Page 361 - Week 02 - Thursday, 8 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are different search provisions provided through each of these pieces of legislation, although all apply to the one vulnerable group. The best model we have so far is that provided in the Children and Young People Amendment Bill being debated today. It states that each level of search should not be conducted unless there is suspicion and that the search must be the least intrusive search that is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances.
The Crimes Act 1900, which the AFP currently uses and will continue to use into the foreseeable future, also requires that there be reasonable grounds for suspicion, but it makes no distinction between the search provisions for a child, an adult or a young person. It also fails to require that the search is the least intrusive possible.
When it comes to corrective services being responsible for a child or young person, it must currently abide by the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005; if passed, the Corrections Management Bill 2006 will then govern the search provisions. The Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act does not restrict the powers of the chief executive with regard to searching and basically upholds current practice. Again, there is no distinction between youth and adult detainees. The Corrections Management Bill gives fairly unrestricted power to search and certainly makes no distinction between youths and adults. Finally, perhaps in 12 months time, when the revised Children and Young People Bill is passed, Corrective Services will have to abide by the Children and Young People Act.
The Crimes Act, Crimes (Sentence Administration Act) and Corrections Management Bill lay out relatively backward processes in spite of the progress the government has made with regard to the Children and Young People Act, which entitles youths to individual consideration and appropriate proportionality with quite a bit of oversight.
As well as the complexities associated with administering four different pieces of legislation in the next 12 months in relation to searching children and young people, it is an additional challenge to uphold three pieces of legislation which clearly have not been developed with consideration to the needs and rights of young people and juvenile justice.
I am disappointed that for possibly the next 12 months, until the revised Children and Young People Bill is passed, our children and young people in the ACT will continue to be subject to the search procedures I have mentioned and that the two responsible ministers between them have not thought it important enough to remedy this situation. I would like to see the minister for children and young people take this issue up with the Attorney-General and seek appropriate legislation sooner rather than later to ensure that the human rights of children and young people during searches are recognised at all times.
Finally, I would like to thank the department for its extensive and detailed briefing. I fully appreciate the effort that its officers have taken. I also appreciate the commitment of this minister to improve aspects of her portfolio like this one. We are not there yet, but we do appear to have come a long way. I will certainly be supporting this amendment bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .