Page 1409 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I suggest you have a look at that from the scrutiny report because, in dealing with the convention, it shows quite clearly that there are circumstances wherein it is seen to be necessary, and it lays down some provisos in relation to those as well.
Mr Corbell: It does not say that at all.
MR STEFANIAK: You have a read of it.
Mr Corbell: All it says is that there is no explanation; it does not say it agrees with it.
MR STEFANIAK: Your explanatory statement does not explain why that cannot be characterised as a measure of last resort or for the shortest appropriate period of time. I would submit to you that an interim order, maybe of 24 hours—an absolute maximum under your legislation—with an absolute maximum of 14 days, may well be the shortest appropriate period of time; and certainly as a measure of last resort. I am not quite convinced by your argument there.
The fact is that there is ample evidence that young people—16 or 17-year-olds—can well be engaged in this type of activity. We already have nine acts in ACT law—at the time of the hearings we ascertained that there were eight acts—where there is provision for detention. In many of those—and I would certainly challenge the government to show me if I am wrong here—there would be provision for the detention without charge of persons under the age of 18.
Some of the acts where there is provision for detention are health acts; some are other acts; and there are domestic violence acts. There is already law in relation to people being detained—and, in some instances, that might mean people under the age of 18. This is an important area which other states and territories and the commonwealth have. It is important because recent history shows that young people may well be particularly vulnerable to enticements or inducements by fanatics and are more likely than adults—older people—to take up those enticements, for whatever reason, and be used as the foot soldiers in some lunatic’s design to inflict as much damage on our community as possible.
I see this particular amendment of mine—to put in what everyone else has—as not only ensuring that young people potentially in that situation can be detained to stop them causing mayhem among innocent men, women and children in the community but also, hopefully, by that detention to turn them around and help them. So there is a two-edged sword. I think that principle is entirely consistent with the aims of youth justice, as much as anything else, and the recognition we give to the fact that our young people might be more impressionable than older people; and that there are special needs there. In my bill, which is the New South Wales bill, and in other bills there are protections. Different types of situations are envisaged for those young people as opposed to adults, just as there are different provisions in the criminal law where young persons are convicted of offences and incarcerated in some type of custodial juvenile institution.
I again hark back to the other fundamental right which you people seem to miss so often here—that is the fundamental right of ordinary law-abiding citizens to live. You are balancing that with the fundamental right of people to liberty, even if they are on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .