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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3902 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

In many instances, because 10 to 15 per cent of our detainees in Quamby actually come from interstate, they will be closer to their actual homes. We have only one institution here - Quamby - and it is there to meet the wide range of needs presented by young offenders. In the Territory, we endeavour to best meet the needs of young offenders by keeping them out of Quamby, to start with, through various other options. Because of all of this, the Quamby clientele has altered somewhat over recent years. As we have endeavoured to divert younger offenders to community sentencing options, Quamby's clientele has become older and, unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, is also involved in more serious crimes. There are young people in there for very serious crimes such as armed robbery and even murder. So we are not dealing with angels, by any stretch of the imagination. There are also young people who might have committed a crime at 17, who are now serving their sentence when they are 18 or so. There are also younger offenders, aged 15 and 16. There are - not always, but on a number of occasions - some real problems in terms of how some of these offenders relate to each other and to staff.

Ms Reilly raised a number of points. Basically, she seemed to indicate that we really should be able to do everything conceivable with our one institution. I do not think one institution can possibly do that. Certainly, that is not the case in New South Wales. They have nine. I do not think any reasonable person involved in this area would expect one institution to be able to cover every conceivable need of every conceivable detainee who might come through it. We do not have a huge population. New South Wales has 20 times our population. There is eminent sense, I think, in terms of making available New South Wales institutions, where appropriate, for our young offenders. I do not think anyone really is querying whether any young offender might want to go there to be closer to family. There are other instances, though, where it is crucial, for the proper running of an institution like Quamby, for a young offender to go to a New South Wales institution that best meets everyone's needs, including those of the young offender.

Ms Reilly questions why we are bringing this on now. There is an urgency to address these issues. These are things which the Official Visitor himself has raised on a number of occasions, certainly since I have been Minister. He has raised all of these issues and certainly the issues of the over-18s and the Crimes Act, which people are accepting, but also this issue of transfer and the difficulties involved in that. The issue of the Crimes Act has been addressed, and that, obviously, will pass. The review of the children's services legislation is wide ranging. It will take a considerable time. I think it is important, as Ms Reilly says, that there is sufficient time for all parties to provide input. But it is highly unlikely, given the complexity of the issues, that that particular legislation will be passed before the latter part of next year. In the meantime, Quamby is expected to manage a wide range of young people. This is a sensible amendment which the Government is bringing on, which is in the interests of Quamby staff and other young people at Quamby and, ultimately, of the young offenders themselves.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Richard Young, the director of Quamby, is outside, should members wish to talk to him. He has advised me that in 1996 Quamby did go to court on some five occasions. This related to three people whom they were attempting to transfer to New South Wales. On each occasion, the court refused it because, I am advised,

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