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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 659 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

are a number of safeguards in place already, but I accept that it would be more sensible for our legislation to be in line with legislation in the rest of the country. I hope that we are not forced to revisit this issue over time. Every time I hear mention of or think about cases like the Jamie Bolger case or in the case of the little girl in America who was shot the other day, it has a profound effect on me, being a father with young children. That it is young children committing the offences saddens me.

As I have said, I do not intend to vote against the legislation. I think the issue is far more complicated than Mr Stanhope would have us think, but on balance I will not be objecting to the legislation.

MR HARGREAVES (10.59): We all seem to be agreed on consistency with other jurisdictions. It is pretty obvious when, besides us, Tasmania is the only one out that we ought to have very good reason to be consistent with the rest of the States. I would urge members to support the legislation. If commonsense in their head does not prevail, at least let that piece prevail.

Mr Speaker, when we hear about the Bolger case and cases in America of kids shooting other kids, we have to ask ourselves whether those kids have criminal intent when they do that or whether they are victims of their environment. Are they victims of the television? Are they victims of violent comic books or other pictorial representations? Are they victims of a poor home environment where parents set no example or the worst example? I might argue that if kids are aged below 10 parents carry a much greater responsibility. Sending a nine-year-old before the judicial system abrogates our responsibility to charge the parents and the wider family for that. That should be more the case.

I agree with the Attorney-General that we are talking about a very low number of cases, certainly in the ACT, although heaven knows it could happen tomorrow. We just do not know. We hope not. We pray not. I hope that the examples we have heard about are exceptions to the rule. But we have to think about whether or not we want to continue having the possibility of kids between the ages of eight and 10 subject to the judicial system.

We should have a family services, supportive mindset about kids we think have committed crimes. The Attorney-General went to the heart of the matter - the capacity of kids to form criminal intent. I do not know how many of us have nine-year-old kids, but I have a nine-year-old grandchild, and I know that she does not have that capacity. She certainly knows right from wrong, but she would not have the faintest idea of the implications and consequences of a major criminal act.

I am also concerned that putting kids through the judicial system exposes them to a court system which is complex for adults. They do not have a clue. At 10, possibly they do, even though I have my doubts about that. I do not have any difficulty with holding a person responsible for the consequences of their actions once they have made 10, but I have some doubts if they are younger than 10.

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