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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 661 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

Behind the community policing model we had, which Mr Rugendyke is fighting so hard to reintroduce, was the interventionist model. Mr Rugendyke is saying, "Before the full weight of the law comes down on these kids, I am going to take them out the back and have a little chat to them, and put them on the straight and narrow". We ought to be empowering that sort of an approach. We ought to be empowering education officers from Family Services in places like Quamby. We ought to be empowering people under the Family Service Act. We are talking about eight-year-old children, not talking about eight-year-old adults. If you have ever had an eight-year-old kid, you will know that what I am trying to tell you is true.

I strongly urge the Assembly to support this legislation. It is sensible legislation put forward by a member who has been there and had a nine-year-old kid and knows in his heart what is the go with these kids. He also has compassion for these kids and does not want them subjected to the judicial system but helped by assistance programs. I urge the Assembly to support this legislation unanimously.

MR SPEAKER: Before I call Mr Rugendyke, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students from Lake Ginninderra College, who are here as part of their legislative process area of study. Welcome to your Assembly.

MR RUGENDYKE (11.10): I have had a brief discussion with the students from Lake Ginninderra College about whether or not the age of criminal responsibility should be raised from eight to 10. I do not know that the students of Lake Ginninderra College have had enough time to think deeply enough about it. I am sure it would be a good lesson for the legal studies class at some stage.

I have arrested an eight-year-old for burglary. I know full well that he was fully aware of what he was doing. His big brother put him through the bathroom window because he could fit. A six-year-old in America killed his classmate with a gun. There is some discussion about whether or not he was aware of what he was doing. Given his upbringing, that kid may well have known exactly what he was doing.

Mr Stanhope: I disagree, Dave. He could not possibly have formed the intent to kill at the age of six.

MR RUGENDYKE: Mr Stanhope might hold that view, but I might have a different view. I might have the view that the violent videos our kids watch give them the knowledge and the wherewithal about firearms and an interest in firearms and dangerous activities. Video games and the violent videos our kids see have a major impact on them.

Having said all those things, I will be supporting this Bill. I think it is important to be compassionate. It is important as Mr Hargreaves said, to offer diversionary tactics, to work with children in a way that does not put them before the court before it is necessary. Given that the ACT and Tasmania are the last jurisdictions to deal with this issue, it is important that we be in line with the rest of mainland Australia, and I will be supporting this Bill.

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