SENTENCING AMENDMENT (PUBLICATION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY) BILL 2026 (No. 29)
Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Deputy Speaker, I rise to talk relatively briefly to the Sentencing Amendment (Publication of Criminal Activity) Bill 2026. I'll say from the outset that I'm rather disappointed by this bill and what I perceive it to be, what it's trying to achieve. I see it as a very blunt instrument. It really - and the title it's being referred to is the 'post and boast bill' ‑ fails on too many levels. I want to make it quite clear, and I think Dr Woodruff made it quite clear in her speech, that it's not about condoning any of the repugnant behaviour ‑ it's about seeing what this bill is. It's pure political theatre with no evidence to support it.
Not only is this bill a waste of parliament's time, it will actually make things harder, not easier, for the courts. I think Ms Haddad spoke of the courts being tied up with significant backlogs in cases, but I believe that this will make it harder, not easier for courts. It increases the complexity of sentencing hearings. It will take up more court time, and possibly increase the number of appeals, which will further strain courts already buckling under the growing court lists from the government's tough-on-crime approach.
This bill tells judges to do what they already do. Aggravating circumstances around the publication of criminal offending are already available to be considered under existing sentencing law. Far from strengthening that position, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute's submission warns this amendment may actually raise the bar, requiring proof of specific harm, intent to glorify or demonstrated lack of remorse when none of that is required today. There were 12 submissions received on this bill and I'd like to show appreciation to all who put in submissions. It's a really important part and it helps me to understand what this bill is trying to do and to look at different perspectives. The majority of those 12 submissions actually opposed it: The Tasmanian Council of Social Service, Youth Law Australia, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Sexual Assault Support Service, and the Community Legal Centres of Tasmania all raised serious concerns, chief among them that this bill has no evidence base, as I said before.
The Attorney‑General suggests that offenders who post about their crimes are weighing up sentencing consequences before they hit upload. If anything, the opposite is true. Someone who films and publicises their own offending, all but guaranteeing their own detection, is not engaging in the kind of rational calculus that a longer sentence could ever deter. Research cited by the Tasmania Law Reform Institute confirms what criminologists have long known: certainty of detection deters far more than severity of punishment ever will.
So, who does this bill actually catch? Not the platforms; not the billion‑dollar companies whose algorithms amplify this content and who profit from it. It rewards its creators with attention and profit from every view. This bill reaches past all of that and lands squarely on young people, some whose thought processes and judgement are still developing. Who are least equipped to foresee the consequences of what they post. And, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Legal Service and others have pointed that out. That means that this bill will fall disproportionately on young people and on Aboriginal Tasmanians. As the Tasmanian Aboriginal Legal Service reminded this government in their submission, punitive add‑ons like this one do nothing to disrupt the underlying behaviour. We've heard from various people, various contributions, that support for those people and steering them away from this kind of behaviour is the best thing to do. What disrupts offending is investment in therapeutic, evidence‑based, culturally responsive programs. In the mental health and youth services, this government has chronically underfunded even as demand has grown.
There was one submission from Russell Yaxley who is deputy mayor of Glenorchy and he was writing in a personal capacity. He had many things to say in favour of bringing this legislation in, but he made one very, very good and clear point - and it made it more plainly than I can. He said:
A longer sentence doesn't take the video down.
Before this bill proceeds one step further, this government owes Tasmanians an answer to the question the Sexual Assault Support Service has already asked: what is the evidence that justifies this change? What gap in the current sentencing framework is it actually fixing? How does adding another punitive lever aimed at the state's most vulnerable sit alongside the government's own commitments to closing the gap and to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry? Until those questions are answered, this bill should be withdrawn.
I'd like to thank the Attorney‑General and his office for information they've provided. I'd like to again thank those people who did put in submissions. In summary, in no way do I condone the sort of behaviour this bill was trying to punish. However, I do not believe it will have any impact on reducing that behaviour. Therefore, I won't be supporting the bill.