Get Involved - Parliament

Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025

Published on: October 2025

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-158757

Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025

Second Reading Speech

Dr HUGH McDERMOTT (Prospect) (15:28:20):

On behalf of Mr Michael Daley: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025. War memorials stand at the heart of every community in Australia. They preserve the stories of those who served and ensure that the service and sacrifice of veterans and their families are not forgotten. They also provide a space for communities to gather, reflect and educate the next generation. The New South Wales Government deplores acts of vandalism, damage or destruction of war memorials. Such acts are deeply disrespectful to the memory of those who have served. Our memorials are symbols of our national sacrifice and history and should be regarded with utmost respect. The protection of war memorials is therefore vital to our community and our national history.

There are existing legislative protections in place for war memorials. Section 195 of the Crimes Act 1900 contains offences relating to intentional or reckless damage or destruction of property belonging to another. The maximum penalty for the base property damage offence is five years imprisonment. The offences can be used to prosecute persons for damaging or destroying war memorials, depending on the circumstances. We saw this recently when an individual was convicted of an offence against section 195 for damaging a war memorial in Dorrigo. Additionally, section 8 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 contains offences prohibiting damaging or desecrating war memorials. Section 8 (2) prohibits wilfully damaging or defacing a protected place, which includes a war memorial. The maximum penalty is 40 penalty units, which is $4,400. Section 8 (3) prohibits committing a nuisance or indecent act in, or in connection with, any war memorial or interment site. The maximum penalty is 20 penalty units, which is $2,200.

The bill makes two amendments to strengthen these existing protections for war memorials. Firstly, it introduces an aggravated property damage offence that will see damage or destruction of war memorials punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years. Secondly, it introduces a discretionary compensation order into the Summary Offences Act that will allow a court to order that compensation be paid if an offence against section 8 of the Summary Offences Act is committed against a war memorial. That will be in addition to any criminal sanction that is imposed for the offence. The compensation order is modelled on a similar compensation provision in the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act 1923. The amendment will mean that there is a specific compensation provision applying to all war memorials in the State, not just the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park. RSL NSW and the Office for Veterans Affairs have been consulted and are supportive of the reforms in the bill.

I will briefly address the Opposition's Summary Offences Amendment (War Memorials and Other Protected Places) Bill 2025. The bill was introduced by the member for Hawkesbury in May of this year and seeks to make several amendments to the Summary Offences Act. The Opposition's bill proposes to amend the definition of "war memorial" to include:

… a war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place, and includes a thing or area in the vicinity of, and that forms part of the site of, the shrine, monument or statue or other similar structure or place.

This is an unnecessary amendment because the current definition of "war memorial" in the Summary Offences Act states that it means a war memorial located in a public place, and, without limitation, includes the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park any other place prescribed by the regulations.

The definition leaves a war memorial largely undefined so as to allow a broad interpretation. The definition also allows specific sites to be prescribed by regulation in order to put their status as a war memorial beyond doubt where it is needed. The broad nature of the current definition of war memorials is demonstrated by the fact that no memorials have needed to be prescribed by regulation to date and prosecutions have been successfully undertaken in relation to a number of war memorials across the State. That shows that the definition is operating as intended.

The Opposition's bill also proposes to significantly increase the maximum penalties for the offences in section 8. The New South Wales Government does not support that, as the offences largely capture lower level antisocial behaviour, often committed by young persons or persons experiencing socio-economic disadvantage or homelessness. The New South Wales Government considers that it is far more appropriate to increase the maximum penalty for the Crimes Act property damage offence when a war memorial is involved. That offence is intended to capture more serious damage and will act as a strong deterrent to the community.

Finally, the Opposition's bill will remove the court's ability to impose a community service order instead of a fine and will introduce what is essentially a compulsory compensation order. This is inappropriate as it limits the sentencing options for the court with no justification and limits judicial discretion by placing a requirement on a court to make a compensation order unless it finds special circumstances exist. The measure both removes an important sentencing option that can have obvious community benefits—being a community service order—and has the potential to disproportionately impact young people and people experiencing socio‑economic disadvantage through the imposition of essentially mandatory compensation orders, regardless of a person's ability to pay or the circumstances of their offending.

I now turn to the detail of the bill. Section 195 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act currently contains the offence of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property. It is punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. Schedule 1 to the bill amends section 195 by introducing new section 195 (1AA), which is a new offence prohibiting a person from intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another person, where that property is a war memorial. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for seven years, which is essentially an aggravated version of the offence against section 195 (1). The bill also introduces new section 195 (3), which provides that "war memorial" will have the same definition as it does in section 8 of the Summary Offences Act 1988.

As previously mentioned, section 8 (2) of the Summary Offences Act prohibits wilfully damaging or defacing a protected place, which includes a war memorial, and section 8 (3) prohibits committing a nuisance or indecent act in, or in connection with, a war memorial or interment site. Schedule 2 to the bill inserts new subsection (3B) into section 8, which will allow the court to order a person who is convicted of an offence under that section in relation to a war memorial to pay to the person who has control or management of the war memorial compensation of up to $4,400 for damage or defacement of the war memorial, or for any loss incurred as a result of the offence. When those orders are made, it will mean that RSLs, councils or other community organisations will not be responsible for paying for repairs or clean-up and that cost can be passed onto the convicted person. New section 8 (3C) clarifies that compensation is available in addition to any fine or other penalty imposed for the offence.

The introduction of the compensation order into section 8 of the Summary Offences Act will not impact the court's ability to order that compensation be paid for loss under the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013. It will mean that, for lower level offending captured by section 8 of the Summary Offences Act, the Local Court will be able to use the specific compensation order in the Summary Offences Act if appropriate and, for more serious offending captured by the new aggravated property damage offence in the Crimes Act, the court will be able to order compensation under the Victims Rights and Support Act if appropriate. The bill is a reasonable and measured approach to strengthening protections for war memorials in our State. It builds on our existing protections of those critical and important community monuments. I acknowledge and thank all veterans in New South Wales and across the country. I also thank RSL NSW and the Minister for Veterans for their collaboration on the development of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Second Reading Debate

Ms ROBYN PRESTON (Hawkesbury) (15:39:00):

I am pleased to contribute to debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025, which aims to address the known frustrations caused by deliberate damage to and desecration of our sacred war memorial sites. Although the objectives of the bill are ideal in nature, it is a pity they were not supported in the previous Summary Offences Amendment (War Memorials and Other Protected Places) Bill 2025 that was introduced by the Opposition. I acknowledge the comments of the member for Prospect about that bill, which I introduced to the House. A collective and bipartisan approach to the implementation of that legislation would have protected our sacred sites much sooner. Offenders would have faced greater deterrence and a rightfully increased penalty for desecrations from as early as September this year.

The defacement of our war memorials has occurred too many times in recent years. They have included acts of graffiti, vandalism and the theft of cherished monument pieces. These acts make a mockery of, and are an explicit statement of distaste for, our communities and the laws by which we are governed. They are not accidental acts. They are done with the intention to offend, annoy and aggravate communities and veterans. We owe our veterans gratitude and commemoration for protecting the freedoms we enjoy today. I empathise with their heartbreak and disappointment at seeing individuals make a mockery of their sacrifices.

Memorials that have been the subject of these attacks include the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, the war memorial in Turramurra, and cenotaphs in Austinmer and Wollongong. Multiple monuments throughout New South Wales that were damaged have required restoration works, the costs of which were unfortunately footed by the RSLs, community groups and councils that own and manage them. Currently we penalise offenders with small fines that pale in comparison to the costs of restoring those monuments. The Opposition believes imprisonment or penalties should apply more often than community service orders if the court or prosecution deems it fit for the offence.

Amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 that increase the maximum imprisonment term from five years to seven years are sensible and will strengthen the punishment for war memorial desecration. Hopefully, that increase will be a deterrence for such actions and demonstrate the opinion that is commonly shared among Australians that to make a mockery of and cause damage to commemorative sites is deeply offensive and deserves significant penalty. The introduction of a discretionary compensation order into the Summary Offences Act is also sensible, although the Opposition will move amendments to the section at the consideration in detail stage. It is imperative that offenders pay a price for deliberate defacement of sacred, protected places that honour the lives and sacrifices of those who died for our nation.

As I mentioned, the Opposition will move amendments to the bill in order to achieve its objectives more accurately. Increasing the penalty units from 40 to 200, or from or $4,400 to $22,000, will ensure that offenders found guilty of an offence are responsible for restoration costs that come closer to the actual costs of repairs. They will not be given a mere slap on the wrist. It is sensible to automatically include a war shrine, monument or structure for the purposes of section 8 (4), which provides protection without risk of exclusion for any part of the site. On 11 September 2025 a member of The Greens in the other place contributed to debate on the bill. In opposing the bill, she said that war memorials:

… serve as a poignant reminder that we should never allow ourselves to foster, celebrate or canonise war as anything other than a crime against humanity and the planet.

To suggest that memorials aim to celebrate or canonise war is deeply offensive to our State and nation, and to our veterans and defence personnel. Further, the member said:

Vandalism can be an act of protest. It can be a form of civil disobedience aimed to provoke public debate and bring about legal or policy changes for the good. Vandalism permits powerless individuals to strike out against the institutions that control them.

That logic defies common sense. I shake my head that people consider it acceptable to trash beloved and sacred memorials. The community, veterans and serving members I talk to do not think that is an acceptable approach to take to any memorial. War memorials are sites of solemn recognition and reflection, where communities remember the price that was paid for the freedoms we enjoy in our nation. We are all here because of the price that was paid by those who went before us. War memorials are also a means of educating current and future generations, who will not experience devastating wartime, about the history of the efforts to achieve peace in our country.

Unfortunately, there are several conflicts at large, and people have the right to express their opinions about those matters. But I remind members of the upper House who spoke against the bill that those protests they mentioned are expected to be peaceful—the key word being "peaceful". Acts of vandalism that seek to enrage communities are not peaceful; hence those actions should not be swept under the rug. Such a deplorable display of opinions would not be accepted anywhere in the world, nor should it be accepted here. An increase to the penalties for those malicious acts is crucial. Acts of desecration are obviously deliberate and offenders deserve to face the full force of the law. That is why the Opposition supports the enforcement of this bill, although with amendments, which we will move at the consideration in detail stage.

Our communities devote time to commemorate the brave sacrifices made by our service men and women. It is only logical to apply protections so those commemorations can continue. The wartime service of our nation is a serious topic that deserves the utmost respect. Communities must be able to thank veterans for their sacrifice, remember their devotion, and educate current and future generations about Australian history.

Mr EDMOND ATALLA (Mount Druitt) (15:46:24):

I contribute to debate in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025, which is about respect—respect for our veterans, their families, the sacrifices that underpin our freedoms and the memorials that carry those stories into the future. War memorials stand at the heart of every community in Australia. They are not just statues or stonework; they are symbols of courage, sacrifice and collective memory. They provide spaces for reflection, commemoration and education. They ensure that future generations understand the price of freedom and the burden carried by those who served. Unfortunately, in recent times acts of vandalism and desecration have been directed at war memorials across our State. These acts are appalling and utterly disrespectful. They have caused deep offence to not only veterans and their families but also the broader community. They are an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives for our country. They are also a direct attack on our shared history and identity.

At present, protections exist under both the Crimes Act 1900 and the Summary Offences Act 1988. Section 195 of the Crimes Act contains offences relating to intentional or reckless damage or destruction of property, punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Section 8 of the Summary Offences Act makes it an offence to wilfully damage or deface a war memorial, with a maximum penalty of $4,400, and prohibits nuisance or indecent acts in connection with memorials, with a maximum penalty of $2,200. These provisions have been used to prosecute offenders in the past, but recent incidents demonstrate that those laws do not go far enough. The damage inflicted on war memorials is not just ordinary vandalism. It is aggravated by the nature of the target—places that honour our war dead and carry enormous meaning for our communities. There is a clear need to strengthen our laws to reflect the seriousness of this conduct and send a powerful message that it will not be tolerated.

The bill amends section 195 of the Crimes Act to create a new aggravated offence of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging a war memorial. The new offence will carry a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, two years more than the base property damage offence. The aggravated offence acknowledges the special significance of war memorials and ensures that those who seek to damage or destroy them face appropriately serious consequences.

The bill also amends section 8 of the Summary Offences Act to introduce a discretionary compensation order. The new provision will empower the courts, when sentencing an offender for an offence in relation to a war memorial, to order that compensation be paid to the person or organisation responsible for the memorial's care. The compensation can be up to $4,400 and will cover damage, defacement or loss caused by the offence. This is a practical reform. At present, when a memorial is damaged, local councils, RSLs or community organisations are often left to fund repairs. That is unjust. Those costs should fall squarely on the person who committed the offence. The bill ensures that the financial burden of repair is carried by the offender and not by the community. Importantly, the order will be discretionary, allowing courts to consider the circumstances of each case and the offender's capacity to pay.

The Government's approach strikes the right balance. It strengthens penalties under the Crimes Act for serious property damage involving war memorials, while keeping proportionate penalties under the Summary Offences Act for less serious conduct. By contrast, the Opposition seeks to remove judicial discretion in relation to community service and compensation orders, effectively making them mandatory. That approach is neither fair nor flexible. Courts must retain the ability to shape sentences according to the circumstances of both the offender and the offence. The Government's bill maintains that important balance.

The bill represents a clear, reasonable and proportionate strengthening of the law. It honours the sacrifice of those who served, respects the wishes of veterans and their families, and supports communities across New South Wales in preserving their memorials. To those who have served, and to the families who have borne the weight of that service, this Parliament says we will protect the places that honour you, we will safeguard your memory and we will ensure that acts of desecration against our war memorials are met with the seriousness they deserve. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MICHAEL KEMP (Oxley) (15:52:37):

I make a contribution to debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025. This country—its freedoms, its democracy—stands firm because generations of Australians stood firm. Our way of life has been hard fought for by veterans who gave their youth, their health and, in too many cases, their lives. The best State in the best country in the world owes its very identity to the courage of those who believed in something greater than themselves. Yet even to this day that courage is being disrespected, not just in memory but by physical acts of vandalism.

This has been seen in small towns right across the Oxley electorate. A soldier—the very figure cast in bronze to represent sacrifice—had his rifle snapped off just days before Anzac Day. A woman shoved it down her pants and mocked what it stood for. Another couple, fuelled by alcohol and ignorance, chipped away at the statue's base, not even a week out from our national day of remembrance. It is mindless and disgraceful, and it is not the first time. In 2020, someone drove a car straight into the same memorial, and at National Servicemen's Day at Nambucca Heads, a sacred occasion to honour the fallen, I learned that dead fish had deliberately been dumped at the cenotaph not once but multiple times in the lead-up to that day. There is a much broader conversation here about civic responsibility. Importantly, those who desecrate our war memorials dishonour Australia, our freedoms, and the families and mates who still carry the weight of war on their shoulders.

I strongly support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025 and the Opposition's proposed amendments. This legislation is more than symbolic. It puts teeth behind what our communities have been asking for: real consequences for those who show such sickening disrespect to the symbols of our sacrifice. I welcome the strengthened penalties that the Opposition proposes to put forward. The Opposition's proposed amendment to schedule 2 to the bill will amend section 8 of the Summary Offences Act. It properly defines "war memorial" in section 8 (1) to include a war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure, including a thing or area in the vicinity that forms part of that site. That means a garden, a reflection pool or any other integrated design next to the memorial is protected.

It amends section 8 (2) by increasing the maximum penalty for wilfully damaging or desecrating a protected place from 40 penalty units to 200 penalty units or imprisonment for two years, or both. It amends section 8 (3) by lifting the penalty for committing offensive or indecent acts near war memorials from 20 penalty units to 200 penalty units. It amends sections 8 (4) and (5) to give courts the flexibility to exclude certain memorials or areas via regulation while maintaining strong protection for sacred sites. The amendment also proposes to amend section 30A of the Act to allow the courts to order compensation of up to 200 penalty units, ensuring that offenders make amends unless special circumstances exist, keeping the award within the limits of civil procedure.

I had previously called for mandatory minimum sentencing for such disrespectful acts towards our war memorials. I understand that this has not gained broader support from the Parliament at this time, but I am encouraged that the spirit of that call—that these offences are serious, not petty—is reflected in the substantial increases in suggested penalties. In fact, just yesterday, the member for Newtown was complaining that someone might get into trouble for accidentally infringing upon these rights. I say to the member for Newtown that an accident is not prosecuted in our society. We cannot even get bail refused for repeat armed robbery offenders in our country towns, let alone for someone who is loitering around a memorial. That is absolutely absurd. The bill is about deliberate and wilful damage.

Aligning the new penalties with those under the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025 shows the seriousness of deliberate offending. War memorials and places of worship are both sacred spaces that represent identity, belief and sacrifice. Both deserve the full weight of the law when targeted. I speak as someone who has worn the uniform—in the Army Reserve and the Royal Australian Air Force. I served for 10 years, with three operational tours. So I do not just see a statue when I visit a war memorial. I see my mates. I see the diggers we lost in past wars. I see the parents who never saw their children come home, the children who will never know their parent's voice, their grandchildren who still lay a flower at that site, and the friends who still lay a hand on cold stone because there is nowhere else to go. That is why these places matter. This legislation matters. The freedom to speak, the freedom to vote and the freedom to disagree have made New South Wales the best State in the best country in the world. When those freedoms are etched in stone, they become part of our national story.

I want to leave members in no doubt that war memorials are absolutely sacred. They are not just concrete and brass; they are the heartbeat of our collective memory. They are the reason we are free to speak our minds, vote in this Parliament and live in this beautiful country free of tyrants. When someone chooses to damage a war memorial, they are not just committing an act of vandalism; they are desecrating a national symbol: the memory of our fallen. The bill is a strong step forward, but I remain committed to pushing even further in the future, if necessary, to ensure these offences are met with the full measure of justice they deserve. In the best State in the best country in the world, we need to protect them. We need to respect and honour those who served. Let us make sure our laws reflect that. I commend the bill to the House. I ask the Government to support stronger penalties for desecration and disrespect of our memorials.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (WyongMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty, Minister for Gaming and Racing, Minister for Veterans, Minister for Medical Research, and Minister for the Central Coast) (15:59:14):

— I contribute to debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025. I acknowledge that the Government—the Attorney General in particular—has worked very hard with organisations such as RSL NSW to bring stronger penalties. I agree with the sentiments of the member for Oxley about the importance of war memorials in New South Wales. The bill increases penalties and protections for war memorials right across the State. The bill is about doing the right thing by our veterans, many of whom paid the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms we enjoy today. War memorials are not necessarily stones or plaques or honour boards. After World War II, war memorials set up by communities included facilities like community halls and swimming pools. For example, my community has the Wyong Memorial Olympic Pool.

The electorate of the member for Northern Tablelands has the Bingara Soldiers Memorial Hall. The Government intervened when the council—quite rightly, because the hall had white ants and a whole lot of other issues—was going to knock down that whole structure. We asked, "Can you look at keeping the facade?" The local veterans told us that the facade had great meaning to them because they had marched past it on so many Anzac Days. Seeing the inscriptions on the facade made a real difference to the veterans in that small community. To the council's great credit, it has kept the facade. I was there recently. The council is building a beautiful building behind it, but the historic facade will be protected. The Parliament has to acknowledge how significant those important places are in the hearts of not just our veterans and their families but also our communities.

The bill will amend section 195 of the Crimes Act to create a new offence of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging a war memorial. That is appropriate. Unfortunately, in these hot political times, people think that they can make some sort of political statement by displacing, breaking or trying to destroy a memorial. I say to those people that they are 100 per cent wrong. The legacy of our veterans is there to be respected by our community forever. The reason that people are able to protest and do the things that they want to do today is because veterans put their lives on the line. Some lost their lives, and their family members lost important people. That sacrifice must be respected by everyone, no matter their political views about what is happening in contemporary times. That sacrifice will never change. It made us the nation that we are.

When people talk about the Australian spirit, it is actually the Anzac spirit. That is where it was born. We went from being a British colony, in a sense, to our own nation, together with New Zealand. That mateship and the way that people existed together was a message back to the whole Australian community. It was a positive message that we should all adopt. The bill increases the maximum penalty from five to seven years imprisonment for intentionally or recklessly damaging a war memorial, which is appropriate. Some members in this place will say that is excessive. But if someone wilfully goes out with the purpose of destroying one of those sacred, special places, then they should expect retribution and a prison penalty. Increasing that penalty from five to seven years is appropriate and sends a very strong message to the community about the importance of those places.

The bill also amends section 8 of the Summary Offences Act to introduce a discretionary compensation order. That provision will allow the court to order a person who is convicted of an offence under section 8 in relation to a war memorial to pay the person who has control or management of the war memorial compensation for damage or defacement to the war memorial, or a loss incurred, as a result of the offence. A compensation order can be made in addition to any criminal penalty imposed in relation to the offence. When those compensation orders are made, it will mean that RSLs, councils or other community organisations will not be responsible for paying for repairs or clean‑up, and that cost can be passed on to the convicted person.

That change comes off the back of calls from members of RSL NSW sub-branches. The Ourimbah‑Lisarow Sub-Branch passed a motion at the most recent State congress calling for enhanced protection of recognised war memorials, including memorial parks, and their recognition as sacred sites. It also called for punishments to be more appropriate for the offence of vandalism of those sites by increasing the penalties, and for specific powers to be granted for the making of suitable reparation orders requiring convicted offenders to meet the cost of restoration and remediation following acts of vandalism. The bill will accomplish that. It addresses all the parts of that motion. It is about listening to concerns and then Parliament acting to put those changes into force.

I have a very good relationship with the sub-branches. I meet with them often and I listen to all their different issues. Those issues are wide and varied because our veteran organisations extend from the very elderly through to younger veterans, who have differing needs. The Parliament must recognise that those needs are not always the same, but they are all important. The royal commission into veteran suicide certainly demonstrated that when governments—at the Federal level in particular—do not engage proper systems, it is to the detriment of veterans and their families.

The New South Wales Government understands that not all memorials are the same. Many are over 100 years old and require proper care and maintenance. Damage to those memorials can require dedicated and specialist care to repair, often at great expense. The inclusion of compensation orders should help to alleviate the financial burden on community groups, councils and RSL sub-branches. I hope that it will also act as a deterrent to those idiots—excuse the terminology—who somehow think that they are sending a message. I do not know to whom they are trying to get a point across, but there are many better ways of doing that. I assure them that attacking the honour and sacrifice of our veterans is not the way to get public support. Anyone who wants to defend that is really on the wrong track.

Members in this place are well aware of that. They attend their local dawn service or Anzac Day service. Some members in the city will be able to go to the Remembrance Day services that are coming up. The crowds are huge. The public supports our veterans and looks very sternly at those who would act to destroy war memorials. I will not say much more. This legislation meets the requests in the motion passed by the RSL NSW sub‑branches. It increases the penalties, and those penalties are proportionate. I know that some people always want more. However, as I said, we have to make sure that the penalties are proportionate. I think that the penalty of seven years jail and compensation sends a really strong message to those who would try to do the wrong thing.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) (16:09:25):

Across New South Wales, from the smallest country hamlet to the heart of Sydney, there stand memorials to courage and sacrifice, to the men and women who gave everything for our freedom. These are not mere monuments of granite and bronze. They are sacred places, repositories of our collective gratitude and symbols of a solemn promise that we would remember them. As I said yesterday during debate on the Anzac Memorial Bill 2025, when someone defaces, desecrates or damages a war memorial, they do not just vandalise property. They violate that promise. They spit on the memory of those who served, and they insult the grief of every family who has stood before those names etched in marble. That remains as true today as it was yesterday. And it is precisely why the Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025 is so important. It seeks to send a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated.

For the first time, this legislation explicitly makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage a war memorial. The penalty, up to seven years imprisonment, is an appropriate reflection of the seriousness of the act. The bill will also empower courts to order offenders to pay compensation up to $4,400 to those responsible for maintaining the memorial. That is an important principle, that those who damage sacred ground should bear the cost of restoring it. However, as I said during the debate yesterday, the community rightly questions whether a $4,400 cap truly meets the expectation of justice or the cost of restoration. For some memorials, particularly those of major State or national significance, repair can run well beyond that figure. It is, therefore, worthwhile for this Parliament to consider whether this amount is too modest to act as either a sufficient deterrent or a full restitution of loss.

Nonetheless, this bill is a step forward. It rightly elevates such conduct from the realm of minor offences to one of genuine moral and criminal seriousness. But, as I said yesterday, the real feature of our laws is not in the penalties they impose but in the values they uphold. Our veterans and their families expect moral clarity. They expect that, when Parliament speaks on issues of remembrance, it does so with one voice that is firm, respectful and resolute. This bill largely achieves that much. It reinforces the truth that remembrance must be protected not only in ceremony but in law. Accordingly, I support the Opposition amendments circulated by the member for Hawkesbury that will strengthen this bill and ensure that the penalties and restitution provisions reflect the seriousness with which the community regards offences against our war memorials.

This is not about partisanship; it is about principle. It is about honouring those who fought and died under our flag and ensuring that the sites of their remembrance remain inviolate. The community expects nothing less. Veterans demand nothing less. And this Parliament should deliver nothing less. This is not about retribution; it is about reverence. It is about saying, with one voice, that we will defend the dignity of those who defended us. For, when we protect these memorials, we protect more than granite and bronze. We protect the soul of our nation and the communities who make up that nation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DAVID MEHAN (The Entrance) (16:13:42):

On 14 July 2024 the Ourimbah-Lisarow sub-branch of the Returned and Services League of Australia passed the following motion:

That this Sub-Branch requests RSL NSW, through the Central Coast District Council, to write to the NSW Minister for Veterans Affairs the Hon David Harris, requesting the NSW Government to introduce into the NSW Parliament a bill for an Act to enhance the protection of recognised War Memorials including Memorial parks and have them recognised as Sacred sites with a view to introduce punishments more appropriate to the offence of Vandalism of those sites by increasing the penalties for offences under s8 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) to a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units ($11,000) and a term of imprisonment of up to six months, along with the granting of specific powers for the making of suitable reparation orders requiring convicted offenders to meet the cost of restoration and remediation following acts of vandalism and/or desecration of recognised War Memorials.

That motion was passed unanimously, I remember. It went on to be endorsed by the State council the Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025 is the result. I am a member of the Ourimbah‑Lisarow sub-branch. I acknowledge my colleagues in the sub-branch, including our president, Richard Douglas; our hardworking secretary, Ian Turpin; our treasurer, Geoff Talbot; and our vice-president, Howard Bell, OAM.

Under amendments to the Crimes Act, the bill will make it an offence to intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage property that is a war memorial, with a maximum penalty of imprisonment of seven years. There are also amendments to the Summary Offences Act to authorise the court to order a person convicted of an offence of damaging or defacing a protected place that is a war memorial to pay compensation to the person who has control or management of the war memorial. The compensation that may be ordered is for the damage or defacement caused by or a loss incurred as a result of the offence. It cannot be more than $4,400 and is in addition to any other fine or penalty imposed for the offence.

Our war memorials have a special place in the social fabric of this country. Many people have referred to them as sacred places and hold the view that our commemorations of important military anniversaries, the pre‑eminent being Anzac Day, along with Remembrance Day and various dates commemorating the ends of wars that Australian soldiers had participated in, are part of a secular religion that this country unites around. It is hard to argue with that when you attend a service in my electorate of The Entrance on Anzac Day morning. There you will see hundreds attend to pay their respects and acknowledge the service of all those who have represented their nation in times of conflict, as well as in times of peacekeeping, to protect our borders but also to reflect Australia's position in the world and Australia's values more widely.

This bill will deliver on the request made by RSL members in this State. I commend the Attorney General and his department for the work they have done in putting the bill together. I appreciate that some members of this place will say that the bill should go further, the penalty should be higher and the threshold for the proving of the criminal act should be different. Then there are those who say that war memorials reflect some sort of glorification of war. I think that the bill strikes an appropriate balance that reflects the attitudes of the community, who say, by and large, that we respect our war memorials, and those who do not respect our war memorials will be appropriately dealt with. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr HUGH McDERMOTT (Prospect) (16:18:59):

On behalf of Mr Michael Daley: In reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (War Memorial Offences) Bill 2025, including the member for Hawkesbury and the member for Wyong. I also thank and acknowledge the member for Oxley and the member for Lane Cove for their contributions and for their service. They are both veterans of overseas service with our military, and that should be noted. Many other members of this Parliament have family members who have served or served themselves. As we discuss memorials, we are overlooked in this Chamber by a memorial dedicated to a former member for Armidale and a former member for Willoughby who were killed in the first days at Gallipoli.

Memorials are extremely important to those of us who have personally served, including me, as well as to our family members. I have family who served in World War II in North Africa and Kokoda. I had an uncle and a stepfather in Korea, and the same uncle and an older brother served a number of tours in Vietnam. We all remember what happened to our war memorials in the post-Vietnam War period. The sore remains among many veterans, and we must always remember how sacred memorials are, whether they are on display in the Legislative Assembly or present in our communities. Too many men and women made the ultimate sacrifice for our democracy and freedom. That should always be remembered and protected.

The bill contains important amendments that demonstrate this Government's commitment towards protecting our war memorials, sending a strong message that New South Wales takes damage to those places very seriously. There have been a number of incidents recently in which our war memorials were deliberately and disrespectfully damaged. The reforms in this bill will make sure that serious damage to war memorials is punished appropriately, providing a strong deterrent for vandals who chose to damage or destroy iconic pieces of our history and identity. I briefly address some of the matters raised by members during debate on the bill. The member for Hawkesbury criticised the Government for not supporting the Opposition's Summary Offences Amendment (War Memorials and Other Protected Places) Bill 2025 and introducing its own bill to protect war memorials. The member has flagged that the Opposition will introduce amendments that, in essence, reflect the Opposition's bill introduced by the member for Hawkesbury. Those amendments have already been introduced in the other place and were opposed by the Government.

Government members have outlined our reasons for not supporting the Opposition's bill on three occasions, and we could not have been any clearer. The amendments proposed in the Opposition's bill were the wrong approach. They sought to introduce unnecessary amendments, limit judicial discretion, and had the potential to disproportionately impact young people and those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage. The second reading speech on the Government's bill outlined in some detail our issues with the Opposition's bill. I do not intend to repeat everything that was said, having said it twice in this place and it having been said in the other place. We are disappointed that, on this important issue, the Opposition has failed to reflect on the real and substantive legal and practical issues with the measures that it proposes. The member for Lane Cove made comments as to why the compensation order is limited to $4,400.

The Government's bill amends the Summary Offences Act to allow courts to order a person who is convicted of damaging or desecrating a war memorial to pay up to $4,400 in compensation to those responsible for maintaining the memorials. The provision is modelled on a similar compensation provision in the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act. Under that Act, a court that convicts a person of an offence under the Anzac Memorial by-laws may order the person to pay up to $4,400 towards the repair or restoration of any damage caused. This amendment will ensure that this specific compensation provision applies to all war memorials in the State, not just the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park.

A similar compensation order provision in the Graffiti Control Act applies to graffiti offences. It allows the court to order a person convicted of an offence under that Act to pay up to $2,200 towards the cost of repairing or restoring any damage caused by their conduct. The compensation order proposed in this bill is higher than the compensation order available under the Graffiti Control Act, in recognition of the seriousness of damaging or desecrating war memorials and the harm caused by such conduct to veterans in the community. In conclusion, the Government's bill is a reasonable and measured approach to strengthening protections for war memorials in our State. It builds on our existing protections of those critical and important community monuments. I acknowledge and thank all veterans in New South Wales and across the country for their service. I commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration in detail requested by Ms Robyn Preston.

Consideration in Detail

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

By leave: I will deal with the bill in one group of clauses and schedules. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to.

Ms ROBYN PRESTON (Hawkesbury) (16:26:08):

I move Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025‑254:

Damaging or desecrating protected places

No. 1

Page 4, Schedule 2, lines 3–11. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—

[1]Section 8 Damaging or desecrating protected places

war memorial

Omit section 8(1), definition of , paragraph (b). Insert instead—

(b)subject to subsection (4), a war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place, and includes a thing or area in the vicinity of, and that forms part of the site of, the war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place.

Examples

— a garden, pool or other integrated design that is in the vicinity of, and forms part of the site of, a war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place

[2]Section 8(2), penalty

Omit "40 penalty units".

Insert instead "200 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both".

[3]Section 8(3), penalty

Omit "20 penalty units".

Insert instead "200 penalty units".

[4]Section 8(4) and (5)

Omit section 8(4). Insert instead—

war memorial

(4)The regulations may exclude a war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place from subsection (1), definition of , paragraph (b).

(5)A regulation under subsection (4) may be made by reference to one or both of the following—

(a)a specified war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place,

(b)a specified thing or area in its vicinity.

[5]Section 30A Compensation

Omit "20 penalty units" from section 30A(1). Insert instead "200 penalty units".

[6]Section 30A(1A) and (1B)

Insert after section 30A(1)—

(1A)An order requiring an amount to be paid under subsection (1) must be made unless the court is satisfied special circumstances exist.

Civil Procedure Act 2005

(1B)The court may not make an order under subsection (1) for the payment of an amount that exceeds the amount for which an order may be made by the court when exercising jurisdiction under the .

The Opposition amendment seeks to clarify several elements with an overall objective to remove any ambiguity from offences and prevent potential legal loopholes that enable offenders to commit deplorable acts of defacement without significant penalty. The definition of "war memorial" should be inclusive of shrines, monuments and other significant structures of protected sites. Incidents will likely differ, and discretion of courts and law enforcement officials can be used to ensure that suitable penalties are applied to corresponding incidents of defacement. Our amendment also seeks to increase the financial penalties for desecration so that the resulting figure is more likely to cover expected costs of desecration. The purpose of this penalty is for it to be more than a financial slap on the wrist for offenders and to cover the cost of damage inflicted.

The amendment proposes an increase from the maximum of 40 penalty units, equating to $4,400, to 200 penalty units. That equates to a penalty up to a maximum of $22,000. As evident in the most recent act of desecration at the Anzac Memorial, costs for repairs are set to exceed $20,000. The Government's proposed maximum of 40 penalty units, or $4,400, does not even cover half of that cost. Interestingly, during debate on the Anzac Memorial Bill 2025, the Minister said that the taxpayer would not take on that cost or burden because it was covered by insurance. Most other war memorials around New South Wales do not have the luxury of insurance. Thank goodness that the mightiness and significance of the Anzac Memorial allows that luxury, as a fine of $4,400 would not cover those costs. It is an inadequate penalty, and it will result in the remaining cost being footed by the taxpayer or by an alternative source, invalidating the objective of a compensation fine entirely for every other war memorial in this State.

The two private members' bills that the Opposition presented to the Fifty-Eighth Parliament aimed to offer greater protection of war memorials. We participate in debate in this Chamber today to continue that work. The Government had no intention of making changes until the Coalition raised this issue. I was at the last RSL State conference, where our veterans and our sub-branch members talked about, in particular, the desecration of war memorials and the horrid emotions that raised. They felt indignance and disrespect as a result of anyone who desecrated them.

The members at that State conference were going to put up a motion, but they said, "No, leave it—the member for Hawkesbury, the shadow Minister for Veterans, has put forward a bill in Parliament." That was their position when the private member's bill on this case was put forward by myself and the Opposition, twice. We are not here today because the Government thought this is a good idea but because they twice had an opportunity and 48 members of Parliament voted down the private member's bills that the Opposition had put forward with the intention of protecting these sites.

Last week I gave a notice of motion that called on the Government to not schedule a sitting day on Remembrance Day, 11 November 2025, which it had done. I put that on a social media post which got 98,000 views. The majority of comments it received expressed that the Government was out of touch and disrespectful for scheduling a parliamentary sitting day on Remembrance Day this year. What makes it worse—and the public probably does not know this—is that the official calendar for next year also has Remembrance Day disrespected by this Labor Government, with a sitting day scheduled on 11 November 2026.

Mr David Mehan:

Point of order: I appreciate the member for Hawkesbury is agitated by this, but she has moved away from her amendment and is now talking about sitting days of Parliament. My point of order is taken under Standing Order 76, relevance to the subject matter of the debate. The member has moved to talking about sitting days of Parliament, not the amendment she is proposing. She should talk about the amendment.

Ms ROBYN PRESTON:

I am happy to be drawn back to the topic that we are debating now. It is about veterans and the sincerity of this Government. I am glad we have got to a place where we have this as a bill, and there are elements of this bill—particularly the penalties in relation to jail time—which I think are good points. But I do think that we could have gone further with the punishments and the penalties that are imposed. That is why I have moved my amendment, for which I seek the Government's support. I acknowledge any veterans or serving members that may be listening to this debate and this speech. I thank them for their service, and I pay my respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms we enjoy today.

Dr HUGH McDERMOTT (Prospect) (16:32:43):

I reply to the Opposition amendments moved by the member for Hawkesbury. But before I do that, I note that I have been in this Chamber for 10 years under a different government and not once has 11 November not been a sitting day—not once.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

Members on my left will come to order.

Dr HUGH McDERMOTT:

It always starts after the service. The service is at 11 o'clock. I am attending it this year.

Ms Felicity Wilson:

Point of order: Those opposite just said that we cannot discuss the sitting calendar while discussing this amendment. If that is their view, then I would ask the Speaker to encourage them to follow their own expectations.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

I uphold the point of order.

Mr David Harris:

To the point of order: When the Opposition raises a point, it is appropriate for the Government to reply to that particular point because it has been raised. I draw the House's attention to the fact that under the former Government, Remembrance Day in each of 2021, 2020, 2015 and 2014 was on a sitting day.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

The member for Prospect will return to the leave of the amendment.

Dr HUGH McDERMOTT:

I am going to give the Government position regarding this amendment. The New South Wales Government does not support the Opposition's amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-254. The Opposition seeks to incorporate most elements of its Summary Offences Amendment (War Memorials and Other Protected Places) Bill 2025 into this bill. I explained in the second reading speech for this bill why the New South Wales Government does not support the Opposition's bill and the flaws within it. This amendment was also negated in the other place. As it is not just the Legislative Assembly which is going to reject this amendment, it is unclear why they have been proposed yet again. Amendment No. 1 amends schedule 2  to the bill by inserting items [1] to [6]. Item [1] would amend the definition of "war memorial" in section 8 (1) of the Summary Offences Act to mean:

A war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place, and includes a thing or area in the vicinity of, and that forms part of the site of, the war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place.

It also provides examples of:

...a garden, pool or other integrated design that is in the vicinity of, and forms part of the site of, a war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place.

Item [4] would enable the regulations to exclude a war shrine, monument, statue or other similar structure or place from the definition of a war memorial. This amendment is not necessary. The current definition in the Summary Offences Act states that "war memorial":

...means a war memorial located in a public place, and (without limitation) includes—

(a)the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, Sydney—

and any other place prescribed by the regulations. This definition is intentionally broad and does not preclude things such as gardens or pools from being considered as war memorials. Whether a particular site would be considered a war memorial would depend on the specific characteristics of that site. If there is any doubt as to whether a site is a war memorial, the current definition also allows specific sites to be prescribed by regulation in order to put the status as a war memorial beyond doubt.

The appropriateness of the current definition is demonstrated by the fact that no memorials have needed to be prescribed by regulation to date, and prosecutions have been successfully undertaken in relation to offences involving war memorials across the State. This shows that the definition is operating as intended. Additionally, by expanding the definition of "war memorial" to include any thing or area within the vicinity of a shrine, monument, statue or place, the Opposition's amendment would generate uncertainty. The term "vicinity" does not have a clear legal meaning and is used rarely in offence provisions. It would lead to uncertainty as to the offence's ambit.

Items [2] and [3] would significantly increase the maximum penalties for offences in section 8. Item [2] would increase the penalty for the offence of wilfully damaging or destroying a protected place from $4,400 to $22,000 and/or two years imprisonment. Item [3] would increase the maximum penalty for the offence of committing a nuisance or indecent act in or in connection with a war memorial from $2,200 to $22,000. The New South Wales Government opposes this amendment. These offences often capture low-level antisocial behaviour committed by young persons, including attaching posters to statues, skateboarding on monuments and swimming in fountains. These offences can also capture both low-level unintended conduct engaged in by people experiencing homelessness. It is more appropriate to increase the maximum penalty for the Crimes Act property damages offence when a war memorial is involved. This offence is intended to capture more serious damage and will act as a strong deterrent.

Items [5] and [6] seek to amend the compensation order available for offences under section 8. Item [5] seeks to increase the maximum penalty of a compensation order to 200 penalty units, which is $22,000. Item [6] would introduce what is essentially a compulsory compensation order to section 30A of the Summary Offences Act. The New South Wales Government opposes that. The compensation order proposed in the bill is modelled on a similar compensation provision in the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act. Under that Act, a court that convicts a person of an offence under the Anzac Memorial by-laws may order the person to pay up to $4,400 towards the repair or restoration of any damage caused. The Opposition amendment would mean that there is a specific compensation provision applying to all war memorials in the State, not just the Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park.

Increasing the compensation order available under section 30A, which applies to all protected places that are damaged under section 8 of the Summary Offences Act, would be out of step with the compensation order available under the Anzac Memorial (Building) Act. Requiring the court to make a compensation order unless special circumstances exist encroaches on the role of the judiciary and undermines judicial discretion. That measure also has the potential to disproportionately impact young people and people experiencing socio‑economic disadvantage through the imposition of essentially mandatory compensation orders regardless of a person's ability to pay or the circumstances of the offending.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (16:40:45):

I contribute to debate on the amendment moved by the shadow Minister for Veterans, and member for Hawkesbury. The issue in this debate is whether or not the legislation is adequate to deal with the desecration of war memorials and rectification of that desecration. The work that the member for Hawkesbury has done on this is extensive. She led this reform and the Government has finally followed suit. But instead of working constructively with the Opposition to ensure that it is a robust piece of legislation, the Government has criticised and attacked the member for Hawkesbury for the work that she has done in this space.

The member for Hawkesbury has brought three bills to the House on this issue. On those three occasions, this Government has chosen to allow the bill to lapse or has told the Opposition that it would refuse to support it. It has taken a significant amount of time for the Government to decide to act and, instead of listening to the feedback from people in RSL NSW—the veterans themselves—and the evidence put forward by the member for Hawkesbury on the cost of rectification of desecration of war memorials, which is publicly available in the media, the Government is choosing to ignore and criticise the proposals put forward by the member for Hawkesbury.

The notion that rectifications should be limited to a cost of just over $4,000 ignores the fact that we are seeing impacts upon memorials across our State that could cost up to $22,000, as the member for Hawkesbury has proposed in her amendment. We all agree that war memorials are incredibly important reflections of the history of the State and nation and of those who have served before us and will continue to serve after us. When instances of vandalism occur, intentional or otherwise—low level or high level, as the member for Prospect refers to them—and rectification costs more than $4,000, will the Government come back to this House and amend its own legislation to ensure that the expense of restoring those war memorials is provided for?

We do not want to see a circumstance where the member for Hawkesbury once again has to lead on a reform agenda that this Government has lagged in addressing. We do not want our veterans and RSL sub-branches to see the desecration of war memorials across our communities, cities, villages and towns, without the ability to rectify that desecration. My concern is that the Government, in its arrogance and its failure to address this challenge, is ignoring and avoiding addressing the sensible amendment put forward by the member for Hawkesbury, who has actually done reform work in this space to ensure that we meet the needs of our veteran service, with respect and reflection.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li):

The question is that Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-254 be agreed to.

The House divided

.

Ayes37

Noes47

Majority10

Amendment negatived

.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Jason Li) (16:50:11):

The question is that clauses 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Third Reading

Dr HUGH McDERMOTT:

On behalf of Mr Michael Daley: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.