Page 1406 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
assumption that, once people are detained, they are somehow criminals or terrorists. We have to be very careful to maintain that presumption of innocence.
Nonetheless, it may be that some people aged between 16 and 18 years will actually have the intention of a terrorist act, but I think we have to realise that they are children and that we do not expect them to have come to their position in a well thought out way after weighing up the pros and cons. Thus, I think they need special protection.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (5.17): As the Chief Minister has already indicated, the government does not support the amendments. The reasons for that have been well enunciated by the Chief Minister, but I think it is worth addressing this issue again just to clarify it further.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it clear that children should only be detained as a last resort. This is a fundamental human rights obligation and one that is recognised already under ACT law. Whilst I understand Dr Foskey’s argument that the provision of the opportunity to preventatively detain someone between the age of 16 and 18 under ACT provisions may be more attractive than under other legislative regimes, I still do not think that abrogates our absolute responsibility to protect children in the way that is proposed under this legislation.
It is worth making the point that the commonwealth government has not in any way indicated or given justification for what it feels is necessary in terms of children aged between 16 and 18. They have not provided any material to justify the argument that these provisions should be made available to people of that age group. As the Chief Minister quite rightly points out, what is the rationale for saying 16 is okay? Why not 15? Why not 14? Why not 13? Why not 12? Why is 16 the magical date, the magical age? The Liberal Party has not provided any justification for why 16 is the magical age.
Mr Stefaniak: Everyone else is doing it.
MR CORBELL: The only argument is that everyone else is doing it. What is the justification? Those other jurisdictions do not have justification for it either. Sixteen is not a magical age cut-off. There is only one line in the sand when it comes to determining the legal status of a child, and that is 18. That is the approach that the government is adopting.
There is no sound argument for why 16 should be the alternative. We either accept that 18 is the age at which someone becomes fully responsible for their actions or we do not. That is what this legislation does and is why the government does not support the Liberal Party’s amendments.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (5.20): Just picking up on a point made by the Chief Minister in his response to Mr Stefaniak’s amendment—which, by the way, I support—he talked about the dark history we are exercising right now with legislative changes in procedures. He is quite right. It is a dark history that this community and this country, like many other countries around the world, is facing at the moment, but it is not our fault that this dark history has emerged.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .