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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3895 ..

MS REILLY (continuing):

By sending these children interstate for a broad number of reasons, we are to some degree abrogating our responsibility to the community to look after and take care of children in custodial institutions. We should be looking at the rehabilitation of those children so that when they finalise their sentence through Quamby they are able to participate again in a worthwhile way and obtain a quality of life within the ACT community.

One of the things that are mentioned in relation to juveniles and other people in custody is the importance of maintaining family networks and community connections. In fact, if we look at some of the issues under discussion about having an adult gaol within the ACT, these matters arise. In sending juveniles interstate, we have to consider whether they will lose the family connections and community networks they already have within the ACT. One of the reasons given for transfer interstate is that parents or other important relatives are already interstate. Obviously, this is something that should be considered and would be considered by a court in looking at the transfer of a juvenile interstate in the current situation.

It is important that we do not use this responsibility being given to the Director of Family Services to transfer people interstate simply because what can be provided at Quamby is not suitable for that young person. This is where one of my major concerns lies. A number of reasons for the transfer of a juvenile to one of the New South Wales juvenile institutions were given in the explanatory memorandum attached to the presentation speech. There are two aspects of that. It is not taking account of the needs of that child within the ACT and it is not taking account of anything I have seen that recognises that New South Wales juvenile institutions are so much better than what we can offer in the ACT. It would be so easy to say, "Let us send them interstate and then we will not have to look at some of the issues that are being raised by the behaviour of these young people".

One of the reasons given for New South Wales institutions being good is that there are a number of different institutions providing a number of different levels of custodial severity. Apart from the concerns about the quality of some of the New South Wales institutions - and this is probably the first time that a lot of the New South Wales custodial institutions have ever been put up as something to aim for - why can we not look at the various security and other arrangements at Quamby and try to deal with the young person within the services we have now? We can look at several aspects of it. Is there any flexibility in the infrastructure at Quamby and is there any flexibility in the way in which the staff at Quamby manage, so that different kinds of care can be provided for different young people? I would have thought that one of the basic issues in looking at juveniles within care is looking at their individual needs. If there are issues over the behaviour of a particular juvenile that might cause safety problems for either other young offenders in the institution or staff in the institution, there are ways of looking at it other than looking at an interstate transfer.

There are issues about what kinds of behaviour management programs are offered and what kinds of rehabilitation programs and counselling programs are being offered to young juveniles within the Quamby situation. You would also have to consider the programs and training being offered to staff to handle what at times are extremely difficult young people. But what it comes back to is ensuring that people that are put into juvenile detention within the ACT are basically the responsibility of the ACT. Some of the ease

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