Page 2441 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (4.31): In response to Minister Burch’s statement today, there are a number of, I guess, reforms that have been included in this paper. We also saw the report in the Canberra Times this morning. I just want to make some general points at this time.
In regard to parole and young people, parole is a period of supervision in the community and follows the completion of a period in detention. Probation is an order for supervision in the community. I think that these orders are available in Australian jurisdictions under a variety of names. They are intended to assist rehabilitation of the child by providing continuing guidance and support.
In relation to parole, actual levels of supervision and support provided vary. And it has been suggested that insufficient supervision is the case with regard to many child offenders across Australia. One reason for inadequate supervision is a lack of available funding for supports and services. Another is that magistrates and judges may not specify the agency responsible for supervising the child and as a consequence no agency takes responsibility for supervision.
Research is very critical of the level of supervision and guidance provided under parole orders. The system of probation and parole that is applied to children is of very little assistance, says some of the research. Children are supervised for short periods of time and supervision is often superficial. This is caused by lack of resources and is totally different to supervision of adults on probation and parole, which tends to have far more focus on it and far more attention given to it.
It is more often true than not that supervision and guidance under these orders are conspicuous by their absence. As the courts do not monitor these orders nor inquire into a subsequent matter that the child may appear about, there is no way of knowing whether supervision and guidance have been provided and at what level. The court more often than not may presume that a higher level of supervision and guidance has been provided than is actually the case.
As I said, research has suggested that to make parole and probation orders more effective, including the provision of additional resources, proper training and realistic case loads, would be an important part of enabling them to provide quality supervision and guidance to young people. And some would emphasise also that issue of the need for closer monitoring of these orders by courts.
The ACT Greens are clearly interested in providing courts and magistrates with increased options to avoid young people entering Bimberi and we are keen to have the discussions about parole options, but not if this is about tokenism. In order to make a real change in the lives of these young people, we need to break cycles of poverty, criminogenic family patterns, and make big behavioural shifts. That means we are going to have to fund this appropriately for the long term and make sure we build in accountability that allows the system of checks and balances. And that mainly makes sure young people are not falling through the cracks. It is not enough to reform a system if there is no intention of providing substance to that system. In past
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video