to help inform the shape of policy. It is exactly what the government should be doing. This reform is so significant for our state. We must support it if we want to see the youth justice system – the justice system for children in this state – improved.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (18:02): I rise to speak on the Youth Justice Bill 2024. There is no doubt that youth justice is a massive concern to the Victorian community right now. Youth crime is at very high levels, and violent youth crime is at particularly high levels. This is played out every night on the evening news, and it is not just the city and the suburbs of Melbourne that are witnessing this. Just recently Bendigo was named the meth capital of Victoria, with police linking this directly to youth crime. Crime statistics in Northern Victoria are worse than ever, and the community is very concerned.

This bill is close to 1000 pages, so it is quite a body of work. But despite all of this, it does not seem to address two key issues that are at stake here: one is the issue of protection of the community, and the other is the prevention of crime in the first place, along with rehabilitation. It does not do anything to address these issues. One of the key points of this bill is to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years, and I note the Premier’s position has changed – they have dropped plans to raise the age to 14.

I attended two bill briefings in relation to this bill, but I must admit that I left with perhaps more questions than I had answers. Looking at justice, and youth justice in particular, a report was published in 2017, the Youth Justice Review and Strategy. It looked at meeting the needs of young people and reducing their offending. It was classed as a landmark strategy at the time on what was needed for youth justice. The report states:

The Review provides an opportunity to redesign the system to create an evidence-based response to youth offending and youth crime that is reflective of the needs and attitudes of young people and the broader community.

Clearly the authors wanted to reduce youth crime but they also wanted to reflect the needs and attitudes of young people and the broader community, including victims. The report was written years ago but the Allan Labor government has done very little to address youth crime in the intervening years.

This bill is set to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12. It will also set out new transport powers for Victoria Police for people who are aged 10 and 11. My Liberal–National colleagues in the lower house moved a reasoned amendment to this bill in the hope that it would create better outcomes for both the young people concerned and the community at large. The reasoned amendment required:

(1) a comprehensive, fully developed and fully funded program to target and divert at-risk individuals and cohorts of young people to prevent crimes occurring is agreed to by all stakeholders;

(2) community safety concerns about the current level of youth crime in Victoria are addressed; and

(3) further assessment of and consultation on more binding powers to manage young people where it is deemed their behaviour poses a risk to the safety of others is completed.

We have not seen a comprehensive strategy to target at-risk youth from this government. There is none. Instead of working to prevent crime the Allan Labor government has cut funding from crime prevention in Victoria. In the recent state budget the government cut $20 million from crime prevention at a time when crime is reaching record levels in Victoria. My colleague Evan Mulholland spoke to many of the statistics, and they are alarming. These cuts directly impact on delivering programs that are meant to help. It is cutting money from community-based offender supervision. It is cutting money from youth diversion programs. This is all because the government has lost control of the budget and is scrambling to make savings, but these so-called savings will actually cost Victorians. It does cost nearly $6000 to keep a young person in custody for one day, and this does not take into account the cost to the community as a result of youth crime.

The second part of the amendment focuses on community concerns around the rise in youth crime, particularly violent crime. In my hometown of Bendigo new data released by the Crime Statistics Agency in June found Bendigo had become the meth-trafficking capital of Victoria. The data found a massive spike in meth trafficking, with offences recorded over the past 12 months reaching a 10-year high. The figures showed total drug trafficking rose by a massive 353 per cent in Bendigo, and the suburb of Strathdale recorded 128 of the city’s 204 offences. A Victoria Police spokesperson told the Herald Sun meth was a significant driver of crime across the state, particularly for young people. I quote:

“For this reason, detectives within the Bendigo Divisional Response Unit and Crime Investigation Unit are dedicated to tracking down and prosecuting those involved in the production and distribution of illicit drugs,” they said.

…

“We understand that illicit drug use can act as a springboard to more serious criminal behaviour, which can have devastating consequences in our community …

The data also shows that in 2023 the rate of offenders between the ages of 10 and 17 spiked at 646 – that is 174 more than 2022, so it is definitely going up. The Bendigo Advertiser reported that crime statistics reflected growing concerns in the community about the number of aggravated burglaries and car thefts being reported to police. According to the newspaper, and I quote:

Bendigo residents have told the Bendigo Advertiser they are living in fear in their own home.

In February 2024, around 200 people attended a community meeting in Strathfieldsaye to discuss what they could do to improve safety …

in their neighbourhoods.

Inspector Tim Tucker, the Local Area Commander at the Bendigo Police Station, said the rate of aggravated burglaries and car thefts had only gone up in the last three months. “It’s definitely a priority on our radar,” he said of the rate of young offenders.

Police told the newspaper the primary purpose of the aggravated burglaries was to steal cars which were often used in other crimes. Stealing from a vehicle was the second most common crime in Bendigo.

Other areas of my electorate of Northern Victoria are also experiencing a spike in youth crime. In Mildura, for example, my colleague Ms Benham reported that crime is up another 9.8 per cent on top of increases in recent years. In Shepparton my colleague Ms O’Keeffe highlighted increasing crime rates in Shepparton, where a string of serious incidents had occurred. These included multiple break-ins at an Italian restaurant which has been targeted three times in one month. The restaurant faced significant losses not just in terms of stolen stock but also in terms of damage to the property, and this was a heartbreaking situation for the business owners, who are simply trying to make a living and contribute to Shepparton’s hospitality. These situations are extremely distressing to the community, and they must be addressed. Raising the age of criminal responsibility when you have children committing serious crimes simply will not work. I note Jeff Bourman, a former policeman, spoke on this bill, and he said that raising the age is a disaster waiting to happen.

The Liberals and Nationals – we are opposed to this bill. More work is desperately needed to address these issues. I know that in a previous contribution Evan Mulholland spoke to the failures of the bail laws, which were weakened by the government earlier this year, and I also remember speaking on a bill earlier this year about the need to ban machetes and have them removed from our streets and from sale. I am very concerned that just recently in Bendigo and also in Swan Hill we have had incidents involving machetes, but again we see this government does not take action. They need to listen to local communities and address rising youth crime and rising violent crime. This bill is a backward step for Victoria, and we oppose it.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:10): I rise tonight to speak on a very important bill, the Youth Justice Bill 2024. At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the considerable volume of work that has gone into what is in many ways landmark legislation. Indeed to date Victoria is actually one of the few jurisdictions of its type that does not have a specific youth justice act. Obviously there have been sufficient laws and regulations in the past which have covered various different aspects of youth justice and they have been taken in from various different other acts, but having a singular, specific act for youth justice is a very important step. It is an important step because it is one that allows government to take even more of a holistic approach when it comes to this issue.

At the outset too, I would like to acknowledge the immense work that has gone into this bill, including by the Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes, by the Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Victim Support Enver Erdogan and indeed the Minister for Police Anthony Carbines, as well as of course the Premier herself.

It was the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair who made famous the lines ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’. No jurisdiction can have any hope of being tough on crime if it does not address the things that cause it to happen. That is an approach that is at the heart of the Youth Justice Bill which is before us today. We know that if we were to implement an excessively punitive approach, incarceration at whatever the cost, that we would see an increase in crime. We would see recidivism skyrocket. The number one determinant to decide whether you end up in prison is to be a former prisoner. We need to break that cycle. Indeed the work that has already been undertaken by this government is already breaking that cycle.

Over the long term we have seen rates of general offending, but especially youth offending, come down and I think that is an important thing to note. It does not for one moment take away any of the gravity for anyone who has been a victim of crime, but it is important to look at the broader scope and see that the policies have actually been having the desired outcome. Not putting in incarceration at all costs has actually led to better outcomes; through diversions, and opportunities these programs are working. There is more to be done – there always is – that this bill will help us to achieve.

It is vitally important that, especially when we are talking about our youngest Victorians, we talk about what is causing them to become engaged with the criminal justice system at such a young age. It is vital that we as a state – and I say that in reference to obviously the state government but also to us as a state, as a people – are mindful of why it is that someone at such a young age would be committing crime and provide them with every opportunity to rectify their lives and every opportunity for diversion. The worst thing that we could do is to throw them away and not worry about them, because the people they will connect with will be the people that will want them to continue that life of crime. It would be to effectively abandon a generation of young Victorians if we were to take such a measure. That is what is at the heart of the bill that is before us today.

Providing opportunities must remain at the centre of what we do, and that is exactly what this bill does. But providing opportunities requires another thing to happen; it requires that those opportunities be taken. We know from all the evidence we have that in the majority of cases those opportunities are taken – maybe not the first time, maybe not even the second. But by providing those opportunities for young people to improve and make their lives better, they do get taken, and they are taken at an increasing rate. And that is something that we should be very proud of as a state, because every one of those people who take that opportunity is someone who has turned their life around, who is going to be a force for good in society, whether they go on to work or start a business or whatever else they may wish to do.

There are a very small number that will never take that opportunity. We must always provide those opportunities, but where those opportunities will not be taken that is the reason for some further steps to be taken. That is why I am also very proud of what was an incredibly courageous decision by our Premier, mindful that there are a very, very small number of these offenders who will not take these opportunities or who will take advantage of those opportunities and use them to reoffend. In those rare cases, and we are talking less than 200 in a state of 6 million people, there are further steps that need to be taken. That is why, as has already been discussed in this place, some of the components of this bill include electronic monitoring and surveillance for those offenders. It is to know where they are, not as a punitive measure but to keep them safe and to keep other people safe.

The community as a whole has a right to feel safe. No amount of statistics and no amount of positive long-term trends when it comes to this issue are enough if you are in the face of that yourself, if you are in the face of being a victim of a crime, whoever the offender. That is why I am very pleased to see bail reforms announced by the Premier just this morning which will address not just for young offenders but for adult offenders as well those serious crimes, that serious level of offending that poses a genuine and real risk to the safety and security of everyday Victorians that is not to be tolerated, and that is what these amendments will put into the Youth Justice Bill, again noting that they are for youth offenders but also for adult offenders when it comes to bail. I ask that my amendments now be circulated amongst the chamber.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Michael GALEA: Members will no doubt be aware of the content of these amendments which I am proud to move on behalf of the government today. As I say, it is important that we are listening to the community, but it is important that we are doing everything that we can to keep the community safe. That is exactly what has been front of mind for our Premier – everyday Victorians, who have a right to go about their business in full safety.

This bill is going to achieve many great things, and it is going to achieve many great things for those people who find themselves at the harsh end of the criminal justice system at a young age. It is a bill that is designed to continue those diversionary programs, those opportunities that will give them a chance at a better life, and that is one of the most important things about this bill. This bill also achieves through these amendments better peace of mind for our community and safer outcomes.

I am called to remember relatively recent reporting of an incident in my electorate where a young offender – I think he was 16 years old; it was not with any of the age discussions that I will come to shortly – had been bailed for stealing a car, or carjacking. The very next day that same young offender went to the same place and carjacked another person. At the same time, or a few hours after, a young family was driving down a local high street in a very busy area with their five-year-old daughter in the back of the car. This family had their car crashed into by that offender driving the stolen car at a very high speed. We are all eternally grateful that there was no loss of life, although the five-year-old did sustain injuries. So for the parents and many parents like them in all our electorates who want their kids to be safe too, these amendments will go a very significant distance to actually achieving that, to ensuring that where bail is to be refused it is for very serious reasons and only where there is a genuine risk to other people. We saw with some of the incidents several years ago, including deaths in custody, how things can go very badly wrong when you go too far the other way. When you take a more punitive approach when it comes to bail, you can find people who are in remand for shoplifting dying in custody. That is not acceptable. Those sorts of offences will not be captured by these amendments that are here before us today.

These amendments are very specific, very highly targeted, to the types of offending that pose a real risk to community safety, and they come from a strong and courageous decision that has been taken by our Premier – a Premier who is always going to put Victorians first, a Premier who has demonstrated in the short time that she has been in that office that she is always prepared to listen and to implement expert advice but to do so in a way that keeps the community at heart and that keeps, in this case, community safety at heart as well, because that is what good Labor governments are about. Again, it is good to be tough on crime, but if you take that overly punitive approach, you are not tough on crime at all, because by being tough at the first instance you are setting people up for a life of recidivism. To be truly effectively tough on the causes of crime, you need to invest in those opportunities, those diversions. That is what we have been doing and that is exactly what this bill seeks to achieve. But you also must do so in a way that keeps the community safe, and that is what these amendments announced by the Premier this morning will achieve.

This bill also, very significantly, raises the age of criminal responsibility to 12. It does not raise the age to 14, but nor was it ever stated that it was going to. What was said previously about a potential increase to the age to 14 was that it would only happen in the first instance after the age was raised to 12, in the second instance dependent on the results of that, and in the third instance subject to various exclusions for serious crimes. What this legislation actually does achieve is codifying doli incapax into law. For the first time – again, going to what I mentioned at the start of my speech about this being the first youth justice act, or youth justice bill, as it is now – doli incapax will actually be codified into that law. I also note that it is a very good thing that we currently have in the state of Victoria not a single young person under the age of 14 in custody. We have seen many highly reported issues –

Members interjecting.

Michael GALEA: If you were listening, Dr Heath, you would know that the case I was talking about was actually that of an older teenager. But what we are seeing is that those diversionary programs are especially effective at those young ages, and it is completely reckless for people to be coming into this place and saying that the first approach should be to lock kids up, especially if they are aged 10 or 11 and especially if it is not for serious offending. So I will not be lectured by those opposite, but what I will say is that this is a sensible reform. It is a nation-leading reform, and we are indeed the first state – not the first territory but the first state – in the Commonwealth of Australia to implement it. It is sensible. It is not raising the age to 14, it is raising the age to 12. I would ask those opposite to think of the 10- and 11-year-olds in their lives, and I am sure that you would say that they are far more child than adult. Most importantly –

Bev McArthur interjected.

Michael GALEA: Again, if you were actually here to listen, Mrs McArthur, you might know what I was talking about in a considerable part of my speech.

What I will say to conclude is that this is a very significant piece of work. It is a bill that strikes the right balance. It provides better justice outcomes for young people, and it keeps the community safe. I commend the bill to the house.

Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (18:25): I move:

That debate be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.