Page 4382 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
When we look at the piece of legislation that has been put up by Mr Cornwell I see two conflicting areas. On the one hand there is an attempt to make people responsible for their own actions through the parents. Mr Cornwell is saying that the parents will realise that the consequence of their children's actions will come back on them and therefore they in turn will put a great deal of pressure on their children to act in a responsible way that will not hit the parents' pocket.
The Bill also provides a disincentive to parents who might otherwise feel relaxed about what their children are doing and where their children are - parents who say, "We do not care if the kid is out and mucking around on a Friday night. It is no big deal. Kids get up to that sort of nonsense". We have all heard those sorts of statements. This piece of legislation attempts to address that and put pressure on the parents so that they in turn will put pressure on the children. It sets up those two areas of disincentive.
I think the Bill really begs the question in terms of the consequence of the actions. What we really need to do in dealing with minors is to make it clear to them that the consequence of their actions in destroying property will in some way come back to them. Mr Connolly outlined what is currently happening when community service orders are made. For young people, minors, who have been involved in the destruction of property, through graffiti - a subject we have just dealt with - or in some other way, community service orders give them an understanding of the consequences of their actions and what is required to fix them. In a previous debate this morning the issue of the cost of such things was raised. When we incarcerate people our costs are rather significant. When we use things such as community service orders, I think there is a clear saving to the community as well as a - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It is 12.30 pm. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 77 as amended by temporary order.
Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 pm
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
ACTTAB - Contract with VITAB Ltd
MRS CARNELL: My question without notice is to the Deputy Chief Minister in his capacity as Minister for Sport. I refer the Minister to a meeting of senior executives of TABs from around Australia in Sydney on Monday, 6 December. Is it true that the ACTTAB was advised at the meeting that its involvement in the super-TAB link system could be in jeopardy should its recent deal with VITAB result in lost turnover for Australian TABs? What guarantee can the Minister give that there will not be any lost turnover for the TABs?
MR BERRY: The meeting to which Mrs Carnell refers was held in Sydney and was convened to discuss a range of issues related to inducements for major punters.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .