STATUTES AMENDMENT (YOUNG OFFENDERS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 October 2007. Page 1077.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (18:09): It is my pleasure to rise to indicate the Liberal Party's support for this bill. I will be the lead speaker, but not the only speaker, on this bill. I guarantee that I will not keep the house for nearly as long as I kept it on the previous bill that I had the pleasure of dealing with in this place. This bill comes to the house following the report fairly recently prepared by Monsignor David Cappo at the request of the government, and I want to spend a minute or two on that.

It was largely engendered by this so-called gang of 49 which is , I think, an inept title but one that the community at large has adopted. How do we deal with youths who do not respond to the normal processes which largely work with young people who become involved in the juvenile justice system? I say 'largely work', because the evidence given to the Juvenile Justice Select Committee (on which I served for 12 months under the chairmanship of the member for Fisher, Hon. Dr Bob Such) made it apparent that probably 98 per cent of young people never come into contact with the justice system at all. Most of the very small percentage who do, get back on the rails—if they have gone off slightly—after one tiny touch of the justice system.

However, there seem to be recidivist offenders for whom sometimes the notoriety of being a part of the Gang of 49—or various other things that might happen—becomes something of a badge of honour, so they continue to offend rather than learn the lessons that most people learn in their contact with the juvenile justice system. The vast majority of people learn the lesson pretty quickly and get back on the straight and narrow, but there is a very small number of juvenile offenders who are truly recidivist and continue to offend. Sometimes they continue to offend in the face of previous convictions. More often, they continue to offend whilst out on bail awaiting trial for the offences with which they have been charged. Clearly, something more needs to be done to deal with this issue.

As I said, the government commissioned Monsignor Cappo to prepare a report. The first thing I noticed when I read his report was that he acknowledged right at the outset the work done by the Juvenile Justice Select Committee. Strangely, he came up with 46 recommendations; the committee came up with 43 recommendations and, largely, in both cases, the report endorsed the efficacy of the existing juvenile justice system, mostly embodied in the Young Offenders Act. It really looked at ways that it might tweak that system to more appropriately deal with the problems that were evident.

Just before I go on to deal with the detail of this bill, I will say that it is clear from both the Cappo report and from the recommendations and the report of the Juvenile Justice Select Committee that the key to nearly everything will be early intervention. We need to address the problems much sooner than we have to date for those very few young people who become so engaged in criminal activities at such a young age that they not only come into contact with the juvenile justice system but end up becoming quite well versed in all of its aspects. This bill tries to address the issue of young recidivists essentially by making it possible for them to be treated as adults in an easier way than is the case at present.

In that regard I turn first to the Young Offenders Act and, in particular, section 17, which allows at the moment for young offenders to be dealt with as adults. Section 17(1) provides:

(1) Subject to this Act, the Court will deal with a charge in the same way as the Magistrates Court...

Subsection (2) provides:

(2) The Court may, even though a charge has been laid, refer the subject matter...to be dealt with by a police officer or by a family conference.

From the point of view of this legislation, the important subsection is subsection (3). It provides that, if the offence is homicide, an attempt to commit, or an assault with intent to commit homicide; if the offence is an indictable offence and the youth, after obtaining independent legal advice, asks to be dealt with in the same way as an adult; or if the court (that is, the Youth Court) or the Supreme Court determines, on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, that they should be dealt with in the same way as an adult because of the gravity of the offence or because the offence is part of a pattern of repeated offending:

the Court will conduct a preliminary examination of the charge, and may commit the youth for trial or sentence (as the case requires) to the Supreme Court or the District Court.

So, there is already clearly laid out in our statute the ability for the court, in certain circumstances, to deal with a young offender as an adult. We have not been provided with any detail as to how often that particular mechanism has been used. I would think it unlikely that it has been used very often in the case of a youth actually asking to be dealt with as an adult, although I stand to be corrected in my assumption. At this stage, we have no facts and figures before us on which to assess the usefulness of that provision. Certainly, it has been there for some time, this act having been passed in 1993, that is, 10 years before we began the juvenile justice select committee.

What happens in the proposal in the bill is that, instead of having to take an application to the Youth Court, the DPP can, in the first instance, elect to take it to the Magistrates Court. The DPP, in deciding whether to take the matter to the Magistrates Court, and the magistrate, in deciding whether or not to make that determination for further hearing of this youth and the offence as an adult, must determine whether 'the youth poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community'. In order to consider that first the DPP, and subsequently the magistrate, has to consider five factors, which mostly concern prior behaviour and recidivism. These factors are set out in new section 15A to be inserted by this bill into the Young Offenders Act.

The factors are: the gravity of the offence with which the youth is to be charged (that is, not restricted to indictable offences, homicide, or attempted homicide, as is the case at present); if it is part of a pattern of repeated offences, that fact and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence; the degree to which the youth has previously complied with undertakings or bail agreements; if the youth has been previously detained, his behaviour whilst so detained and any rehabilitation; and, lastly, if the youth has previously been released on licence, his compliance with the terms of the licence.

The new provision will sit alongside the existing provision. It is not intended to change the existing provision, but it makes the step a more direct one for the DPP. I am indebted to the minister's adviser for notifying me that the original advice I received in relation to the effect of this was wrong. I had thought that the danger of this provision was that a youth, who was subject to a consideration by the DPP and for whom an application under this new provision was made to the Magistrates Court, would at that point lose the anonymity that usually attaches to a young offender. I am advised that the provisions of section 63C of the Young Offenders Act will still be in place. Therefore, even if the DPP makes application to the Magistrates Court directly, relying on new section 15A, it will not involve the identity of the youth being made known at that stage. So, that really overcomes my only concern with that part of the bill.

Part 2 of the bill amends the provisions concerning aggravated offences, which appear in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. One of the factors that already exists in relation to aggravation is that it is an aggravation to commit an offence in company with another person. Of course, the effect of an aggravation provision is that, if someone commits an offence without an aggravating factor, there will be a certain maximum penalty. If they commit it with an aggravating factor present, that maximum penalty may be increased. In his second reading explanation, the minister gave the example of committing a robbery, where the current maximum penalty is 15 years. However, if it is committed in company (which is already an aggravating offence), that 15-year maximum increases to life imprisonment. So, there is a significant increase if an offence is committed with an aggravating circumstance attached.

As I said, it is quite clear that the legislation already allows for the committing of an offence in company to be an aggravating factor. What the amendment does is make clear that 'in company' can and does include being in company with a child or a person under the age of 18. I do not believe, in fact, that that amendment actually changes the law; it simply clarifies and puts beyond doubt the question of whether one is in company with a person and thus, subject to that aggravating condition that already exists, if one is in company with a juvenile.

One of the reasons behind this, of course—and I think Monsignor Cappo referred to it in his report and, from memory, the juvenile justice committee also referred to it—is that there are those in the community who deliberately engage with young people in the commission of offences on the basis that they take the view that the young person is less likely to face significant consequences if they are caught, so they do exactly what this is trying to stop them from doing, that is, they engage with these young people for the specific purpose of getting them to become involved in criminal activity.

Then there are others who are not necessarily engaging the young people in criminal activity, but are nevertheless presenting a role model which is completely inappropriate by engaging in criminal activity in the presence of these people. As I said, the second provision simply puts the matter of a child as capable of being within the term 'in company with another person' beyond any doubt so that, for the future, there will not be a question about it.

The third thing that the bill does is amend the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act to ensure that any child witnessing a crime is a factor to be considered in sentencing. Under section 10(1) of the existing Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act, the impact on a victim, including a child victim, is already taken into account. But this new section requires that we take into account the impact on any child. You might have a child who is a child of an offender, or any number of other circumstances, and that fact has to be taken into account.

Even if the child is not a victim, if a child witnesses a criminal act then that will be taken into account in sentencing. It is worded in a slightly odd way. It talks about taking into account the impact on any child other than a victim. There is a technical reason for that. It is simply that, already in the other provision to which I referred, we are taking into account a child victim; so, it is to stop that child victim being counted twice and being a factor twice.

They are the three amendments, basically, that this bill puts in place. I think the government is guilty of having delayed unreasonably any response to the Juvenile Justice Select Committee, which as I said, came up with 43 recommendations, which Monsignor Cappo himself in his report indicated that he relied upon heavily in reaching his own conclusions. That report was initiated by the member for Fisher in 2003 at basically the 10 year anniversary of our young offenders legislation and our system of juvenile justice as we currently know it in this state. The committee then spent 12 months hearing evidence, and worked very hard and I think very well in coming to some conclusions about the juvenile justice system and its operation in this state.

It made several recommendations—43 in all—but, in particular it made some recommendations to the Attorney-General whilst it was still sitting, because it considered certain things were so urgent that they should be attended to. Yet, a year later the government failed to respond to the report. In fact, it was over a year later in about July 2005 that we finally brought down the report of the committee, having taken evidence for 12 months and having discussed and debated the terms of our recommendations for several months.

For more than two years this government sat and did nothing in response to what I think was a very significant report of this parliament, and then decided to excuse itself by engaging Monsignor Cappo to do another report which relied heavily on our work. Then they came out and said, 'We are urgently responding to the recommendations of Monsignor Cappo'.

Whilst supporting the bill, I do express some reservation with the concept of general deterrence that we seem to see increasingly in our sentencing provisions. Of course, there is already in our sentencing legislation a facility for taking into account the need for general deterrence in sentencing. However, there is the danger that you end up with a situation (which I know does not concern the Attorney, anyway) where people are not equal before the law and where people can have exactly the same offence before exactly the same magistrate theoretically, yet might get very different outcomes if the magistrate is minded to make an example of someone.

That is the nature of general deterrence; that is, there is a concept that the person presiding over the case can decide that it is necessary for that person to be held up as an example of the consequences of not obeying the law. I think that is sometimes legitimate, but I do think we need to keep in the top of our mind the need to ensure that people are treated fairly and there should not be cause for someone to complain that they were treated very much different from someone else.

Lastly, I refer quickly to what I think we need to keep in the top of our mind when dealing with young offenders. For that purpose, I refer to the very beginning of the Young Offenders Act 1993. In section 3 of that act, under the heading 'Objects and Statutory Principles', it is important for us to keep in mind that the object of this act is 'to secure for youths who offend against the criminal law the care, correction and guidance necessary for their development into responsible and useful members of the community and the proper realisation of their potential'. I just wanted to remind the house that that is the opening statement, as it were, of our young offenders legislation.

I think sometimes we become consumed with how to deal with a very small number of young people and we forget that most of them are actually chronic over-achievers these days. They are far more serious about their studies and their work and all that sort of thing than most of us ever were at the same age. I do think that we need to bear in mind that most of them are reasonable people who get back on track pretty quickly. We do have a problem at the moment with a few recidivist offenders and we do need to think hard about how best to deal with them, so we are happy to support the government and we hope that this will have some effect in curtailing the recidivist tendencies of a number of young people, but without unduly damaging the prospects of others.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (18:31): I wish to speak briefly on this measure and to relate the comments back to how they probably affect my community of Goyder, which is made up predominantly of older people. I note that when I was doorknocking last year, prior to the election, I did not doorknock quite as many homes as the Attorney-General, but 7,000—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Very thorough, no doubt.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, I did. It is amazing, though, that in just about every street that I visited, issues such as safety within their homes and within their community were of concern to the older members of my community. The member for Heysen has talked about the fact that 98 per cent of young people do the right thing. I like to think it is actually higher than that; it would be an absolutely minimal number of people who are repeat offenders, and they are the people that this bill is targeting. However, it is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed.

The main concerns of the people to whom I spoke in Goyder last year related to hoon drivers, vandalism and break-ins because it affects their degree of personal safety. One lady I talked to in Kadina told me about a neighbour of hers who she is fairly sure had a heart attack because of the repeat efforts of hoon drivers. The degree of stress caused to them by that hoon driving caused one man to actually have a heart attack. Thankfully, he recovered from it, but if it can affect anyone in that way it is important that we do something about it.

I understand that it is not just the so-called Gang of 49 that this bill relates to; it relates to any area across the state in which there are repeat offenders. A few months ago I was at a service station within my electorate refuelling my car when a young man, who I would consider to be a repeat offender locally (and I did not know who it was) did a wheelie approaching the Mobil service station, pulled in and did another wheelie. I looked at him all the time as he drove up, and when he got out of the car he abused me for five minutes in such a way that I have never experienced in my whole life.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Not even in here!

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is tame compared to what I copped there. My wife was with me. It is an area of concern for me because this person, who is about 17, knew who I was and he certainly knew what my profession is. I asked later and found out what his name was and I have spoken to the police about this young man since, as well. My concern is that my children are no longer at home any more and my wife is at home by herself far too often while my parliamentary responsibilities take me away from home, so I found it difficult to actually lay a formal complaint. I know it is a challenge for the police force out there to try to ensure the safety of the community.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: He will be voting next year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: He will be. I do not think he will vote for me, but we will see. The challenge for the police force out there, to ensure that people live in safety, is an enormous one. It is appropriate that we ensure that the laws that we frame in this place are there to protect all people. Young people who are repeat offenders deserve the full weight of the law to be thrown at them. The details that I have been able to gather from the briefing paper prepared by the shadow minister show that the move by the government is a proactive one and takes some of its recommendations from the Cappo report. I trust that when these changes do come in the safety of South Australians will be improved and people will feel much more comfortable within their homes and on the streets.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (18:35): I support the bill; and I support the comments of the shadow minister and the member for Goyder. This is a serious problem. We all noted with interest the Cappo report Breaking the Cycle with its recommendations. There are five or six factors in relation to the report which the Attorney-General said that we will address.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I have always been very interested in law and order. We have taken safety and public security for granted in days past. I am extremely concerned that there are parts of Adelaide where one cannot walk alone, even as a male.

Mrs Redmond: Especially as a male!

Mr VENNING: I have never felt threatened because I could always defend myself.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Where would that be?

Mr VENNING: There are several areas. It is a good move for the DPP to decide whether a juvenile will be judged as an adult and will be sent to the Magistrates Court rather than the Youth Court. Part of the problem is that the system works so slowly. A lot of these people know that, if they are charged, by the time the system addresses them they could be out on the street offending again. We need incentives for recidivist offenders who have no regard for the law.

This is the area in which I find most difficulty—and I am sure the Attorney-General would back me. Those in my generation respect the law. In fact, fear of the law creates boundaries for people to behave in what we call acceptable ways. The Gang of 49 could not give a fig about the law or the rights of others at any time. They are totally out of control and they have been doing it for some time. The member for Stuart has raised issues and problems at Port Augusta in this house and in our party room over many years. He has a strong point of view about how they should be dealt with. I know that the Port Augusta City Council has done certain things to address many of these problems. The problem has now moved into the city. It is a pity that a certain element is involved with this Gang of 49. That saddens me and it ought to be addressed.

Public security and safety is important. The public is demanding that we in this place do all we can to fix the problem. It will not be easy because there is no panacea for this problem.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VENNING: I have been here for 17 years and I will go when I want to go. I have learnt a few things from the member for Stuart about surviving in this place.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You have to be a street fighter.

Mr VENNING: You have to be a street fighter and you have to know where the votes are. You have to know how to count and you have to know what matters—and issues like this do matter. There is no doubt about it: people get really annoyed about matters such as this. During my time here we have dealt with housebreaking offences, and the laws that have been put in place over the years have been quite ridiculous where a person could be charged if someone broke into their house if it is self-defence. Someone could break into your house, fall over something left in the passageway and actually sue you, even though they are illegally on your premises. Some of these laws are quite draconian.

Thanks to people such as Monsignor Cappo and others, and to a smaller degree the Attorney-General and the DPP, I think we can and should address a lot of these problems. It is not easy but I certainly support the bill and I hope it goes a long way to address these problems. I think we need to do a fair bit more.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: He had some concern about it. Measures such as this are welcome. Whether they go far enough, time will tell. We have a problem and it is up to many people in the community, particularly community leaders and elders, who have to step in and say, 'It is not acceptable as it is giving our people a bad name, fix it'. In large part hopefully this will go a long way towards fixing it. I support the bill.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (18:40): I have 20 minutes this evening to address the Statutes Amendment (Young Offenders) Bill introduced in this chamber by the government. As a preliminary point I express the difficulty that Independent members face when provided with details of the legislative program at the last minute. This piece of legislation was not scheduled to be dealt with today, but earlier this week I was provided with the advice that it would be on the agenda.

Although the legislation itself is not a complete mystery to me because it has been on the table for a short time in the House of Assembly, the parliamentary Notice Paper contains some 20 pieces of legislation and, because of the sheer volume of work, one tends to simply prepare what is necessary for the week ahead. When I was advised last Friday that this would not be coming up, obviously preparation for it was put to one side. The point I make is that I have had to work quickly today, in amongst other business, to be able to make coherent remarks about the bill.

I oppose the legislation. I do not believe it is necessary or founded on the recommendations of the Breaking the Cycle report prepared by Monsignor Cappo. It is sold as legislation that carries out the recommendations of what is called the Cappo report, and I do not believe it does that. I have had contact with some organisations that have expressed their concern about the legislation. I will go through a couple of those. I am pleased to note that the Children and the Law Committee of the Law Society of South Australia has provided me with a comprehensive response to this legislation, and a lot of that needs to go on the record. It expresses clearly the concerns I have about the legislation.

I point out also that for organisations like the Law Society often not a lot of time is provided to respond to legislation when one considers the committee process. The fact that a group of lawyers voluntarily give up their time to meet once a month or as required, along with their busy practices, to come up with a comprehensive response is a big ask. However, I will cite some passages from this Law Society report, which in effect is a response to the government's legislation. The theme is the special care that needs to be taken with young offenders, because I suppose there is still hope that they will come good if they are treated in an appropriate way. It states:

We must also remember in all our discussions about serious repeat young offenders that they are a very small part of the population of young people in our community. Furthermore, offending behaviour is only one dimension of the lives of these young people. They cannot and should not been labelled as serious repeat young offenders, but rather be recognised as people with complex needs and in many cases significant disadvantage. We are concerned about the way the media has handled this issue. The committee is very concerned that because of the focus and labelling of these particular young people by the government and by the media that many of the other factors that influence their behaviour, such as child protection issues, homelessness and health issues, are not being addressed. Young people the subject of Operation Mandrake are being described as first and foremost 'a young offender; a recidivist'. The Committee is strenuously opposed to this objectification and categorisation of young people. Rather young people should be viewed for who they are.

I pause there to add my own comment. There is no debate that serious repeat offending by young offenders is a significant issue, and we need to address it. However, as is often the case with social problems, the simple legislative fix is not necessarily the answer, especially not the whole answer. So, the Law Society of South Australia there is highlighting that the environment of young offenders, particularly those who repeatedly commit serious offences, needs to be considered. Funding and programs need to be put in place to make sure that they see that they have other options.

I recall visiting South Africa many years ago. Even though the crime rate was probably less then than it is now, when I went into the townships, where tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of African people lived, it was an eye-opener to consider the choices that young people made. In a society where they were considered outcasts by the government, and officially branded so in legislation, and where there is no social welfare, the decision to join a criminal gang became a rational decision. It became the best way that they could get on in life, by taking up a life of drug dealing and stealing.

That is an extreme case, and I am not suggesting that we have anything as desperate in South Australia. However, it is illustrative of the environment that we need to create. My point is that we need to create an environment with options so that young people see that it is better for them to comply with the law and stay out of juvenile detention centres or, indeed, adult prisons. I am afraid that, due to a lack of family support, poverty, child abuse (in some cases), and their experiences of contact with police and the justice system, some young people revel in the opportunity to take an outlaw approach. The question before us is whether, in fact, this legislation will help, and I seriously doubt that it will. The Children and the Law Committee of the Law Society further stated:

Law is not the vehicle to solve social issues. It is a blunt instrument, which is often counter-productive, can produce unintended consequences, and often harms. Many of the suggestions that have been made by the Government, such as harsher penalties, mandatory penalties, and trying more young people as adults, do not give primary consideration to the best interests of the child as the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires.

The question must always be asked, to what end are these measures suggested? Simply to put these young people away from the community, 'out of circulation'? To act as a deterrent, which is against the objects of the Young Offenders Act? To be seen to take a more punitive, 'tougher' approach? Or to take the opportunity to provide therapeutic evidence based interventions in an intensive way in a secure environment?

I pause again to reflect on what is, to me, the most significant part of our current Young Offenders Act. I refer to subsection 3(1), which provides:

The object of this act is to secure for youths who offend against the criminal law the care, correction and guidance necessary for their development into responsible and useful members of the community and the proper realisation of their potential.

They are profoundly worthy and even beautiful sentiments, and they are expressed in our law. When I compare the government legislation before us to those worthy ideals, I find that the legislation fails to measure up. I find that the legislation is probably contrary to that very object. As an aside, I underline the fact that when I sought to introduce that principle of rehabilitation for adult offenders in our community in this parliament it was voted down by the Labor government just a month ago.

I note that the Children and the Law Committee of the Law Society has backed up its general statements with a careful analysis of the statistics of youth offending. Consider this fact, for example: in 2005 South Australia had the lowest number of juveniles apprehended in the past nine years, that is, recorded from 1997 to 2005. So, it is not as if we have some crisis point that needs to be headed off by this parliament with a new law. The number of cases finalised by the Youth Court has remained steady. There is nothing to suggest that things are getting out of control there.

Also, 87.4 per cent of family conferences in the Youth Court were finalised successfully, that is, all undertakings were complied with. I think that just about all members know that these family conferences involve the young offender concerned, often with their parents and often, where appropriate, coming face-to-face with the victim and being guided through to a realisation that the offending was in fact wrong. Generally, the outcome involves some sort of undertaking by the offender. It might be to clean up graffiti, or it might be to apologise and compensate a victim, and so on.

That is a very high success rate with respect to the family conferences that we conduct in the Youth Court. The implication of those figures is that, by and large, our youth justice system is working. There is a small hard core of offenders. I am aware of that, and obviously the Attorney-General, Premier Rann and the media are aware of that. But we are talking about maybe 3 per cent of the offending youth population (you could argue it is 2 per cent, you could argue it is 5 per cent), but that is a percentage of the offending youth population, which itself is a minority of the overall body of teenagers in our society.

In terms of sheer numbers, we are talking about a pretty small problem. I am aware on the other hand that the victims of a crime by a young person—perhaps a 16-year old who has smashed their window or taken their car—is not likely to be readily calmed by such statistics. Nevertheless, in the House of Assembly you expect the Attorney-General and members to work on the basis of the statistics rather than a gut emotional reaction. Unfortunately, newspapers are in the business of selling more copy, and if they can provoke a gut reaction in their readers they will do so with the way they write the story.

The Children and the Law Committee of the Law Society goes on to talk about how better support might be put in place for young people. The principle of restorative justice is stressed as an important factor in turning around the psychology of young people. The options other than legislating in this way are clearly spelt out. Just to give a little more detail, I will cite from this Law Society report in relation to the agencies which, I believe, need more funding so that they can better care for young offenders. The report states:

It is currently difficult for members of the legal profession to source services and programs for clients to undertake while matters progress through the Youth Court. The Committee is aware that CAMHS and IDSC have extremely long waiting lists, and that services offered by non-government organisations are often limited in scope due to the stringency of funding guidelines. We suggest greater resources be provided to government departments such as Families SA (Wraparound, Remand Inc, Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth and Family Services, Special Programs for Youth, Youth Adventure Recreation Services, Panyappi) and non-government agencies such as Kumangka Aboriginal Youth Service, Service to Youth Council, and OARS that have a proven track record of providing evidence based therapeutic interventions for young people at risk, young offenders and young adult offenders.

So, I am not dealing only in generalities: I am talking about specific agencies with programs that need more funding. I will not go further in detailing the response by the Law Society but, once again, I pay tribute to its thoroughness.

The Youth Affairs Council, as I understand it, is opposed to this legislation. In their correspondence with me, they have referred to the Cappo report, formally known as the Breaking the Cycle report. The Cappo report specifically deals with serious repeat offenders. Quite clearly there are provisions in this legislation that are inconsistent with recommendations of the Cappo report. I will give one example. Recommendation 7 of the Cappo report states:

That where there is serious concern that the actions of a young person are placing the community at risk, the current provisions of section 17 of the Young Offenders Act 1993, be used to try the young offender as an adult...Legislative change in this regard should only be pursued if these provisions are demonstrated to be unworkable.

I am putting to the House of Assembly that it has not been demonstrated that those provisions are unworkable. The case has not been made out for more young offenders to be tried as adults. Those young people who go to juvenile detention centres deserve that response by and large. They go there to receive care and rehabilitation, I would hope, although I am not sure that that is always the case. But the government in any case relies on a recommendation like that to justify this legislation and it is overkill.

As I am running out of time, I will not go into the Cappo report in detail but I state again that there are a number of recommendations in the Cappo report which I believe warrant spending more money on appropriate government agencies rather than treating young offenders as adults as far as the court process is concerned. We come back to the object of the Young Offenders Act, and that is to secure the care, correction and guidance necessary for youths’ development into responsible and useful members of the community and the proper realisation of their potential.

There are some serious cases which are difficult, but we find that those offenders are already sent to juvenile detention centres, often with a number of conditions about their behaviour, education and so on.

So, I would say the government has not made out the case for this legislation and it will make good headlines, and I am sure the government will seek to use my speech against me in some way in the community. But, above all, our care should be for the young people and potential victims of offenders, whether young or otherwise. I am not sure that locking up people without the addition of resources for rehabilitation and restorative justice is going to achieve the objectives stated by the government.

Debate adjourned.