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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 658 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, this is a fairly esoteric debate, because there are not any prosecutions brought against such people, or if they occur they are extremely rare. In the circumstances, the ACT Government is persuaded, on the balance of the debate on this matter, that it would be better to align the ACT with most other jurisdictions in Australia and ensure that we have consistency on our statute books in this matter.

We would be strongly opposed to a young person being prosecuted for reasons other than the administration of justice in its purest sense. I am not aware of any such cases, even with older children or adults for that matter, in the ACT. But I suppose it could be said that this was the case. Members might recall the Jamie Bolger case in Britain a few years ago. Two 10-year-olds were convicted of the murder of a toddler and were given custodial sentences. In Victoria recently a court refused bail to a 10-year-old boy who was accused of a string of serious theft charges. That boy, incidentally, had been given bail on six previous occasions and had reoffended four times. There was also the case of the six-year-old in the US in the last week who had a gun in the classroom and the gun killed a seven-year-old classmate, although it is obviously impossible to say at this distance what the circumstances of that particular matter were.

Mr Speaker, we are dealing with a matter with a live philosophical debate about it, but the issues are matters for judgment and matters for balance. I have to reject Mr Stanhope's comment, when tabling this legislation a few months ago, that the Government had been quite reprehensibly inactive on this issue and had not taken up the issue of reform in this area. Reform is not as straightforward as Mr Stanhope would suggest in the comments that he made in the presentation of his Bill. The issues are complex and they are sophisticated. It is quite wrong to suggest that there is an absolute black-and-white, lay-down misere case for amending the minimum age of criminal intent from eight to 10. That is not the case.

As I have said, despite the fact that there is not a strong argument either way, the Government believes that on the balance of the debate it is better to align the ACT with most other Australian jurisdictions - as I have said, not all follow this position - and support the legislation which is now before the house.

MR OSBORNE (10.55): I am in a similar position to that of the Government in relation to this legislation. I do not have a strong view one way or the other. A piece of legislation like oversimplifies the problem when it comes to what Mr Stanhope is attempting to do. I feel that we need to be cautious. I agree with Mr Humphries that children of today are exposed to a lot more. They are growing up a lot more quickly. There are things on TV that I will not let my children watch because of what is exposes them to. If my five-year-old watches certain shows, he seems to become more aggressive. It is sad that we are living in an environment where our children are exposed to what they are. Some people would argue that that is a good thing.

We are living in a society where younger and younger children are aware of, and are exposed to, things which force them to grow up. This legislation is not as simple as Mr Stanhope made out. I do not intend to vote against it. I just hope and pray that we are not faced with a situation in the ACT in the next few years where a child of eight or nine comes before the court or is in the spotlight for committing an offence which perhaps you could argue they should be held responsible for. I agree with Mr Humphries. I think there

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