The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:12): I rise to indicate my opposition to this bill on behalf of the Greens. Populist law and order penalties will not solve the issue of youth crime. The bill before us today is just more evidence that the Malinauskas government is turning youth crime into a political football. When this bill was announced earlier this year, the government proudly claimed that it was part of a commitment to deliver on policies that are, I quote, 'tough on crime' and it was taking the legislative model used to target outlaw motorcycle gangs and applying them to so-called street gangs, which comprise a group of three people or more aged 10 years or older—aged just 10—to be captured by the government's proposal.
Data released by the Attorney-General's own department this year revealed that South Australia has the second lowest rate of youth offenders across Australia after the ACT. Indeed, I note the ridiculous law and order campaign being run by the opposition, the usual populist campaign that the Liberal Party are running. In response to that, the Attorney-General has previously advised this place that we do not have a youth crime crisis and has presented data to demonstrate that crime among young people is not the significant problem that the Liberal Party are presenting it to be.
That is not to say that, of course, when crime occurs, it does not have a terrible impact on communities or individuals—I am certainly not suggesting that—but this idea that there is a crime wave involving our state's young people is just a pure concoction by the Liberal Party. I am disappointed that, rather than calling that out, what the Labor Party have chosen to do is come to this place with more populist law and order policies that do not do anything other than stigmatise young people. That is all this does.
The SA police commissioner and, indeed, analysis by SACOSS reveals that there is a long-term downward trend in offending involving young people across Australia and in South Australia specifically. In fact, SACOSS has found that over a 14-year period to 2022-23, the number of young offenders in SA has more than halved. Importantly, most crime in our state is not committed by young people at all. In fact, in 2022-23, young offenders constituted only 9 per cent of the total offender population.
The Attorney-General's Department states on its own website that, over the past financial year, just 20 young people were responsible for roughly 11 per cent of all matters before the Youth Court and responsible for a disproportionate rate of offending. There is a total disconnect between the evidence and these proposed laws to enable sweeping surveillance and restrictions on the rights of children and young people.
Stakeholders, including the Law Society, the Guardian for Children and Young People and SACOSS have called for attention to this bill's many problems and its implications for human rights. I will highlight a few of those for you. The extremely broad and vague definition of 'street gang' creates a serious risk of children being unjustly and unnecessarily criminalised. The bill defines 'street gang' as:
(a) a group consisting of 3 or more persons—
(i) who have as their purpose, or 1 of their purposes, engaging in, organising, planning, facilitating, supporting, or otherwise conspiring to engage in, serious criminal activity; and
(ii) who, by their association, represent an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community…
The definition of 'serious offence' is any indictable crime punishable by life imprisonment or five years or more means that even a 10-year-old child could face such penalties. That is outrageous. 'Unacceptable risk' is not defined in the bill, nor is it linked to objective behavioural thresholds or measurable indicators of harm.
As SACOSS pointed out in their submission to the draft bill, this could theoretically include children walking down Rundle Mall wearing hoodies and being noisy, or being perceived by a member of the public as posing an unacceptable risk to that person's own safety, welfare or the order of the community. This raises serious implications for the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of association.
The proposed powers under section 83GT for street gang control and interim orders show alarming overreach, which risks imposing sweeping restrictions on young people's lives. Restrictions on communication devices, cash, locations and associations, for example, can severely limit young people's lives, disrupting their education, their recreation or their community involvement. This bill provides for these restrictions to apply for up to two years, an extremely long time for a young person to be subject to serious restrictions on their rights and to be constantly vulnerable for criminal liability, which creates a further risk of marginalisation.
I understand that section 83GU of the bill allows an interim street gang control order to be issued without notifying the respondent and with any prohibition that a full order could impose. These orders could also be varied without having to give notice to a respondent. This undermines procedural fairness and it leaves respondents unaware of the serious restrictions that may apply to them. Such a unilateral approach neither serves justice nor helps respondents understand and learn from the consequences of their actions.
Bills like this might make for good headlines, and I am sure that is the government's primary concern here, but they make crime worse by stigmatising and marginalising vulnerable people. This bill enables the broad surveillance and restriction of people's rights, not on the basis of proven conduct but on appearance, proximity and association.
Rather than pushing these populist law and order policies, the government must get tough on the causes of youth crime. This means actually coming up with policies like fully funded public schools, expanding free meal programs, addressing access to free mental health sessions, directly funding early intervention and other programs that improve safety. We know that the causes of crime lie in poverty, social isolation and marginalisation.
In her submission to the draft bill, the Guardian for Children and Young People urged the government to instead pursue youth justice reforms grounded in evidence, and to invest in holistic, therapeutic and culturally responsive diversionary pathways that actually support children and young people to thrive, rather than entrenching cycles of disadvantage. Crucially, she called on the government to avoid language that sensationalises or pathologises children and young people and urged them to work with media partners to elevate balanced reporting on youth crime. The government should listen and act on these recommendations.
I remember back when I started my working life, working in the youth sector for YACSA, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia. At that time there was a push from the then Rann government to target youth crime with draconian legislation. The issue was being whipped up by the Rann government with the support of the then Liberal opposition.
It is really disappointing to see that 20 years on we have the Malinauskas government pushing the same old tired populist policies. I thought the Rann government was a reactionary and conservative government. I think the Malinauskas government has a much better track record in terms of delivering positive outcomes for South Australians, but I am disappointed that Premier Malinauskas and his government have chosen to take this populist policy from the Mike Rann handbook. Those days of Michael Atkinson and Mike Rann beating the populist law and order drum were really dark days for South Australia, and I am disappointed to see the Malinauskas government going down that path.
I am also very disappointed, might I say, in the opposition and their spineless approach to this matter. There was a real opportunity for them to support this matter being referred to an inquiry, and the fact that they are not willing to do so I think demonstrates a lack of leadership on their part and a timidity with respect to politics that will not serve them well heading into the next election. Really, they should be fulfilling their obligation, which is to scrutinise government legislation and to act as a watchdog, not a lapdog, of the government of the day. They are really failing, I think, to subject this legislation to the scrutiny it deserves.
That is why I will be moving to refer the matter to the Legislative Review Committee and seeking to suspend standing orders so that I may do that. I understand the Hon. Tammy Franks will be seeking to refer the matter to the Social Development Committee, and I think we will be dealing with her proposal first. I am supportive of that. Should the honourable member's push to refer the matter to the Social Development Committee fail, then I will move my referral to the Legislative Review Committee.
This is a significant change to the law of our state. It has significant implications for the rights of young people in our state. Rather than just waving it through we should ensure that it is given appropriate scrutiny by a parliamentary committee. That could be the Social Development Committee or it could be the Legislative Review Committee, but I urge the opposition to think carefully here before they sleepwalk into this dangerous populist law and order minefield.