Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I move –
That the bill be now read the second time.
Mr President, it is Homelessness Week, a reminder to us all that homelessness in Tasmania, in Australia, is on the rise, and that there are people in this wealthy society we live in who do not have a secure place to call home. We know as legislators that there are a whole lot of reasons for that. Often it comes down to trauma, disadvantage, poverty, and the range of consequences of that in a person’s life. Those too are the foundations of why a person might find themselves in the position of asking others for money to survive. People who beg do so because they need help to survive. Let us remind ourselves of that as we debate this legislation.
Homelessness, like poverty, like begging, represents a political choice. We are a wealthy enough society to tackle these issues. We have the wealth to provide homes and supports for people. We have the wealth to make sure the social safety net and opportunities are there so that Australians and Tasmanians do not feel they have to beg to survive. I am sure every member of this place has noticed an increase on this island in the number of people on the streets and in public places asking for money. When I first got here 35 years ago, I do not think I saw anyone on the streets of Hobart or any part of Tasmania begging. But today we do, and we heard from Tasmania Police in the briefing this morning that there were something like 57 reports from community members of begging to Tasmania Police, but no charges were laid.
This is the Tasmanian parliament’s fourth opportunity to bring our Police Offences Act into the modern age. In 2018, the Greens moved in the House of Assembly to repeal the crime of begging. We were promised at that time by the then Police minister, and in fact a very good and admirable minister, Jacquie Petrusma, that the government would bring forward its own legislation to repeal the crime of begging. But what they wanted to do with some amendments is the same as what we will hear from the government today in moving amendments that are unnecessary and unrelated to this amendment bill.
In 2020, the minister, Jacquie Petrusma, put forward a bill. But, this place took out very similar amendments to what we will see today, and the government then decided it did not want to bring the bill back downstairs. A political choice was made. Once a bill had been through the Assembly, got here, was fixed, the government decided to let that bill sit and rot.
Then towards the end of last year, the Greens again sought to repeal Section 8 of the Police Offences Act and remove the crime of begging. We had government members filibustering so there was no vote on our bill, and then parliament was prorogued. Today we have an opportunity to bring our law into the modern age, to demonstrate our compassion as a parliament, and to recognise that it is simply wrong to criminalise poverty. The offence of begging has rightfully been decriminalised in the ACT and New South Wales, and it is well beyond time that Tasmania followed suit. Removing the offence is a first step in decriminalising poverty.
Begging, under our laws, is an antiquated offence that has no place in a contemporary, compassionate and informed just society. Historically, it has been suggested that begging is associated with laziness and moral shortcomings that would lead inevitably to criminal behaviour. Thank goodness those attitudes have changed.
So, the introduction of begging crimes has traditionally been justified as a mechanism to prevent more serious crime. This legacy perception is no longer a prevalent view in our society. It is no longer a prevalent view that begging leads to other criminal behaviours. To the contrary, as I think every member of this place knows, begging is an action of last resort. It is an act of desperation.
To some members of our society, even today, begging is a public nuisance. To some members of our society, it is an uncomfortable reminder of our failure to look after each other as human beings, and that is a really unfortunate attitude. It is short on empathy for those so destitute they feel they have no choice but to ask strangers for money.
The Police Offences Amendment (Begging Repeal) Bill 2024 will amend the Police Offences Act 1935 to ensure begging is no longer an offence in Tasmania. The bill is straightforward and simply amends Section 8 by removing subsections (1) and (1AA) of the Police Offences Act 1935. Subsections (1) and (1AA) set out the specifics of the offence and the penalty retrospectively, but here is the clause we are asking members to remove from the Police Offences Act.
Section 8. Begging, imposition &c (1) A person shall not a in a public place beg or expose wounds or deformities, or place himself or herself or otherwise act so as to induce, or attempt to induce, the giving of money or other financial advantage, or instigate or incite another person to do any of those things
The penalty for this crime under the Police Offences Act is a term of imprisonment of up to six months, and in today’s penalty unit dollar terms it is about $1010. Imagine slapping someone who is begging for money with a more than $1000 fine, or threatening to throw them into prison because they had to beg to survive, or they felt they had to beg to survive.
It is worth noting that the provision that this offence falls under is titled drunkenness, vagrancy, indecency and other public annoyances. In the past couple of decades, parliament has rightly removed offences relating to vagrancy, public drunkenness, prostitution and games of hazard. They have already been struck out of the act.
We know that disadvantaged people are decidedly more vulnerable to being disproportionately caught up in the legal system, as they are more prone to profiling, prejudice, more likely to be in situations that passively expose them to criminal activities, and less financially equipped to provide a legal defence. Incarceration for minor offences increases the risk of reoffending in a more serious manner. The inclusion of this offence in statute is a relic of an unjust and punitive society.
There is no public safety, moral or practical justification for begging to remain an offence. The law currently stands that someone who is found guilty of begging is facing a fine of more than $1000 or six months in jail. The lack of logic there is quite breathtaking. If a person is so destitute they are asking strangers for money, how are they going to find more than $1000? Are we not then saying to that person, ‘If you cannot find the money, we will provide a roof over your head in Risdon?’
That is no response to poverty. Disadvantaged people are decidedly more vulnerable and we need to understand that. There is a strong correlation between the practice of begging and several complex and interrelated individual factors; people who commit what to this day is still a crime of begging do so out of desperation and because their basic needs are not being met.
Failure of government services contributes to incidents of begging. This includes inadequately funded welfare services. It is very difficult to imagine how people live, for example, on Newstart. It is simply not possible. It is also a failure of government to provide adequate health care, housing, mental health support, and community connections, the things that make us feel like we are a valued part of our community.
As we heard in the briefing this morning, fraudulent or aggressive begging are very rare, and aggressive begging can be more appropriately prosecuted under other criminal offences. The individuals charged are often poorly equipped to defend themselves. That is the evidence of legal experts. We need to heed this, take it seriously, and deal with this anachronistic law.
In 2017, the homeless persons’ legal clinic LawRight published a paper on the crime of begging in Australia, which found that the criminalisation of begging has a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable members of our society. This is something we know to be true. It is good to have it confirmed by an expert body, but in our empathetic and decent hearts we know this to be true.
Of these points put forward by LawRight, failure of government services to provide for the financially and socially disadvantaged should resonate strongly in the current climate. We have a housing crisis borne from more than a decade of underinvestment in housing. Over a decade we have watched the very conservative right‑wing government in Canberra bleed money out of the housing budget and walk away from commitments to invest in social housing, and we are dealing with the human cost of that now. It is not just from the last 10 years of government. We have seen an erosion of governments taking responsibility for providing housing to people first and for being there to deliver homes for people.
We can all agree that safe, secure housing for all is the foundation of a well‑functioning contemporary society. It is the platform for stability and opportunity, education, training, employment and recreation. Without a stable home, it is very difficult to live a good life. It is impossible. Stable housing is critical for mental wellbeing, acquiring or maintaining work, and earning a living wage.
However, there are currently more than 4700 applicants on the housing register. The rolling average to house priority applicants has now reached 85 weeks. That is nearly two years. To put people who are in category one, those most at risk of homelessness, into a secure home is taking almost two years. These numbers were about 4598 applicants and 80 weeks respectively when the Greens last delivered a second reading speech on repealing the offence of begging in November last year. We have a situation right now where the government has categorically failed to ensure that there is enough social, residential and affordable housing to house our own people. This brings shame on us all.
I want to read into the Hansard some of the contents of a letter of support for this bill, which I am sure all honourable members have received. I thank stakeholders who have been absolute champions for this reform going back a number of years since the Greens first moved to decriminalise begging: Ben Bartl from the Tenants’ Union of Tasmania and a barrister, Greg Barns The letter of support has been signed by Anglicare, St Vincent de Paul Society, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Shelter Tasmania, Community Legal Centres, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, Prisoners Legal Service, and TasCOSS.
The letter says:
Criminalising begging is criminalising poverty. By abolishing the criminalisation of begging, we pave the way for a more compassionate societal approach, safeguarding the rights of individuals to seek assistance without fear of legal repercussions. The Police Offences Amendment (Begging Repeal) Bill of 2024 is to be debated in the coming weeks and will provide members of the Legislative Council with an opportunity to recognise that people begging need help and that poverty cannot be addressed through a criminal justice system.
The letter goes to some qualitative research that Community Legal Centres Tasmania undertook earlier this year. They interviewed 18 people who beg in Hobart and Launceston to better understand their circumstances. The research found that people who beg in Tasmania experience complex forms of disadvantage, with most participants homeless. That is nearly three-quarters of those interviewed were homeless, and more than half having spent time in prison. People who identify as Aboriginal were 44 per cent, and those with a diagnosed disability were also disproportionately represented at 77 per cent. Of the persons who had a disability, noting that some had multiple disabilities, a significant 44 per cent had schizophrenia, 44 per cent had an intellectual disability, and 21 per cent had other mental health issues such as depression.
These are not people we should be criminalising because they are poor. These are people who need our community’s help; they need the government’s help; and they need parliament to respond to their circumstances through tangible, meaningful reform.
The research also found that Tasmania Police use existing move-on powers for nuisance behaviour and offences such as drinking alcohol in a public place or smoking in a prohibited area. None of those interviewed reported being charged with begging, despite many of the participants begging regularly. Importantly, none of those interviewed reported being asked to move on by shopkeepers, although some said that shopkeepers had asked them to move their suitcases away from signage or to ensure easier access to the premises.
The research in Tasmania was mirrored in part by Melbourne research, which found 77 per cent of people who were begging experienced homelessness, 87 per cent had a mental illness, 80 per cent had been unemployed for 12 months or more, 33 per cent had experienced family violence, and 37 per cent reported childhood trauma and abuse.
More recently, a review by Queensland Police found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are disproportionately represented, with 64 per cent of persons charged with begging in 2020-21 identifying as indigenous. That research has also been reflected in Western Australia.
An argument has sometimes been raised – I read again from this letter – for the criminalisation of begging, and that is the need for public safety, namely that some persons that beg engage in intimidation or harassment or prevent access to premises. There is a quote here from the debate in the other place in November last year from the minister, the honourable Felix Ellis MP, and the first part of the statement is terrific, and then it devolves a bit. I think that is why we are going to be dealing with some of the unnecessary amendments that will be put forward. The minister says:
This government does not want any Tasmanian to be in a position where they feel they need to beg. If a Tasmanian feels they need to request support from the community, it is important that we reduce the stigmatisation of begging because it is not a criminal issue. Equally, it is important to be able to address problematic behaviour such as intimidation and harassment, or where a beggar may prevent members of the community from accessing a small business or important amenities. The public contacts Tasmania Police to seek their assistance in these instances.
I will remind members that clause 15(B) of the Police Offences Act already provides significant powers for Tasmania Police to move people on. Clause 15(b) is about the dispersal of persons.
(1) A police officer may direct a person in a public place to leave that place and not return for a specified period of not less than 4 hours if the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person
(a) Has committed or is likely to commit an offence;
(b) Is obstructing or is likely to obstruct the movement of pedestrians or vehicles; or
(c) is endangering or likely to endanger the safety of any other person; or
(d) has committed or is likely to commit a breach of the peace.
Then we have excerpts from the Tasmania Police Manual, which was also raised in the briefing this morning, which seems to agree with the interpretation of these legal experts who are part of Community Legal Centre Tasmania. That is something that we may get into when we move into the committee stage of the bill.
The letter concludes with:
Repealing the offence of begging will ensure the Tasmanian parliament meets a commitment it first made in 2019, as well as bring Tasmania into line with Western Australia, New South Wales and the ACT, where begging is not an offence.
Other Australian jurisdictions are moving in this direction with a 2022 Parliamentary Review of Public Intoxication, Begging and Public Urination Offences in Queensland, with a recommendation that all offences be decriminalised, subject to appropriate community-based health and social welfare responses being in place.
A plea to us all from the signatories:
In summary, with the majority of Australian jurisdictions having already passed laws that begging should not be an offence or having recommended decriminalisation. There is a clear national trend towards embracing policies that confront socioeconomic challenges with evidence-based solutions and compassion.
We urge you to support the bill passed by the House of Assembly and repeal the offence of begging.
Signed by Doctor Chris Jones, CEO of Anglicare. Rowena MacDonald, State President Tasmania of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Ryan Gilmore, President, Community Legal Centers, Tasmania Greg Barns, Chair, Prisoner Legal Service, Heather Kent, CEO of the Saint Vincent de Paul Society of Tasmania, Pattie Chugg, CEO of Shelter Tasmania, Heather Sculthorpe, CEO of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, and Adrian Piccone, CEO of TasCOSS.
Before I conclude, I want to talk about some of the amendments that the government wants to insert in this bill. As a legislator, I was disappointed, and I think that feeling was shared across the briefing room, that we only saw the final amendments as we sat in the briefing and they had significant differences from what the government had tried to do in the other place and been rejected.
It is a bad process for the government to come in on an amendment bill that seeks to decriminalise begging and try to not fundamentally decriminalise begging. It is bad process when you are talking about such potentially substantive changes to the Police Offences Act that apply not only to people who are begging, but any person potentially in a public place, unconsulted with the broader community, dropped on the briefing table as we sat to discuss the bill. That is not the way to make good law.
I want to make some comments about the proposed amendments. The proposed additional powers, regardless of their phrasing, are solely in response to the repeal of begging.
Tasmania Police received legal advice, which we established was from Crown law years ago, and has made no move in that whole time to amend the Police Offences Act of 1935, independently of the repeal of begging.
I question this conduct. It seems very much like the government wants to retain the power vested in police to criminalise begging. It does not feel like it really wants to decriminalise begging. I want to know – this is no reflection on the Leader of Government Business, I know it is your bill in here, member for Montgomery, this is on your colleagues in the other place. It has been a misleading way in which the government has prosecuted its arguments over some years, ever since we started this reform in 2018.
First and foremost, there has always been an emphasis when an argument has been made for extra move‑on powers for Tasmania Police in response to the repeal of begging. There has always been an emphasis on people who may be being abusive or harassing or obstructing. We finally got an admission today that this sort of conduct is already covered by the Police Offences Act of 1935.
Ms Webb – A big admission, that one.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes. And of course it is. This conduct, as well as every other form of legitimately antisocial behaviour, is not the exclusive domain of people who are begging. If police did not have sufficient powers to deal with this, these new powers would not be inextricably linked to the repeal of begging.
What was emphasised to us in the briefing this morning was the need for powers to deal with passive begging. That is, a person who is sitting in a public place, not being abusive, not causing problems, but with cup in front of them asking for money. That is passive begging. It was clarified for us this morning.
What the government intends and what it has taken literally years to drag out of them, is for powers to remain, to move on people who are begging, at least in some circumstances, solely on the basis that the act of begging alone makes some members of the community uncomfortable.
Really? That is why we make law? To deal with the discomfort of people who might not like the sight of a poor person with a hat out asking for money? I do not think so. It is a very subjective test, isn’t it?
When you have a look at the government’s amendments, which we will be discussing in some detail shortly. This was raised in the briefing this morning too. There are all sorts of scenarios where someone who does not want to look at a poor person asking for money, who could, should we agree to the government’s amendments, claim that the sight of this person caused them anxiety or distress in the vicinity of a public place.
I implore my colleagues, not to support this amendment because it lays the foundation for some vindictive and punitive, almost vigilante, responses to people who are passively begging. There are some people in our community who get a kick out of complaining about and making life hard for others. We should not be creating law that panders to that.
These are the powers that we are explicitly repealing today and what the government is trying to do is slap them back in there with an amendment that has the same effect as criminalising passive begging.
The retention of these powers if Council was to accept the amendments, would ensure that begging is not functionally decriminalised. What these proposed new powers would do is leave it to the subjective decision of police officers, not this parliament, to determine in what circumstances it is reasonable for a person to be moved on from a public place because their very presence causes anxiety.
I want to pause at this moment and acknowledge, particularly as someone who grew up in Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s Queensland, which was a police state –
Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, before the break I began to acknowledge the outstanding work of Tasmania Police in our community. I grew up in Queensland where, as a young person, seeing a police officer evoked fear. Here, depending on your life circumstances, in my observation over decades of connection to community, there is a very different culture in Tasmania Police.
And we heard in the briefing this morning how often Tasmania Police will respond to a report of begging or a public nuisance and respond in a way that is sensitive and empathetic to that individual’s life circumstances. That is what we are trying to embed here, in this amendment bill.
What we understand from these amendments is that the government believes it is reasonable for a member of the public to have a person moved on for passive begging. The Greens disagree. It was a bit of a concern in the briefing this morning that there seemed to be some attempt to implicitly tie the ability of Tasmania Police to respond sensitively to a person who may be asking for money to having the offence of begging still on the books. It took a bit of questioning to draw out the fact that Tasmania Police are very able to continue to provide this sensitive and thoughtful approach without an offence of begging on the books, and that the repeal, which I hope we pass today, would not affect the ability of Tasmania Police to do this really important community connection –
Mrs Hiscutt – Through you, Mr President, honourable member, they will not be able to move them if need be as it is.
Ms O’CONNOR – We will get to that, Leader of Government Business.
I note that we do not criminalise life circumstances in order to open avenue for police assistance. We do not criminalise being homeless in public or having mental ill health in public. We do not criminalise being distressed in public. Some of these things could cause others anxiety to witness. But we do not make law based on that.
The manner in which the government has presented these arguments over the years has been, to be fair, somewhat misleading. It appears to the Greens that this is because while minister for Police, Mr Ellis, for example, expresses support for decriminalising begging, the evidence of these amendments suggests that might not be completely the case.
To put it on the record again, anyone can be moved on currently if they are endangering anyone using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, being disorderly, jostling, insulting, or annoying a person, obstructing the movement of pedestrians, committing any nuisance – all of that is in and will remain in the Police Offences Act 1935. Until the briefing this morning, there was no clear example shown to us of problematic conduct that the government believes is not captured by the act. I understand it relates specifically to passive begging.
What we heard is that the gap in police powers that would result from the repeal of begging is moving people on for passive begging. That is, sitting with a cup and a sign or a hat and a sign and asking for money without otherwise interacting with people. That is not a gap, but rather the express purpose of this repeal bill that we are moving today. If this conduct remains a potential offence, in what manner would begging as an offence under the Police Offences Act actually be repealed? We do not believe it would be. The effect of accepting the government’s amendments is that it would still be an offence to beg in Tasmania.
I will leave my contribution there at this point, and I look forward to hearing other members’ contributions. But I hope, wherever you sit on the political circle, we are a small, connected, big-hearted community. We are the biggest per capita givers to charity of any state or territory in the country. We have the kind of people who broke into the Pontville Detention Centre to help those asylum seekers. We are a very kind community. We are obviously imperfect and complicated, but we are kind.
This amendment bill today seeks to give expression to that kindness because overwhelmingly in the Tasmanian community we believe people want to see begging removed as a crime in Tasmania. Therefore, I strongly commend the bill to the House.
