Page 522 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
therapeutic orders are available via the courts for children and young people, but at December 2004 they were yet to be used because there were no facilities. I am sure that many of our magistrates try to apply these principles in sentencing young offenders, but while facilities and support services are lacking their scope is limited. The Assembly should also note that to date there has been little research done into the impact that incarceration has on crime, so the effectiveness of incarceration in assisting rehabilitation remains questionable.
I acknowledge that work is being done on restorative justice and the turnaround program, but we still have a long way to go. Further, we need to see more results from these programs. The thinking behind criminal justice principles for young people has advanced, but have we advanced with it? While we know that the government are putting some effort into developing an innovative new youth detention building, I would like to receive some reassurance that they are also putting effort into developing innovative practices.
It is in no-one’s interest, least of all themselves, for young offenders to continue to offend. We have a duty of care to enable them to move on and to overcome the problems that got them there. The only question is how. My amendment seeks to improve the way we answer that question.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (11.09): Unfortunately, the Liberal opposition will be unable to support Dr Foskey’s amendments to the Children and Young People Amendment Bill 2005 (No 2). I know that my learned colleague Mr Stefaniak will be expanding on these points more than I can, but it is our belief that raising one of the principles to a level of paramountcy, which Dr Foskey is suggesting, will have a disproportionate effect on the rest of the principles in the bill.
The government’s amendments, however, bring consistency. They allow for appropriate weighting to be placed on the decisions made by magistrates. The government’s amendments to the bill have been added to the mix, I am told, to provide better scope for magistrates, and I know again that my colleague Mr Stefaniak will expand on my comments. I close by saying that I understand the essence and the spirit in which Dr Foskey puts the amendments forward. However, for the reasons that I have given, we will be unable to support those amendments.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.10): The government will not be supporting this amendment of the Greens in relation to young offenders, although I understand where Dr Foskey is coming from. Clause 4 reinforces the principle of best interests as the paramount consideration for decision makers across the act, except for decisions made in relation to young offenders, where it is one of a number of principles to be weighed and applied by the decision maker.
The strengthening of the best interests principle reflects this government’s commitment to protecting the interests, safety and wellbeing of children. The provisions are consistent with child welfare legislation in other jurisdictions that place the best interests of children as the paramount consideration. In relation to young offenders, the weighting needs to be given across a range of principles, with not one given paramountcy over the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .