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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3903 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

the court can look only at that particular young person and not at what that young person is doing in Quamby and doing in relation to staff and other inmates there. The particular matters in those instances, Madam Deputy Speaker, related to multiple assaults on staff, multiple assaults on fellow residents and also standover tactics against young offenders.

At present, it might very well be okay in terms of an older offender - say, a 17-year-old or someone who might have actually now turned 18 but is still there serving their juvenile sentence - who is standing over, harassing and intimidating 15- and 16-year-olds. In terms of that particular offender, the programs he or she might be doing in Quamby might be fine; but what about the effect on those younger detainees who are in there? What about if that person is difficult with staff? We have actually seen this, and Mr Young is outside to talk to any members who may wish to speak to him in relation to it.

There is a real problem here. We do not bring forward legislation simply for the sake of it. Whilst we are not saying that there are a lot of people who fit into this category, there are a limited number of young people who are very difficult, who would be better served on occasions if this provision were available - it has been available in relation to adult detainees at the Remand Centre - with, I might say, as Mr Moore has conceded, more protections than there are there. It is important, I think, for everyone that this option can be exercised.

I think Ms Reilly's speech was a bit rich and a bit derogatory of the New South Wales system. She made some fairly detrimental comments in relation to some of those institutions. I think there are some institutions there which would be of great assistance to young people who would go there. I point out to her that really only in the last few years have the courts here been able to sentence young people to more than six months in Quamby. Up until the early 1990s, I think that was about the maximum penalty you could give. Invariably, for more serious offences, young persons would go to an institution in New South Wales.

So, there is a real need here, although we are not dealing with a huge lot of young offenders. We are dealing with only some; but it is important for the proper running of Quamby, and it is important especially for the other young detainees there and the staff themselves. It is a difficult situation at the best of times. I think everyone appreciates that the young people in there have some very grave difficulties. But it is unfair, I think, to those who are going through a difficult rehabilitation process to have to risk bullying and unnecessary standover tactics from a few other, often slightly older, young people when there are no real options to move those people to something that is more appropriate, not only for the actual staff and the other young people at Quamby, but ultimately for themselves as well.

Under this legislation, it is proposed that the Director of Family Services will be able to make decisions about the safety and wellbeing of individual offenders in the context of the institution into which they are placed. The responsibility extends to assessing the needs of the other inmates. So, the director must legally be in a position to make these decisions with the whole picture in mind. I also note that there is stronger scrutiny than there is in the case of the Remand Centre because of the addition of the Chief Magistrate and the Community Advocate. Given that members have passed a similar provision in relation to

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