The proposals from both sides of NSW politics will make juvenile crime worse

In New South Wales, both the ALP government and the Coalition opposition have been in love with Laura Norder for a long time. As another state election approaches, their relationship with Laura has grown into an obsessive and dangerous menage-à-trois.

Our government has recently introduced "standard minimum sentencing", setting out standard non-parole periods for a range of offences. For example, if you assault and injure a police officer you can expect to spend three years inside; for breaking, entering and stealing in company, you'll get five. These are generally much longer than the average non-parole periods currently imposed by the courts.

It's not quite mandatory minimum sentencing - judges may increase or reduce these terms after taking into account a list of mitigating or aggravating factors, and they may even impose non-custodial sentences in special circumstances. Nevertheless, it's a worrying assault on judicial independence, and an ill-conceived attempt to force courts to impose harsher sentences.

Of course, what the opposition offers is even worse. They see the list of mitigating factors as "13 excuses" for criminals to get away with their crimes - and propose compulsory minimum sentences for offences involving violence or drug trafficking. Their one concession is that it won't apply to juveniles.

Then there is the assault on bail. Driven by complaints from disgruntled cops who are sick of arresting and charging offenders, only to see them released on bail to do it all again, the police minister, Michael Costa, has decided that "repeat offenders" should lose their presumption in favour of bail.

The definition of repeat offenders is laughable - anyone who has been ever been convicted of an indictable offence or for the offence of failing to appear in court (as an adult or child), and anyone on a good behaviour bond, parole, probation, and so on. This would encompass about 90 per cent of the young people who use our service. These are not hard-core criminals, nor are they people who choose to thumb their noses at the legal system. They are often petty offenders - kids who have been caught shoplifting, mouthing off at police, or using drugs a couple of times, for example. Young people who have been abused, are homeless, have a mental illness or intellectual disability are likely to have criminal records because of their disadvantaged situation. Getting bail, while not impossible, is now more difficult.

The Opposition wants to take it one step further, and automatically deny bail to anyone charged with "first-degree" murder (whatever that is!), regardless of the strength of the evidence or the circumstances of the alleged offender.

Bail is not a special privilege. Nor should people be refused bail as a punishment for their alleged crime - that is supposed to come after guilt is established. But such niceties as the presumption of innocence and the liberty of the citizen are forgotten in this dumbed-down debate.

Our Premier has said that he will give police whatever powers they need to "make the streets safer". While increased police presence on the street undoubtedly makes many people feel safer, over-policing makes the streets decidedly unsafe for some groups of people. Young people (especially of Aboriginal, Islander, or Middle Eastern origin), drug users and street sex workers are among those who are routinely spoken to, searched, moved on, and - in some cases - hounded out of town.

An example is the practice adopted by police in Cabramatta, an area with a high incidence of illicit drug use and supply. Using "move-on" powers conferred on them by the Carr government in recent years, police give directions to people who they believe are in Cabramatta for the purpose of buying, selling or using drugs. Police give each person substantially the same direction - not to come within a 2km (sometimes 3km) radius of Cabramatta railway station for seven days.

If the person is found in Cabramatta again within the week, they will be given another warning, and next time they will be arrested and charged with disobeying a police direction. They will get bail, but only on the condition that they not return to Cabramatta. We have successfully defended a number of people in court on these charges. To be found guilty of such an offence the police direction must be reasonable in the circumstances - and the court has decided that these seven-day directions are unreasonable.

On one level this is a satisfying result, but it hasn't changed police practices. Drug users are still being hounded out of Cabramatta. From a public health point of view this policy is a disaster - it has driven many people into surrounding suburbs, where they are still using drugs but are less likely to be getting the clean needles, health care and social support that is available in Cabramatta.

Inappropriate policing of young people is also a huge problem. What is normal social interaction for young people is often branded anti-social behaviour. Politicians cynically manipulate community fears about "youth gangs" and "graffiti hooligans" to restrict young people's access to public space.

As if police move-on powers were not enough, there has been a further attempt to control where, and with whom, young people hang out. Last year the courts were given the power to impose "non-association" and "place restriction" orders on people who are dealt with for offences. This is ostensibly aimed at breaking up gangs, but is gravely misguided. Research has shown that US-style gangs are rare in this country. The few organised gangs that do operate here are far more sophisticated and are unlikely to be found hanging around on street corners. What the new laws will do is criminalise disadvantaged young and Indigenous people who commonly associate with their peers in public spaces - often because they have nowhere else to go. These are the very people that the government has previously said should be kept out of the criminal justice and prison systems.

Is there anything positive happening in our criminal justice system? Well, yes. Five years ago, the Young Offenders Act introduced a scheme of police cautioning and youth justice conferencing for juvenile offenders. It has been a great success in diverting children away from the court system, and in reducing rates of re-offending. The government should be proud of its success, so why aren't we hearing more about it? Because (to paraphrase our Attorney-General) good news doesn't sell. Because cautions and conferences are derided by some as a "soft option", which doesn't command a high price in the law-and-order auction.

Police officers have a legitimate point of view and should have a voice. So should victims and members of the public who are worried about crime.

But are any of our political leaders listening to disillusioned Legal Aid lawyers and welfare workers who work hard to get their clients a just outcome - only to have them repeatedly incarcerated for petty offences, or constantly harassed by police just for being who they are?

Is anyone listening to people who are calling for a route out of poverty, better mental-health and disability services, improved child protection and family support, a well-resourced and inclusive education system, or sensible long-term measures to deal with crime? Hello?? Is anyone there?