Mr NATHAN HAGARTY (Leppington) (13:12): I oppose the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Youth Crime) Bill 2025 and speak against the Opposition's proposed changes to section 22C of the Bail Act because they are extremely costly, poorly targeted and fundamentally contrary to ordinary justice principles. While the amendments would undoubtedly result in larger cohorts of young people being placed on remand for longer periods, what they fail to do is offer long-term solutions to tackle reoffending or reduce crime in our community. I think all members in this Chamber acknowledge that we need to keep the community safe. That is the primary responsibility of the Parliament and the Government. What we disagree on is how to go about doing that.

In April 2024 the Parliament passed the Bail and Crimes Amendment Bill 2024, which created a series of new performance crime offences and inserted section 22C into the Bail Act. Section 22C is a temporary additional bail test. It provides that a bail authority must not grant bail to a young person aged between 14 and 18 if they are charged with committing a serious break and enter or motor theft offence while on bail for another offence of that type "unless the bail authority has a high degree of confidence the young person will not commit a serious indictable offence while on bail subject to any proposed bail conditions".

We saw a series of very disturbing alleged offences involving young people and motor cars being driven at incredible speeds that put at risk not only the alleged offenders but also the general safety of the community. Some of those alleged offences took place in and around south-western Sydney where cars were stolen from suburbs in my electorate. Unfortunately, some youth discovered that the Northern Road, which is a new road with two or three lanes in both directions, is quiet in the middle of the night and they went hooning on it. That was one of the reasons the Government brought in its changes and, thankfully, that bill passed through both Houses. We are taking youth crime seriously.

This private member's bill seeks to impose mandatory curfews on accused young people granted bail under section 22C. That is in circumstances where the court would impose a mandatory curfew between 8.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. on the young person unless that was varied to allow the young person to participate in a therapeutic activity. The Bail Act already empowers bail authorities to impose curfews as a bail condition. The Children's Court bail guidelines refer to curfews as one of the "commonly seen bail conditions" and provide guidance on relevant considerations. However, imposing mandatory conditions restricts judicial discretion to respond appropriately to the particular needs of children coming before the court. While we do not like to see anyone committing an offence and putting community safety at risk, we have to treat those under the age of 18 differently. It is a fundamental principle of our justice system. There are issues around maturity and their brains not being fully developed. Quite often, young offenders have other issues going on in their lives. We should seek to treat those issues before we start throwing them in jail and imposing curfews.

In many cases, a mandatory curfew condition would also be likely to prevent young people from participating in beneficial activities such as after-hours school events, community sport and family activities. While some might suggest that is giving young people things that should be taken away from them, it is important that we are not unduly punitive and do not undermine positive connections that a young person may otherwise have had with their community. Those things can get them back on the right track and hopefully make them see the error of their ways so that we can ensure they do not reoffend. Unfortunately, when young people are institutionalised, their risk of reoffending increases. We should look to prevent that where possible and appropriate.

On the topic of imposing mandatory electronic monitoring [EM] on accused young people granted bail under section 22C, the bill would only permit bail to be granted to young people where a court imposes a mandatory electronic monitoring condition. As a matter of principle, EM should not be mandatorily imposed on vulnerable young people, many of whom may be accused of non-violent crimes. It is not used on children in this State for a whole host of reasons. Young people are cognitively less likely to have the ability to understand how to appropriately charge, wear and respond to EM devices in order to comply with the conditions of their bail. One does not simply slap something around their ankle and it takes care of itself. The offender or the person has to charge and wear it, and they have to respond when it beeps and potentially do something accordingly.

The Opposition's bill does not provide that EM bail must not be granted unless the bail authority is satisfied the young person will be appropriately supported, having regard to the child's ability to understand the condition. However, if the bail authority is not satisfied that the young person will be appropriately supported in relation to electronic monitoring, the only available alternative is to refuse bail. That may result in the most vulnerable young people being refused bail and remanded in custody. As I mentioned earlier, where possible and appropriate, we should try to avoid that. Young people may also have lower levels of understanding about the way EM operates and therefore be less likely to be deterred from reoffending than adults. The intention is that it acts as a deterrent. We know that may not be the case, especially with young people.

Electronic monitoring involves regular contact with the monitoring system and may mean that a greater number of technical and actual breaches of bail for a cohort are detected, even when they do not involve further offending or risky behaviour. That means there is a higher risk of return visits to court and/or bail being revoked when EM is worn, potentially despite the young person technically not reoffending or committing a breach. The final point, which is important, is that there are significant costs and implementation challenges associated with the bill's electronic monitoring proposal. All electronic monitoring is not equal. There have been high-profile issues around it recently. We need robust systems and support services. They come at great cost and are sometimes not able to be implemented. For those reasons, I do not support the bill.