Page 4095 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
has to go through to enforce a fine, it is little wonder that it is totally cost-prohibitive. It is simply unworkable and utterly crazy. Really, what is the point of fining anyone if it cannot be enforced? It makes a mockery of the whole system.
In respect of the other proposed amendments, I have indicated already that I think community service orders are an ideal way for young people who have offended, and quite often offended seriously, to be shown the error of their ways without being put into an institution. I have highlighted the need for a maximum of 208 hours, giving a court more flexibility, for the more serious offences, than with a maximum of 104 hours. That is something the Attorney might like to talk to his department about, before we do the detail stage.
Another problem relates to section 103 of the principal Act, the mandatory reporting provisions. Mr Mark O'Neill told me, when we came up with this amendment, that, unfortunately, there are a number of child abuse cases which the Youth Advocate is simply sitting on. Really, under the current Act, there is nothing to, I suppose, force the Youth Advocate to pass them on to anyone else. There is no checking procedure, in other words.
Quite often public officials make errors. My proposed amendment in this regard, which has the full blessing of Mark O'Neill, who is an expert in this area, would provide for the Youth Advocate to be made to notify the Commissioner of Police. Both the police and the Community Advocate sit on the committee. Any instances of child abuse would come before that committee, could be discussed there and, if prosecution action is not appropriate, that can be decided by the committee.
However, if the Community Advocate does not bring any instances of child abuse to the committee, obviously nothing can be discussed. So, by making it mandatory for the Youth Advocate to pass on instances of child abuse, many of which could and should be prosecuted, because we are dealing with adults abusing children, we effectively create a checking procedure. This would mean that the chance of something going wrong - some person perhaps escaping prosecution, or perhaps, in some instances, someone being prosecuted when they should not be - can be looked at accordingly. It is a classic case of two heads being better than one, and there are real problems there which the professionals have complained about.
My final proposed amendment, which I will now highlight also, results again from complaints from practitioners and the staff who man the Children's Court and who see the sorry tragedy of kids offending and going through those courts day after day. Many cases of young people going to court might be prevented if the parents just took a little bit more time and care with regard to what their kids did.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .