Page 4308 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I accept that my amendment is going down on this occasion; but I think it and the concerns expressed as a result of it should be looked at, given that the Attorney, with the majority support in this house, it seems, is not prepared to entertain it or at this stage entertain the gazetting of sections 103 through to 105.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (5.02): Mr Stefaniak raised the suggestion that perhaps his amendment could be referred to the Community Law Reform Committee. I will give an undertaking that I will refer the transcript of this debate to the Community Law Reform Committee so that the ideas can be taken on board.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 36, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Proposed new clause 36A
MR STEFANIAK (5.03): I move:
Page 20, line 8, after clause 36, insert the following clause:
"36A. After section 139 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted:
Parental neglect contributing to child's offence
'139A. (1) A parent of a child shall not, by habitually neglecting to exercise due supervision, care or control of the child, contribute to the commission of an offence by the child.
Penalty: $1,000.'.".
Mr Speaker, this clause again has its genesis in discussions I have had with professionals in the area. Whilst it is not perhaps as crucially important as the fining provision, which unfortunately most members did not proceed with, it mirrors section 64 of the old Child Welfare Ordinance, which did give the court power to punish parents who, by their complete neglect of their children's welfare, basically allowed and indeed perhaps subconsciously but tacitly encouraged the commission of crimes by their children.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .