Page 5767 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the blueprint over a period of 12 months. The task force has seven representatives from government, three from the youth and community sector, one from a private consulting firm and one from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.
While recognising the contributions these representatives can offer to the blueprint development, it is clear to me that this task force does not adequately address recommendation 4.4 of the Human Rights Commission report, which states:
The Community Services Directorate establish a Youth Justice Advisory Panel to guide the development of a statement of purpose for the youth justice system and to monitor the ongoing translation of this purpose into practice.
The government’s response that the recommendation is not agreed to because the task force comprises representatives of the government and non-government sectors with expertise in youth and youth justice highlights the government’s lack of understanding as to the complexity of the issues. This complacency about such an important and serious concern is, in part, how we got here, years after the Quamby report and years after the Lost in transition report highlighted systemic issues and weaknesses. Meanwhile, children, young people and their families are still not being provided with the best we are capable of.
On 5 December the Human Rights Commission provided the government and members of the Legislative Assembly with a copy of their comments on the government’s response. I am not aware of such comments ever being provided about a government response like this before—certainly not during my time in this place—but I welcome them.
In this document the commission provide further comments on recommendation 4.4. They suggest there is additional need for a specialist advisory panel. When recommending an advisory panel, the commission envisaged the government would engage specialists in a range of disciplines and practice areas and academics and researchers with knowledge of the evidence base for youth justice policy and programs. The commission also commented that they anticipated that this body would also be ongoing; as distinct from the task force, which we understand will only be constituted for a short time.
Again, while I acknowledge and value the contributions of the task force representatives, I do not see it currently being comprised of people with the qualifications and ability to provide expert advice as needed. I believe a youth justice advisory panel should properly sit alongside but separate to the functions of the task force. This panel should be there to offer clarification, support, advice, critical analysis and positive feedback as to best practices. This panel should be consulted with regularly to ensure that the blueprint is being developed in line with the evidence.
Considering the broad scope of the work and the time frames spoken about by the government for its implementation, it strikes me as very short sighted not to create an advisory panel that can provide valuable insight into the progress and ongoing evaluation needs over the next five years. While there appears to be provision for the task force to seek the advice of experts when needed, this does not guarantee that we will develop a world class example of a youth justice system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video