I contribute to debate on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Children) Bill 2024. As members have outlined, the bill makes miscellaneous amendments to communities and justice legislation relating to children to improve and clarify court and legal processes and to ensure transparency in sentencing statistics. That is a critical objective, and I am certain every single member supports it. As we heard from the member for South Coast, the bill is the second of four justice miscellaneous bills the Government intends to introduce this year. The bills are part of the Government's regular program of legislative reviews and improvements. Any good government undertakes reviews of processes to ensure that legislation is up to date, relevant and correct. That is done for a number of reasons. Regularly reviewing and updating legislation is an important mechanism to ensure that the law is fit for purpose and keeps pace with developments, both in the legal system and for the people whom we serve each and every day in our community.

The bill amends three separate Acts. The first is the Child Protection (Working with Children) Amendment Act 2022. The bill amends that Act to correct a minor omission to an uncommented amendment requiring disclosure to the Children's Guardian of proceedings, a conviction or a finding of guilt for a prescribed criminal offence outside Australia. That seems straightforward to me. The bill also amends the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987 to clarify actions that the Children's Court may take in response to breaches of certain court orders, such as good behaviour bonds. The three Acts the bill amends sit within the Attorney General's portfolio, as well as the portfolios of the Minister for Families and Communities and the Minister for Youth Justice. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary for Youth Justice has entered the Chamber, which is great timing.

It is important to consult with the legal fraternity and advocacy groups to ensure that any proposed changes are on track and in line with community expectations and the expectations of the legal fraternity. The bill was subject to consultation with the Children's Court of New South Wales, given that it amends three Acts relating to children; Legal Aid NSW; Youth Justice NSW; the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Aboriginal Legal Service; the Law Society of New South Wales; the New South Wales Bar Association; the NSW Police Force, which recently received a significant pay rise thanks to the Minns Labor Government; and the Chief Magistrate's office.

It is expected that during the stakeholder consultation period those agencies and groups might propose other ideas or flag future changes, and that we may need to work on those. I note that happened during the consultation process for this bill and that stakeholders proposed other amendments. That happens from time to time. We have taken some of them on board and will work with stakeholders on the proposed amendments to deliver legislative reform in due course. I think some of the proposed amendments will be introduced in the new year for consultation and the Parliament's consideration. People might ask, "Why has the Minns Labor Government introduced two justice miscellaneous bills within such a short time span? Would it not be more efficient to put them together?" I think a member of the Opposition made a contribution to the debate to that effect. 

I remember there being some criticism as to why the Government has introduced various bills. As part of the miscellaneous amendment bill process, the New South Wales Government seeks proposals from stakeholders who are well placed to identify issues requiring reform to maintain an effective justice system. When a large number of reform proposals are received through this process, they are progressed through multiple bills. We have broken them up to make a pathway to churn constantly through the various reforms because, first, this is a reforming government; and, secondly, this Government is about continual process improvement. We will not rest on our laurels. There will not be 12 years of neglect under this Government. Month after month, week after week, day after day, we will undertake the hard work of reform. We will continue to improve this State during this parliamentary term and hopefully in many terms to come.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Child Protection (Working with Children) Amendment Act to clarify the disclosure requirements set out by proposed new section 36C (1), and they apply to prescribed criminal offences. The amendment will clarify the application of this uncommenced provision and allow the provision to operate as intended, as I mentioned earlier. Schedules 2 and 3 to the bill amend the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act and Children (Community Service Orders) Act because of a decision made by the President of the Children's Court in the case ofR v Kai. The court held that the court did not have power to take no action in respect of a breach of a bond due to the terms of section 41 (4). Instead, that charge was dismissed.

The president further noted that the penalty would not reflect the objective seriousness of the offence and would contribute to misleading sentencing statistics. We need accurate data in order to check those things. Prior to that decision it was assumed the Children's Court was empowered to take no action in respect of breaches of bond. The amendments will address the uncertainty followingR v Kai and allow prior common practice of the Children's Court with respect to breaches of court orders to continue unimpeded. People might ask does this amendment change the sentencing powers of the Children's Court? The answer is a firm no. The amendment does not augment or expand the sentencing powers of the Children's Court but instead restructures them to ensure greater efficiency and transparency. Efficiency and transparency is one of the missions of the Minns Labor Government.

For example, the power to take no action on a breach of a good behaviour bond can currently be replicated by revoking the bond and imposing a new bond equivalent to the remaining term of the existing bond. Similarly, the power to impose a new condition on a bond can be achieved by imposing a new bond equivalent to the remaining term of the existing bond with the additional condition included. The proposed amendments streamline that process by avoiding the need to impose a new order. While rescinding and issuing new bonds might keep some people in their jobs, this important reform is a much more efficient way of getting rid of red tape in the legal system. In wrapping up, this fantastic piece of legislation again shows that the Minns Labour Government is a government of action. It is the second of four justice miscellaneous bills, and members on this side of the House eagerly await the additional two amending bills. I commend the bill to the House.