Dangerous Criminals & High Risk Offenders Amendment Bill 2025 (No. 46)

Thursday 6 November 2025

[12.27 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I thank the Leader for bringing forward this important bill. I have some remarks to make. The Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021 marked an important legislative change to the way in which offenders who are considered to pose an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence are dealt with by our justice system.

It is considered to be a strong legislative tool because it imposes conditions on a person even after their custodial sentences have expired. The act essentially filled in the gap which existed in some cases where a person has done their time but nonetheless exhibited characteristics that show sufficient evidence to place additional requirements on them after they're released into the community. In cases of violent offences, especially those related to domestic and family violence, this was an important step forward.

Since the principal act came into force a number of years ago, it's to be expected that further ongoing changes need to be made to ensure that the act remains up to date, effective and in line with community expectations, and this is one of those bills.

One of these changes is that it would now include attempted crimes as serious offences, effectively expanding the definition of a serious offence in the act to include attempting to commit an offence against a provision listed in Schedule 1.

Given the examples used by the Leader during her second reading contribution, this is a small change that would potentially have a significant effect, and it's an important change to implement in the act.

Additionally, this bill also seeks to insert a new subsection into section 35 of the act to provide that when making an HRO order, the court may order that the offender be detained for a period of not more than seven days beyond the day on which they would seek to be in custody, if it satisfied that such a period of time is required to make arrangements to give effect to the conditions opposed under the order.

This is a reasonably significant section as it effectively imposes additional days in custody that are not in relation to having committed an offence. As such, seven days should be the absolute maximum and it would be expected that this provision be used sparingly and as a last resort.

I note the Leader said this limited extension of a detention period may only be granted where the court considers it to be necessary, so I would appreciate a little more information on the types of scenarios where it's envisaged that this provision will be used.

The bill also contains a provision regarding the operational period of HRO orders. For example, where a person subject to an HRO order is placed in lawful custody, such as being placed in remand or sentenced to a custodial term, the HRO would be suspended under this provision. This frees up the person subject to the order from its obligations, such as reporting to a probation officer or residing at certain premises.

This is one of those commonsense provisions. I understand the necessity to legislate it to ensure that the act is clear on the matter. I note that this relates to interim HRO orders and not HRO orders themselves, the former of which can be put in place for six months and the latter for up to five years.

As the Leader pointed out, if a person subject to an HRO order, not an interim order, is placed into lawful custody, their obligations under the order are suspended, but the time period continues to run. I understand this is a deliberate drafting because regular HRO orders could potentially be extended well past what the court considered to be appropriate when the original order was made, which may have been years earlier.

Finally, and importantly, the bill seeks to include additional offences relating to children and young persons as serious offences. This will expand the list of serious offences within Schedule 1 to include 18 additional offences relating to children and young persons and will enable an offender who has been convicted of any of these offences to be considered for risk assessment for an HRO order.

We know from the commission of inquiry just how serious and devastating offences committed against children and young persons can be. An obligation was placed on us to ensure that we do everything within our power to keep people who have demonstrated characteristics of harming children and young persons away from them. This sort of pre‑emptive action is very much justified in my opinion. I believe that the community would expect this and that, as a matter of policy, it is necessary to legislate, and this is an appropriate way to do it.

This bill addresses a very serious subject. I understand the need to balance the relevant rights and obligations of people subject to HRO orders and those of victim/survivors of relevant offences. It can be difficult to strike an appropriate balance. I know that the stakeholders who have provided input into the development of this bill have given a part of themselves to it. I hope that these changes reflect community expectations and will make a difference in the effective rehabilitation of offenders and the prevention of crime. I support the bill.