Motion: Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025 - Scope

MOTION

‘JUSTICE LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) BILL 2025 – SCOPE’.

Wednesday, 4 February 2026.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:46):

Just for context and the clarity of the House, what the House is currently debating is a scope motion whereby the Attorney-General has moved a motion to expand the scope of the Justice Bill which we will be dealing with later today – in fact, I believe, next.

The Government’s Amendment we have as a Coalition always supported. I do not want to talk in double negatives here, but we have never wanted the DPP brought into the process, which was a change that was made to the original Bill. However, we have concerns, and I move an Amendment, only to this scope motion:

That the words ‘unless the accused is under the age of 18 years’ be omitted.

I would like to say to the House what that means is that what we are proposing to do is to slightly reduce the wording of the scope motion. There should be no mistake in thinking that what we are moving relates to the Bill itself or the Amendments that the Government will move later today. As far as I am aware the Government is yet to move those Amendments formally in this Chamber. All we are seeking to do by way of this scope motion is delete the exemption, as it were, for young people who are committing incitement to be exempt from that process of the DPP tick-off before action can occur. As I said, this Amendment only relates to that scope motion.

I can also say that if my Amendment were not successful, we certainly would not be opposing the broader scope motion in its original form. When it comes to the Bill more generally, if the Government were, as the Attorney has anticipated, to move an Amendment, as has been shared with me outside the Chamber, of course our position has always been that we felt the change, which occurred because of a deal with the Greens, should not have been put in place in the first place. We will not frustrate in any way of course in this Chamber the Bill and the Amendment in relation to that. Without going into the substance of the broader Bill, it would be fair to say that there is nothing else in the broader Bill that is anything other than non-controversial. So, I just reiterate that what we are currently debating is the justice bill being expanded, and this motion allows for that expansion so that Amendments that the Attorney has foreshadowed can be inserted into that Bill. We are as a coalition proposing to slightly reduce that scope in so much as not allowing, unless the accused is under the age of 18 years, that scope, because our concern is that police have confirmed there is a youth crime crisis for a start.

There is no doubt that incitement of someone who is of the age of 17 – a 17-yearold committing the act of incitement – should not be, frankly, given a free pass. What is concerning – the Attorney is welcome to correct me – is that there have been no instances under the new laws that have been taken through the courts as yet. Currently nobody – despite what we know is happening on the streets every single day – has been found guilty of incitement under those laws that I’m aware of. The Attorney may wish to correct me if I’m wrong, but there have not been any examples.

Clearly, with the Government’s Amendment that is being moved today, the Government has accepted – and I take it in absolute good faith – the Amendment that the Attorney has foreshadowed in correcting that mistake in the original Bill to take out the Director of Public Prosecutions tick-off, as it were. I accept that in goodwill. The Coalition is foreshadowing right now that we will do nothing to frustrate that in the debate that is about to occur on that Bill and the passage of that Bill through this place. Of course we would not, because that has been our position all along. When it comes to this issue, though, the former Shadow Attorney was managing the Bill initially and, I am sure, had a working relationship with the Government. I know that the former Shadow Attorney took every opportunity to work in good faith. I would reiterate and say that when it comes to issues such as this, I hope that the Shadow Attorney now and the Attorney can always deal with issues such as this outside the Chamber in the first instance to try and develop policy that can get through the Chamber, to put it simply. I would put on record that after making a request, the Attorney and her office have certainly done that in relation to these Amendments, and I thank the Attorney for that discussion over recent days.

I have flagged that I am concerned about the loophole for under-18s. In a youth crime crisis, if a 17-year-old commits an act of incitement, I don’t think there should be a loophole for that behaviour. We saw just yesterday the Chamber come together to speak about the Bondi incident, which is one of the most horrific and tragic incidents in Australia’s history, and within hours we had a bunch of feral animals on the front steps of Parliament writing inciting graffiti on our very steps. Just right across the steps of this building they were writing it. My understanding is – and I do intend to do more with this – that some of these animals are using chalk specifically because they know that as it is not a permanent marker, as it were, the police cannot charge them with the type of offence for which they deserve to be charged: a serious offence. This is what police are advising. Police are advising that when you use chalk, it is not of the permanency that, for example, paint would be charged for. This is what the police are advising. Do not shoot the messenger. Yesterday afternoon there was this horrible defacing of our very Chamber within moments of or, in fact I am sure, whilst were debating a Bondi motion.

So, I would say: why would we be seeking, when it comes to incitement, to say it is okay to incite if you are under 18? Why is it okay? What the Government is arguing is that the DPP have to tick it off, but the practical effect is that under the new laws it has not happened. So, there is a process that is being put in place where there are no examples of incitement under these new laws. No-one has been found guilty of incitement. Incitement is occurring every single day. Incitement was occurring on the front steps of this very Parliament yesterday while were dealing with a motion on Bondi. Incitement occurred on the steps of Parliament. Could it have been closer? It could not have been closer to this building. It was on the building that incitement occurred. There have been no instances where someone has been found guilty of incitement, and I would put to the chamber that it is because, frankly, the DPP mechanism does not work. It hamstrings the entire process. I would say therefore: why would we say we want to hamstring circumstances where someone might be 17 and commit an act of incitement? If they are 17 and they commit an act of incitement, the police should be able to charge them. That is what should happen. They should be able to be charged. They should not have to go through a very longwinded weeks-long administrative process where the DPP ticks it off. That is all we are saying.

I would like to reiterate to the Chamber that what we are considering now is not the amendment. To be very clear, it is not the amendment. The Amendment has not yet been circulated. What we are amending is a scope motion which enables the government to move the amendment itself to the Bill, which we will, I understand, be debating next. I would not want anybody to misunderstand what is occurring. This is simply a procedural motion that allows the scope of the Bill to be expanded so an Amendment can be introduced. As I have said, not only will we not be opposing the scope motion if my Amendment were not to succeed, but in relation to the Amendments, as the Government, I understand, seeks to move in the Bill, we will not be frustrating those or the Bill in any way. I reiterate finally that my Amendment simply removes from the scope motion ‘unless the accused is under the age of 18 years’ on the basis that when you are 16, when you are 17, you should not get a free pass for acts of incitement. Unfortunately, the DPP process does exactly that. We know from practice that the DPP tick-off process has resulted in not a single guilty finding of incitement, so the new laws are not working, and we accept the Government is moving Amendments this afternoon in recognition of that. What we are saying is incitement should not be dependent on age and people who are 17 years old should not get a free pass to commit acts of incitement.