Page 525 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
into the hands of the courts and ask the magistrates to choose between a number of what Mr Stefaniak calls competing principles.
It would seem to me that we always need to assume that the young person has the potential to have a much more positive life, to be able to contribute more positively to the community. Whilst I think that we do have some mechanisms in process that address those issues, I think it is important that it be a paramount principle from which other things follow. I do not think that that is to deny the rights of the victim or of the community, because I do not think that those things are set against each other as such. We are contributing to the community of the future by assisting a young person to become someone whose angst and whose problems are the personal damage that can be caused.
We know that there are very good opportunities if we commit ourselves to that. So I think that it is important that we do make sure that the young person accepts responsibility for the offence and that they should be encouraged to accept responsibility, but I do not think that we should allow for this principle to be given more weight than the consideration of the factors that influence the young person becoming an offender. Magistrate after magistrate tells the story of how the young person does not need to be there in front of them.
We do know that early intervention programs, supporting parents through difficult times and creating the kind of society where even people who have low incomes and poor employment prospects are still able to provide good services to their children through preschools, schooling and other facilities, are important. But our opportunity to intervene occurs when an offender comes before the courts. We do not get too many of them. We risk creating outsiders, a marginalised class of people that cannot see any reason why they cannot offend because society does not give a damn about them anyway. That was the kind of thinking behind why I put up that amendment and I am sorry that it is not going to be passed.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.22): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 607]. I have already made my case, Mr Speaker. I have no intention of speaking further on the matter.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.22): I will speak briefly to this amendment, which is related to the previous amendment moved by the Greens. I do not think there is disagreement on what Dr Foskey says about the treatment of young people in need of extra support. I think the difference of opinion exists over how you regulate that in legislation once they have offended.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .