Page 2057 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government has been quite active already in the preparatory work to enable an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is the work that has been recommended to be undertaken by the working group of the Council of Attorneys-General on the minimum age for criminal responsibility. We are doing that work and we will continue to.
We also know that there are several decisions to be made about how and when the minimum age of criminal responsibility could be raised from a policy perspective. These decisions include evidence as to what age is appropriate, with reference to cognitive capacity; whether the principle of doli incapax should be retained in any form and if so, at what stage of the process; whether the minimum age should be staggered when serious offences are involved; and whether the minimum age for responsibility ought to be different from the age at which detention can be imposed.
Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is also a values-based issue. It is a reform steeped in the understanding that incarceration of young people entrenches offending and disadvantage. Reform in this area is based on the ethics of compassionate concern for vulnerable and disadvantaged people and a commitment to breaking the cycles of poverty and disadvantage.
This government knows that the people of Canberra believe in and want progressive, evidence-based social policy. They have demonstrated this time and again. Canberrans have shown themselves to be leaders in the nation in the marriage equality vote. We have done this very clearly in relation to the Australian republic. We have spoken very clearly about the importance of territory rights; and we were, of course, the first jurisdiction in Australia to enact human rights legislation. This is simply who we are.
That is why I believe that the people of Canberra are ready for this reform to progress and to continue to progress. There is, indeed, a clear basis for a preference for a national consensus. Were the ACT to raise the age of criminal responsibility unilaterally, there is a risk that an ACT child could be held criminally responsible for certain conduct in Queanbeyan but not in Woden. I am all too aware of the human rights concerns that would arise in this situation and, accordingly, I still believe that the best outcome is a national solution.
There is another reason why the decision to raise the age requires careful thought and planning and consideration. The ACT government has an ethical obligation to help achieve consistent law as and when we can by continuing to work with the Council of Attorneys-General on this matter.
On 27 July this year, the working group of the Council of Attorneys-General on the minimum age of criminal responsibility identified the need for further work to occur to identify adequate processes and the services for children who exhibit offending behaviour. That work is taking place in advance of the working group making a recommendation to the council. I have been a very active participant in these considerations and, if beyond the election I have the privilege of being in this role in the next term of government, I assure the Assembly that I will continue to do so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video