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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3316 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Indeed, it would be very hard to convince a court of that. Under these orders too, because of the nature of what is proposed here, resources will be better able to be matched to services for this very small group of young people, rather than the rather ad hoc delivery of services we had before.

They are an important part of the Bill, albeit with a very small number of the most vulnerable young people. So it is an important area of the Bill. While I can understand there are probably some in the community who still have problems with this, that does not get away from the fact that we have had 21/2 years of consultation. To take this section out of the Bill and hive it off for a further committee to look at is not the best way to go.

The services are most likely to be provided by existing providers, specifically Marymead, which has facilities. The services incorporate treatment. The cost currently, if we go into what has occurred in the past, is up to $45,000 for a period of eight weeks' care and therapy. That includes residential care, day programs and treatment. Given that members are generally agreeable that there is benefit from these orders, I am not going to go into that. But I would reiterate the stringent requirements for the orders.

The onus on the applicant for such an order is very stringent. The applicant must prove to the court firstly that the order is necessary to prevent the child or young person from behaving in a manner likely to cause physical harm to himself or herself or another child or young person. It has to be proved also that there is a planned program of treatment therapy or other services in place; that the program is likely to lead to a significant improvement in their circumstances; that the person or service providing this therapeutic protection is willing and able to implement it; also that less intrusive methods have been attempted and are insufficient. The stipulations are in clauses 232 and 233. A range of matters is stipulated there. If any one of them does not apply, then the court will not apply them.

Knowing our courts and the interest especially the Chief Magistrate has in this, I am sure that the courts will be very thorough in terms of assessing this. It is interesting in terms of people talking about resources. Clause 233(2) states:

That is a very important factor. These orders will only be used for exceptionally troubled young persons for whom less intrusive options cannot be found. Members should note that orders can only be made if these conditions are in place and indeed funding is available.

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