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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 4330 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

at risk, the very kids who also undertake vandalism. I might add that they are not the only children who undertake vandalism. Lots of well-off children undertake vandalism. But in terms of youth at risk, we support such programs. Mr Cornwell's legislation does not seek to impede or deny targeted youth at risk programs.

Mr Stanhope is typically introducing a red herring and misrepresenting the facts when he accuses the opposition of making, through Mr Cornwell's legislation, a so-called draconian attack on all young people. That claim is offensive and divisive, but it is pretty typical of the sorts of attacks that we are now used to seeing the Chief Minister launch in the name of social justice.

This legislation protects the community. It complements a range of government strategies which aim to protect the community, educate the community and compassionately intervene to help those youth in danger of taking a pathway to vandalism and then crime. Mr Stanhope's assertion that the opposition ignores interventionist programs with youth at risk and that the opposition concentrates on so-called draconian strategies is erroneous and gratuitous. Mr Stanhope needs to recognise that compassionately intervening to help youth at risk as a social and crime preventative measure is laudable. We support that and we will do that when we get into government.

In addition, Mr Stanhope needs to recognise that his government has a responsibility to protect the community concurrently with pursuing social justice issues and intervening where needed to help youths who look to be going down a pathway to vandalism or crime, otherwise the community is going to accuse him of being soft on crime as well.

MR CORNWELL (3.43), in reply: Here we are, 11 months away from an election, and Labor, the Greens and the Democrats are already fighting over the vandal vote. Well, well, well! We should be in for an interesting 11 months.

Let me begin with Mr Stanhope, who opened the debate on this bill. There was a good deal of throwing around of legal weasel words, but what I found rather offensive was that the Attorney-General was attacking his own parliamentary counsel for the way that this legislation had been drawn up, because it was to the parliamentary counsel that I addressed a letter on 25 August in which I referred to the New South Wales legislation and said, in part, that I would like to introduce the same legislation or similar legislation in the ACT. Subsequently, I received an email with a draft of the bill attached and a statement that the bill gives effect to the policy of the New South Wales legislation, but differs in some respects to comply with the criminal code. My colleague Mr Stefaniak would understand that far more than I, but it seems a bit unreasonable that I should be attacked, or we should be attacked, simply because the parliamentary counsel were trying to follow the rules, the regulations and the law in the ACT. I would suggest that that is probably a very sensible idea. That was the advice that I got and, of course, that I followed.

It is interesting that Mr Stanhope, as Chief Minister, went on to say that legislation will not work. That is strange, because it works in the Labor state of New South Wales. If this legislation does not work-

Mr Stanhope: It doesn't work at all, Greg. Where is your evidence that it works?

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