Page 408 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
minimised report duplication; oversight of the Public Advocate on incidents involving authorised carers; and a widened role for family group conference facilitators.
However, there are several points within the bill that are cause for concern. First, although the best interests principle is of paramount consideration for children and young people, apparently it is not of paramount consideration for children and young people who break the law. This anomaly fails to recognise that many young offenders arrive in the criminal system as a result of poor care and protection in earlier life and that the most important issue to be considered is how they can best be rehabilitated.
I acknowledge that the courts should only detain a young person as a last resort and that the rights of any victim and the interests of the community must be considered, but I think the best thing for the young offender in the community would be if paramount consideration were to be given to the young person’s rehabilitation. It seems that our young offenders are being sent too often to Quamby and that it is not being used as a sentence of last resort, as the act requires. Even the Chief Minister is worried by it. For that reason, I will be proposing during the detail stage an amendment to the young offenders principles which will put forward that consideration of the young offenders’ needs and rehabilitation is the most important criterion when making decisions about young offenders.
I understand that many of the youth detention centre standing orders, which came up in the Assembly late last year and are affected by clause 20 of this bill, are still being examined. My office has been informed that when the review is completed they will be split up into legislation, standing orders, and policies and procedures. While it seems to be taking the government longer than expected to review the orders, I acknowledge the enormity and the importance of this task and look forward to the resulting debate.
My final concern relates to the conflict between the admission of relevant evidence to court and the protection of sensitive information under the act. In favour of providing information are arguments that withholding relevant information from the courts can counter the right to a fair trial, that section 12 of the Evidence Act compels people to give evidence and if they do not they are in contempt of court, and that if someone were prosecuted under this act sensitive information could be supplied.
Arguments against the provision of information include: clause 56 (1) of the Evidence Act implies that evidence is admissible rather than compellable; sensitive information about children and young people under this act is highly private and confidential; and if someone was prosecuted under another act, sensitive information would not be supplied. This is not an easy situation to understand, but it seems that the ultimate test of what is in the best interests of the child is for magistrates to be provided with sufficient information to allow them to discern the best that can be made of a difficult situation.
I support the Children and Young People Amendment Bill 2005 (No 2) in principle, but I will be seeking to make one amendment to the young offender principles.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.44): As Mrs Burke has said, the opposition will be supporting this bill, which is the first wave of amendments in the much-needed review of the Children and Young People Act. The issues that have been touched upon by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .