Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Madam Acting President, before I begin, I also acknowledge the courage of Laraine Ludwig, who came into quite an intimidating space today, surrounded ‑ as kind as we always try to be ‑ by legislators, bureaucrats, Tasmania Police officers – and retold your story of extreme suffering and the suffering of your family and your unending grief. It was a privilege to hear from you, as hard as it was to hear, about the profound effect on your family, not just psychologically, but the effect on the functionality of your family, its capacity, your family’s capacity to work, to earn an income, to see the future as a bright place. Thanks, Laraine. Thank you for reliving your trauma in order to inform us better.
Everyone, every Tasmanian, has a right to feel safe in our community. It does not matter what your age is, your background or where you live; it is a fundamental right to feel safe and we are very fortunate that we have a Tasmania Police service which, on its record, on the survey evidence, and on what we know to be true because of our interactions with Tasmania Police, is an honourable and trustworthy police service. I say this as someone who grew up in Johannes Bjelke-Petersen’s Queensland where the Queensland police service was ‑ through the Fitzgerald Inquiry ‑ identified as a corrupt police service, but they also explicitly targeted minorities and young people. It was a climate of fear, particularly for young people, people of my generation in my late teens and early adolescence in Queensland and to come down here in 1989, and in my interactions with Tasmania Police, to be so surprised and glad that we have a police service like we do; it has been a revelation. In the 35 or 36 years of living on this island that position has never changed.
I do want to thank Tasmania Police not just for working hard to keep us safe, but actually keeping us safe and also doing so with good heart. It is a cultural thing.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – I expect the minister is very pleased to hear your words.
Ms O’CONNOR – I do not know if he is. I do not know if he will be shortly.
We heard from a range of stakeholders today in a marathon briefing that was very comprehensive and there were a number of takeaways for all of us from that briefing. The primary one came from Reid’s mum, which is that we cannot possibly understand the suffering of someone who has been through a traumatic and shocking experience like that. We also heard evidence, which has been referred to by other members, of an increase in knife crime and evidence that this is happening in other jurisdictions and in Tasmania. We heard evidence that on the basis of the trial that was undertaken by Tasmania Police, there is an issue in our community with people who are carrying dangerous and potentially deadly weapons on their person.
However, we also heard from other informed stakeholders, Tasmania Legal Aid, Community Legal Centres Tasmania and the Tasmanian Council of Social Service, which raised very legitimate concerns about whether this bill gets the balance right. That is a question we are asking ourselves in this debate. As a state, we have been through a quite difficult and hopefully culture-shifting process of the commission of inquiry into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. Through expert evidence, the testimonies of victim-survivors and whistleblowers, we have heard about the harm done to children over generations here. The intergenerational trauma and the harm that has come about from the failings of the state to protect children has had effects across our society.
It also revealed that, when it comes to looking after the wellbeing of vulnerable children and young people, we are a long way from getting it right. The commission of inquiry recommendations, many of which aligned with the government’s youth justice plan, make it really clear that we need to take every step possible not to criminalise children and young people who are vulnerable by virtue of disadvantage, poverty and homelessness, as there is a flow-on effect which is devastating to that family, to any victim of a crime that may be committed. There are flow-on effects into our youth justice system. Inevitably, the consequence of not breaking cycles and intervening early in the life of young people and their family, if they have family capacity around them, is critical.
We have heard evidence before the commission of inquiry committee that there is a collision happening here, in statute and government policy. On one hand, we have a very significant body of work and a series of recommendations about the need for early intervention and prevention, therapeutic responses to children and young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. On the other hand, we have rhetoric from the Liberals in government: tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That is kind of catchy, is it not, if you are a politician? But the flow-on consequences of that can be seen in the data.
We already know that there are more young people in Ashley now than there was a few years ago. We know that almost every night of the year, there is a child in an adult remand centre. We know from the evidence presented to us by Legal Aid today that more young people are coming before the courts. What Legal Aid has made clear is that these two imperatives, one a matter of government policy, one handed down to us as our responsibility to implement by the commission of inquiry, are in conflict.
For every person who came before the commission of inquiry and had the courage to do that, for every person who worked on that commission of inquiry, whether they were on the panel or an expert or working in government, that process was profoundly traumatic; but there was also a belief, through that process, that we would do things differently for children and young people here.
We are not really, we are not. Ashley is now usually fit to bursting. More young people, as I understand it – and I do not have the data right here in front of me – are being detained by Tasmania Police. Obviously, there may be issues there, but we have got real risk here of not being able to properly give effect to the commission of inquiry, and to continue harming vulnerable kids in this state.
What we heard from Legal Aid is that the children who are likely to be targeted by these amendments will come from extreme disadvantage. Poverty is likely, the potential to have family violence – those kids are likely at some time in their life to have experienced sexual abuse. All of them to one extent or another will have been neglected in some way.
It is very easy to look at some of these kids – I am a tallish, strong woman, but I can understand why some people would find groups of young people hanging around in public places threatening or confronting, but young people hang around in groups together all the time. We are a social animal, we all hang around in groups, we like to be in groups, we like to feel connected.
This bill gives Tasmania Police very significant powers to search young people anywhere in Tasmania if they have a reasonable suspicion that a young person is carrying a dangerous item; but it also allows Tasmania Police to search a whole range of designated areas which seem, with the best of intention, to have been cooked up without an evidence base.
We have prescribed places that include all educational facilities. Even though we know Tasmania Police will not appear in kindergartens with their wands, there is no age restriction on who might be required, and it will be a requirement, to have this body search undertaken on them.
Included are all schools, universities, TasTAFE facilities; any technical institute or vocational education facility – and as members are aware, I have an amendment flagged for here – any place used for the purposes of education, learning or teaching; any public transport area that includes a bus mall, a bus interchange or transit centre, bus stop or bus shelter; a jetty or a wharf or an airport; and retail precinct, shopping centre, shopping areas; a pedestrian mall. Retail premises means premises that are used for the sale of goods or the provision of services.
Technically, as I understand it, and perhaps the Leader of Government Business can clarify this for me, under these definitions all the space around a little shop that might be out on the edge of a suburb on its own, not in a retail precinct, all the spaces around that retail premises are places where Tasmania Police could undertake wand searches.
It includes any set-down area, which is where passengers can enter or exit a private vehicle or a transport service within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Services Act 2011; but also, the following list, which is the new interpretive clause of Section 15CAA, the following places are prescribed. That means that police do not need to have a reasonable suspicion that a person may be carrying a dangerous weapon within these places, which cover very large parts of Tasmania. There is no requirement for police to have a reasonable belief, which is the current threshold test, or a reasonable suspicion.
All these areas are covered by that: a public transport area; a retail precinct; a large passenger vessel; a vessel used in the operation of a public ferry service; any sporting ground; any licensed premises; any health or medical service, including our hospitals; any education facility – no requirement for there to be a reasonable suspicion test. It includes any place of worship or place where individuals or a group of persons congregate for religious or ritual purposes or to perform acts of devotion.
I find this provision to be somewhat extraordinary – almost as extraordinary as giving Tasmania Police the powers to enter kindergartens and primary schools. If there is one place where there should be an opportunity for peaceful reflection and connection, it would be in a place of worship, you would think. Further, any car park or set-down area that forms part of or is used for the purposes of access to a place specified in the regulation.
We were told in the briefing today that these amendments, the Police Offences Amendment (Knives and Other Weapons) Bill 2025, are modelled on the laws of other jurisdictions. To some extent that is true; but we have gone a whole lot further in Tasmania. We heard that today from Legal Aid. No other Australian jurisdiction has provided so few guard rails to these police powers. No other Australian jurisdiction has amended their police offences laws to allow police to enter school premises or kindergartens.
We had a comparative table of other jurisdictions. Henry Pill took us through some of the safeguards in other jurisdictions, but we were advised that other similar legislative changes across jurisdictions do have guardrails in them, including: all have specific designated places that can be declared for a period of time; time frames are put around those designated areas; most require some kind of evidence to be available to the police service in order to undertake a wand search. There are more processes for police to have to adhere to. They have to specify what happens after the wands are used, and there are more detailed reporting requirements on police services in other states.
If we go to the Community Legal Centres Tasmania’s submission – I am very thankful to Ben Bartl from CLCs Tasmania and Adrienne Picone, the Chief Executive Officer of TasCOSS. They say:
In New South Wales and Queensland, the use of electronic metal detection devices or wanding is limited to public spaces including safe night precincts, public transport facilities, licensed premises, retail premises, shopping centres and sporting or entertainment venues. Tasmania would be the only jurisdiction to allow them in schools.
It is not quite correct to say that we are keeping in line with the rest of the country. Now, that was the minister’s quote this morning:
Tasmania will be in lockstep with other jurisdictions.
That is not true. We have stepped right out front and not in a leadership kind of way, I would argue. It is simply untrue to say that Tasmania will be in lockstep with other jurisdictions. It was confirmed to us by Tasmania Police during the briefing today that we have gone some reasonably significant way beyond what other jurisdictions have done in response to a legitimate community safety issue.
The Community Legal Centres say:
Our existing laws already grant police powers to search schools where they hold a reasonable belief that a search is warranted. The bill removes such a threshold requirement.
The Community Legal Centres say that:
We are not aware of any publicly available evidence put forward by the bill’s proponents that there exists a heightened risk of knife crime in schools, such that the current threshold is unduly onerous. We are concerned that the bill as it relates to places of education may have profound and unwanted societal consequences. That is, it has the potential to make our schools less safe.
Mrs Hiscutt – Through you, Mr President. I wonder whether the member is of a mind how long you have to go, in light of the time. Whether you want to adjourn?
Ms O’CONNOR – Are we going to adjourn at 6 p.m.?
Mrs Hiscutt – It is up to you. You have the Floor.
Ms O’CONNOR – Maybe another 10 minutes. How does that sound? If I creep it out to 15, will you forgive me in time?
The Community Legal Centres’ submission says:
We are concerned that the bill as it relates to places of education may have profound and unwanted social consequences. We are concerned for the bill’s impact on our youth and on the culture of our schools. In the United States, an increased police presence in schools has not increased safety.
They provide a quote in here from the Charles Crawford and Ronald Burns’s paper, Preventing school violence: assessing armed guardians, school policy and context, a 2015 policing paper in the International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. It says:
The calls for action in the wake of a high profile act of violence on a school campus typically focus on technical solutions, including enhanced surveillance, entry control, or dispatching more officers in school hallways. While simple solutions are attractive as they may be implemented quickly, the present findings suggest they may not have the desired benefits and the search for solutions may be focused on the wrong areas.
I think this brings us full circle, back to something that came up over and over again today. Principally, first raised with us by Reid’s mum, that there are insufficiently funded and accessible early intervention and therapeutic support services for young people who collide with the criminal justice system and may cause harm and, in some cases, terrible harm along the way.
Indeed, the Community Legal Centres go on to say:
Findings are emerging that the introduction of routine law enforcement practices into schools, such as electronic searches, may not only fail to meet their objective, but may have other unintended and unwanted consequences. Our concern is that at-risk students may choose to stay away from school entirely out of fear of being targeted by police.
I think we should pause at this moment. I want to acknowledge my privilege that I have not been in trouble with Tasmania Police other than for speeding and things like that in 36 years. For young people, often their experience with police will be connected with a traumatic experience; family violence in the home, sexual violence, dad ending up in Risdon as a result of his own huge problems like mental illness or whatever the cause of that cyclic damaging behaviour is. Our experience of Tasmania Police, in this place, will be very different from that of a kid who was just born behind the eight ball. We know those kids. We have all met them and many of us advocate for them every time we talk about Ashley Youth Detention Centre and the fact that 101 years after it was first opened, it is still a place where children’s rights are being abused. It is still a place where children are being damaged and that damage is lifelong and we are still not investing enough in therapeutic supports.
We need to just remember that for kids born into extreme disadvantage, it is not certain that their early interactions with law enforcement will be positive, and it is not certain that they will have a positive or trusting relationship with Tasmania Police. The evidence is really clear that if you want to improve community safety, when you are talking about young people, you need to make sure there is the capacity to build strong and trusting connections between law enforcement and young people.
I know that there are efforts made every day in Tasmania for that to happen, but it is a very big job and if you are a Tasmania Police officer and you are dealing with a call-out where someone is terrified because a young person may have a weapon on them, of course, the Police Manual will dictate how you respond to that person, but a therapeutic response in that moment is probably not practical.
The CLCs go on to say the bill is not directed to circumstances where an individual is reasonably believed or suspected to be carrying a bladed weapon. The bill instead provides it is a particular environment rather than an identified individual that carries a risk of violence. In such circumstances, it is known as a real risk that particular types of individuals will be targeted and this is where the shift in language from reasonable belief to reasonable suspicion becomes worrying.
This is where we heard evidence this morning from Legal Aid that these new powers will lead to profiling because we form our suspicions based on some very quick processing inside and we can carry with us. The evidence shows it happens to Tasmania Police as much as it happens to any other profession. We can carry with us certain biases towards other individuals or groups in our society.
We are concerned about the risk here of police profiling children and young people, but there is also a risk, of course, that homeless people who have all their possessions on them will also be unduly captured by these extra powers. There is a risk that a person who is experiencing mental distress as a result of their poverty and homelessness, and they are sleeping up on the domain in a tent will be the kind of individual from the kind of cohort that could provide reasonable suspicions not just to Tasmania Police but to other people who are coming into contact with that person.
The CLCs go on to say that:
We are concerned that the broadening of police search powers will disproportionately target known vulnerable groups, including Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander people, young people in general, people who have impaired intellectual or physical functioning, people of non-English speaking backgrounds and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
We are concerned at the risk of net-widening, with vulnerable groups not only likely to be disproportionately targeted but also finding themselves at risk of further police interaction and further down in their correspondence, they talk about, and this comes to the policy collusion that I was talking about earlier, the Tasmanian government’s youth justice model of care.
There is a Youth Justice Blueprint, which identifies children and young people in contact with justice mechanisms as vulnerable and in need of support rather than punishment or fear. The blueprint acknowledges the critical contribution that education and community connection make to meet those needs. The youth justice model of care echoes this approach. It says:
A child-centered approach views children and young people who engage in behaviours that are legally defined as offences as children first, rather than offenders, which includes the child or young person’s best interests and encourages participation, engagement and social inclusion that promotes the development of a pro-social identity. It also focuses on prevention and diversion, seeking to divert children away from criminal justice responses and the stigma of justice system contact.
If we go to the data on diversions, it is very worrying. We have here the 2025 Productivity Commission Report on Government Services (ROGS), which shows us the proportion of youth offenders who are streamed into diversion programs. Under the Liberal government here, the proportion of youth offenders subject to diversions has declined virtually every year since the Liberals came to office. It has declined from 54.4 per cent in 2014-15 to 35.6 per cent in 2023-24.
The data tells us ‑ the ROGS data no less, which comes from the Tasmanian government feeding into it ‑ that we are not responding to the Youth Justice Blueprint, the Youth Justice Model of Care, the recommendations of the commission of inquiry as they relate to therapeutic responses. We are not providing the diversionary program funding that is required, and that keeps the community less safe. If we are serious about community safety ‑ and every person in this room is ‑ then we have to invest in those supports. We have to get into families early, before kids go off the rails.
Ms Webb – Evidence‑based support.
Ms O’CONNOR – Evidence‑based support. Thank you, honourable member for Nelson. We have to invest in diversion programs. We have to make sure that young people understand consequences of their actions, but do it in a way that is not punitive. Obviously, there are young people who commit egregious crimes. I am not talking about that cohort of young people in this situation, because that cohort obviously would not have diversionary options, sentencing options, available to them.
I really hope that – and I have listened to, with great interest, to other members’ contributions. Although it was a long briefing period today, one of the best things about this Council is the care we take to inform ourselves from people with a lived experience or expertise. Today was a really good example of that. I believe we are all better informed about this legislation, its intended effects and its potential consequences, than we were at 9 o’clock this morning. That is going to be a good thing for the process of the debate.
The CLC close with this – and I will wind up –
Ms Webb – You do not have to wind up, you just have to adjourn. Come back tomorrow.
Ms O’Connor – Thank you, honourable member for Nelson. I have to say, to hear from Laraine today was quite difficult, and I was not actually sure I wanted to speak to the bill today. I do, obviously, because I am up here, but it was for all – no‑one more than Laraine – it was a big day.
The CLC says:
We are concerned that, by targeting vulnerable youth, the encroachment of police on places of learning would negatively influence the culture we create in our broader community. A core value and goal of our society is to provide educational opportunities for children, young people, and the broader community. Indeed, there is much research confirming that childhood education has a direct impact on the quality of life throughout adulthood. Adults with higher educational attainment live healthier and longer lives compared to their less educated peers.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports the Australian finding of correlation between higher levels of Aboriginal education and better health, and numerous studies conclude that children’s academic performance and educational attainment affect their health outcomes throughout their life course.
In our opinion, in circumstances where no warrant has been issued, schools should be safe from the risk of undue police intervention, and we are being called on to support the removal of school from the list of prescribed places set out in the bill.
As I said, I have listened to contributions, and I do not know how the amendment will go. So far, there seems to be a level of comfort in allowing wanding in primary schools, for example ‑ only because that comfort comes from trust in Tasmania Police. We should not make legislation based on trust; we should not. Just as, if one minister who is extremely decent makes you an assurance that, through the term of a government only good things will happen and nothing will change, we cannot just take that on trust.
We definitely are being asked to trust Tasmania Police not to misuse these powers ‑ to trust that the Tasmania Police Manual and the Police Service Act 2003 will provide sufficient guardrails for any misuse of police powers. If I just circle back to where I grew up, in this generation and this time, we have a particular Tasmania Police service. Under a different administration at a different time, it might be a very different scenario. We should make sure that legislation we pass is not based on trust, and I would like members to visualise Tasmania Police going into a primary school on the basis of a reasonable suspicion and wanding kids in a group.
We heard today about the potential criminogenic effect of interactions between young people and Tasmania Police where they are not a positive interaction. In a world, or even a Tasmania, of unlimited and plentiful resources, it would be so great to be able to fund Tasmania Police to do more of that grassroots community work that makes such a difference, because it is those interactions with young people that build trust. It is seeing a police officer walking through a community and having chats with people, just paying attention. That is what builds trust. It is dedicated community police officers who know the community they are working in, they know the individuals, they know the challenges, and they have encountered any number of those individuals before.
A trust builds up because of constancy ‑ consistent, positive community policing. That is what will make a real difference, in terms of building trusting, connective relationships between law enforcement and young people who are at a point in their lives where they might just do something stupid, or self‑harming, or violent and dangerous. They might just get in with the wrong group of people because they are lonely, or home is really a terrible place, and what they need is friends. Sometimes – and we have probably all done it ‑ you do not choose the right friends.
I will be moving the amendment to remove schools from this bill. I note the comments of Legal Aid this morning, where these powers have been called quite startlingly broad. We were told the legislation goes further than any other jurisdiction.
Regarding the penalties, this bill increases the maximum penalty for possession of a dangerous article in a public place from 50 penalty units or two years in prison, to 100 penalty units or three years in prison. Do you know that if you are a young person or a homeless person who is picked up with a dangerous article on you, you potentially face a longer prison sentence than someone who is possessing a firearm without a licence, as that prison sentence is two years? We are proposing to create a harsher sentence for someone who has had a dangerous article identified on them, and faced the courts as a consequence. We are proposing to lock them up for up to three years when we would only apply a maximum sentence of two years to someone possessing a gun without a licence. The penalties in here are disproportionate.
My final point will be this: all through the history of justice and law enforcement, we know that harsher penalties provide no deterrent. If they did, the world would be a very different place. If everyone who committed a terrible crime understood the potential consequences for them of that crime – really understood it, not just abstractly – we would live in a very different world. Increased penalties are politically convenient, but they are not effective.
I genuinely hope this leads to a safer community because this bill will pass. I hope that it sends a message to children and young people that it is unacceptable to carry dangerous items on you. I hope, most sincerely, that these powers are never abused, because they can be. It is a feature of law enforcement. I used to work for the federal Minister for Justice. He had the responsibility for the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority, and all the criminal code stuff at a federal level. I could see that it is a reflex of law enforcement to seek to expand the scope of their powers.
I know this bill comes from a good place, but we should always carefully examine any legislation where there is a significant increase in police powers. Here, we do not have a rock‑solid evidence base for the provisions that we are being asked to pass. We are being asked by the minister and Tasmania Police to take them on trust.
When you increase police powers, as was acknowledged in the briefing today, there is an inevitable impact on civil rights and the right of people to go about their business – as Pip Monk from Legal Aid said today – without being bailed up and being subject to a police search with a wand. The Greens believe that at the moment the police do have sufficient powers in relation to dangerous articles being carried on persons. Tasmania Police argue that they do not. I believe that we have been somewhat misled by the minister about how these laws are reflected by what is happening at a national level. It is not true. We are here today and tomorrow, undoubtedly, looking to significantly expand police powers. That is why the Greens have significant issues with this legislation and it is why we will be moving an amendment to make sure that at least in a school, in a place of learning, there is not – in the legislation is actually an unfettered – there is very little fettering going on here. We need to make sure schools are places where children, no matter what is happening in their lives, feel safe and that they will not be subject to a police search. I think that it is the right thing to do to remove schools from this legislation. The Greens can see the arguments for retail premises, bus malls and places like that. Schools are a bridge too far.
It may have perverse outcomes and make our community less safe. Our job in here, just as it is Tasmania Police’s solemn duty, is that when we are working on legislation, it is to make sure it has the desired effect. The desired effect of this bill is to keep the community safer, but only time will tell if it does, which is why having a review provision in the legislation brought up to us is a positive because then we will have another opportunity to examine the effect of these extended powers, should the Council pass this bill and whether there have been any unintended consequences. The data on youth interactions with young people – arrests, appearances before court, and kids in remand – can be analysed.
There are hundreds of kids each year, who go into adult watch houses where people are coming down from drugs, alcoholic benders or have psychiatric issues. About 400 children and young people in Tasmania each year end up in adult remand centres. This is completely unacceptable and completely in breach of their human rights. We will have an opportunity, through the course of this debate to improve the bill, but we will also have an opportunity to have a look at what by that point will be a stronger evidence base either way for these powers.
I will speak to my amendment when that comes tomorrow and I hope overnight – members, just have a good think about those kids in schools.
Mrs Hiscutt – During the debate, I would like to inform you that I think you said that there is a penalty of two years for firearms in a public place. It is actually three years.
Ms O’CONNOR – My advice is having a firearm without a licence.
Mrs Hiscutt – We will clarify that.
Ms O’CONNOR – Could you clarify that because my advice is that it is two years?
Having a firearm in a public place is different to having one without a licence.
I move –
That the debate on the Police Offences Amendment (Knives and Other Weapons) Bill 2025 be adjourned until tomorrow.
Motion agreed to.
