Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 480 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.

I have now carefully read that convention. I fail to see how Ms Tucker can establish any breach by saying that there are children on bail placed at that shelter. Article 40 of the convention quite clearly talks about the right of every child alleged to have infringed the law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth. I have read what paragraph 3 of the article talks about, which is the need for the state to establish laws and procedures, and authorities such as the Children's Court, specifically applicable to these children, by the establishment of a minimum age for criminal proceedings and measures for dealing with children without resorting to judicial proceedings. Contrary to what Ms Tucker says, the convention does not require separate facilities for children on bail, if that is what she is on about. These are children who have actually been charged with offences and not necessarily convicted.

The small number of children on bail who were placed in the shelter were placed there primarily because of their need for care and protection, not because they were on bail. They could not have gone home, because of those issues. They were treated according to the convention, in a manner consistent with their dignity and worth. That is hardly in breach of the convention. I think it is entirely in the spirit of the convention. If they had not been sheltered at Marlow, where could they have gone? If they could not have gone home, where could they have gone? Should they have spent a night on the streets or perhaps gone to Quamby? Quite clearly, Quamby was held by the courts not to be applicable in those instances. The juvenile justice bail supervision program is very successful. It is estimated that from July 1995 bail supervision has prevented 60 young people from being held in custody. Only one out of 147 young people in the program received a custodial sentence when their matters came to court, clearly justifying their need for supervision rather than custody. Of all the young people in this program, only eight needed accommodation at Marlow.

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether I indicated this yesterday, but the courts regularly order that a child placed in care reside at the order of the director of welfare, or on occasions specifically state where a child should reside whilst on bail or whilst in care. I personally, both as a defence solicitor and as a prosecutor, have had a number of cases in which children have been remanded to that particular shelter. I am certainly aware of some court orders in the past specifically remanding children on bail to Marlow Cottage or its predecessor, Kaleen Youth Shelter.

I also started reading out the admission criteria for Marlow Cottage. It is a shelter under the provisions of the Children's Services Act and the program is obliged to accept emergency referrals from authorised persons in accordance with section 73 of the Children's Services Act, which deals with children in need of care. In addition, the program accepts referrals from Family Services workers for children who have been assessed to be in need of care under the provisions of the Children's Services Act,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .