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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3898 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Then we have to go back to what is actually happening and why these young people are seen to be a problem in the facility. Obviously, as Ms Reilly said, they are very non-compliant individuals. If they are locked up in Quamby, it is not surprising that they are non-compliant individuals. That is why they are in Quamby. The issue here is: How are we supporting our young people in the ACT who have got to the point where they have been locked up? If we are not able to support them, if we think that we have to export them and contract out to New South Wales, then I feel that we are failing in our fundamental responsibilities here and that we need to address these issues.

The people working in Quamby are paid to assist these young people to find a way to work constructively in society. If we export them to a facility outside the ACT, we are not going to be exporting them to a grand, wonderful institution where their needs will be addressed. It is most likely that they will be brutalised even more. If we acknowledge that we have a responsibility to take care of these young people - and I believe that we do have that responsibility - then we have to actually take the steps to ensure that services are in place. Furthermore, as I said before, I do not believe that we have actually seen that the courts cannot take into account the impact of an individual on the other residents of a facility, anyway.

The further concern I have is in relation to young offenders who are particularly at risk. The Government has said that a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody will be a consideration in the decision to transfer young people serving a custodial sentence. That recommendation says:

... where possible, an Aboriginal prisoner should be placed in an institution as close as possible to the place of residence of his or her family.

I would argue that, in the case of young people, this recommendation should not be a consideration. It is even more important that an Aboriginal offender is close to the family. I believe that this amendment is the easy way out. It is saying, "We cannot find appropriate rehabilitation and correctional programs for young offenders in the ACT; so, we will export our problems to New South Wales". It is reducing accountability.

I understand from my briefing from the Government that this particular magistrate - it is unclear which one - did suggest that it was the role of the executive arm of government to make this decision. When I sought clarification on whether that meant the bureaucracy or the Minister, once again that was not clear. I just do not think that this has been sorted out in nearly enough detail. I do not think that alternatives have been tested. We have in place a number of conventions and protocols recognising that children are a vulnerable group; for example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As the recent Ombudsman's report into the interaction between the AFP and youth in the ACT reminds us, legislation concerning the investigation of criminal offences involving children as suspects is different from legislation for the same purpose involving adults. The preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children, because of their vulnerability, need special care and protection. Article 40 asks government to:

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