Page 2058 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I know that to truly achieve the intended social justice outcomes embodied in the people of Canberra’s values we also need to think outside of our own jurisdiction. We need to be aware of the potential situation of a 12-year-old Wadigali girl sentenced to detention hundreds of kilometres away in South Australia, a 10-year-old Eora boy who could be in the police watch house in Sydney and the Yolngu mother, whose 13-year-old child could be in youth detention in Darwin. It is better if we can collectively, as a nation, move on this matter so that more children are treated equally.
However, if the medical evidence and the review that I have commissioned into our whole-of-government diversionary support services demonstrate that a movement in the age of criminal responsibility is appropriate, the next ACT government should not and will not be precluded from legislating accordingly, notwithstanding the positions of other jurisdictions. In those circumstances, I believe that the people of Canberra, the most progressive community in Australia, will, indeed, support this reform.
It is for these reasons that I commend the amendment, which notes the complexity of the considerations, carefully weighs the issues involved and makes a clear statement of principle of the values of the people of Canberra. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (11.17): I am glad that we are having this debate; it is an important one to have. I state at the outset that the Canberra Liberals are open to the concept of raising the age of criminal responsibility. As has been stated in other speeches today by Mr Rattenbury and particularly by Mr Ramsay, careful thought needs to be given before we enact this. It is clear that this is a very complex area of law and there are arguments on both sides of this debate. I certainly agree with Mr Ramsay’s point that the best outcome is a national solution. He also said that it is better if we move collectively as a nation, and I will come to that point.
The national body investigating this issue in Australia, the Council of Attorneys-General, has been looking at the matter for some time and the final report is not due until next year. That is why, although we are open to the concept and are engaged in the debate, we do not think that pre-empting the national report is the right way to go. As I said, I agree with Mr Ramsay—the best outcome is a national solution.
In the view of the Liberal opposition, it is far more important to get this right than to do it in a rushed way. As Mr Ramsay said, again, there may indeed be human rights implications of having one jurisdiction in the proximity of another separated only by kilometres where there is such a difference in law.
Mr Ramsay’s amendment says that we must ensure that the reform in this complex area engages with and enhances support services identified through the gap analysis, noting that keeping young people safe and diverting them from the justice system is a whole-of-government and whole-of-community responsibility. I agree with that, but simply changing the age of criminal responsibility is only a small part, in many ways, of a very complex puzzle, and Mr Ramsay went to that point quite well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video