Page 956 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
CHILDREN'S SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
MR CORNWELL (10.45): Madam Speaker, I present the Children's Services (Amendment) Bill 1993.
Title read by Clerk.
MR CORNWELL: I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Madam Speaker, this legislation has a twofold purpose: Firstly, to endeavour to obtain reparation for vandalism to public property or private property carried out by under-age offenders; and, secondly, to make more parents more aware of the responsibilities they have for their children. The background to this legislation is that originally it was to apply only to school vandalism. While this is still the case, advice from the legislative drafting section has put to me that this legislation can be, and has been, broadened to include all forms of vandalism.
The genesis of the legislation can be found in the cost of school vandalism, as advised to me in the reply to question No. 315 of 4 January 1993 from the Attorney-General, and in correspondence of 25 March 1993 from the Minister for Education. The information provided reveals the sorry cost of anti-social behaviour in respect of our schools, with burglary, property damage and arson in 693 incidents in 1991 totalling damage of $329,260; similar categories with 881 incidents in 1991-92 totalling $266,881; and in the first seven months of 1992-93 some $165,000, including three cases of arson.
The law as it stands provides for reparation to be ordered by the court in respect of an adult offender under section 437 of the Crimes Act. Similarly, paragraph 47(1)(f) of the Children's Services Act provides for the court to seek maximum reparation of $1,000 from a child. My legislation extends this reparation to the parents of a child. Clearly, it would not serve much purpose to attempt to obtain substantially more reparation than $1,000 from an under-age person. Why, however, do we seek such reparation from parents? Very simply, while it is fashionable, I would say even mandatory, these days to speak of a person's rights, not much attention is paid to a person's responsibilities. I submit that parents do have a responsibility to and for their children. After all, only yesterday Ms Ellis said on television that she expected people to be responsible for their dogs. Why, then, should they not be responsible for their children?
This legislation is not draconian. I point out that it recognises quite clearly that some parents simply cannot control their children. Hence proposed new paragraph 62A(1)(c) provides:
Where -
... ... ...
(c) the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that a parent of the child may have contributed to the commission of the offence by a wilful and habitual failure to exercise due care and control of the child;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .