Youth Justice Administration Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 October 2015.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:12): I am pleased to have the opportunity—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are the lead speaker?

Mr GARDNER: I am the lead speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to put some points of view in relation to the Youth Justice Administration Bill on behalf of the opposition. The opposition supports the bill. We have had some questions in relation to some aspects of it, particularly in relation to the role, function and powers of the training centre visitor. I think the minister may have some amendments that I will explore in committee, and they may well resolve all our questions; of course, if they do not we will contemplate any further amendments on the way to the Legislative Council. However, my understanding is that our issue is largely fixed or, at any rate it, can be resolved.

For the minister's interest, I am not sure for how long I am going to speak but she will have that time to prepare an answer—which she can given in her second reading response, or I can ask in committee—in relation to the Youth Justice Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Principle which, I understand, is to be established in the regulations and not in the text of the bill. I think it would be helpful, if there is a principle that has been agreed upon, as I believe there is, to have that language in the Hansard—in the second reading response preferably, or otherwise in the committee stage—so that it may be formally established on the permanent record of the parliament in the context of this debate.

The one I have seen—which I believe is the draft that is set to go forward—is, I think, one the opposition would support. I think it is useful, especially for young people of Aboriginal heritage to whom the principle would apply, and stakeholders such as the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, to have that principle established in the Hansard so that they can be comforted that, even though it is not in the formal bill, the government is able to be held to account for its application from today on.

I am pleased that we will be able to get this bill through today in the hour and 45 minutes remaining of our sittings for this week and that this matter can progress. I am assuming that the house will manage to get through the bill in an hour and 45 minutes. It is fairly significant but, for the most part, it is non-contentious, so I do not propose to dwell at great length on all the aspects in the bill. However, I will briefly traverse those and talk a little bit about the stakeholder engagement.

In December last year, the minister told parliament that she intended to introduce new legislation that captured the various provisions in youth justice under one uniform act. This bill, therefore, seeks to consolidate all the youth justice administrative functions into one concise legislative framework, while at the same time contemporising other relevant legislation to better reflect best practice, particularly in respect of children and young people in detention. It aligns legislative powers for administrative management, particularly of the youth training centres, with the Young Offenders Act 1993, while addressing gaps in existing legislation.

In relation to the youth justice Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principle, I have identified that the government has been working with stakeholders, and particularly note the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, to create the youth justice Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principle, which under the bill has to be observed while dealing with young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The principle, which the government plans to introduce in regulation, is intended to clearly outline what is expected for culturally appropriate practice. It will necessitate culturally appropriate assessment and case planning, which is inclusive of family, kinship and community in decision-making.

In relation to the new provision of the training centre visitor, it is standard protocol in national and international youth justice administration agreements that there must be an independent monitoring mechanism in places of detention. Currently, the Guardian for Children and Young People acts in this capacity via delegation instruments and administrative agreements. The new provisions will provide stronger legislative power for this function.

It is my hope that the role of the training centre visitor will be one which will both provide a mechanism whereby individual issues may be discovered through the visit of the visitor, which can be done in a manner where the visitor can visit at their will, at a time of their choosing, with or without notice to be given. So long as there is no specific immediate problem at the relevant centre that would create logistical impracticalities for an immediate visit, the visitor would in fact be the one making the call as to whether they visited at a particular time on a particular date or not. As I indicated earlier, I believe the minister has some comments and possibly some amendments in the committee stage that might deal with that.

I thank the minister's office and the public servants they have been engaging with for the professional manner in which they have dealt with my staff on the matter, because we have been exploring this for a little while. I also thank them for the briefing that I had on this, I think prior to the break in August, from memory; it was actually a fair time before the bill's introduction and the opposition is grateful for that.

While on that matter, I should note that there is a young lawyer who worked first as a volunteer, then in a relief capacity, and for the last couple of years as a part-time permanent staff member of mine called Priya Pavri. Unfortunately, from my perspective, she has taken the opportunity to chase the transitory lure of a full-time pay cheque and is going to explore her career at PwC early in the new year. She has worked very hard on this matter, as well as other youth justice matters and other portfolio matters under my responsibility, for a long time. After four years, I place on the record my gratitude to her, and I know she will have a long and successful career.

Returning to the subject of the bill which Ms Priya Pavri has been helping me with, on the Adelaide Youth Training Centre, the new bill sequentially outlines each phase of a resident in a youth detention facility. It includes various provisions which were formerly contained in regulations, including the use of safe rooms and the use of force. Other provisions now included are the education requirements for a young person in detention, prohibited treatment of residents, power to search residents, power to drug test residents and the use of sniffer dogs.

There are amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The government has introduced a number of changes to the process by which a young person can be transferred from the youth detention facility to an adult prison, and these include a ceiling age of 21 with discretionary provision for custodial placement in a youth training centre and for community supervision by the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, transfer to prison through increased reviews of custodial placement and limits on custodial placement in a youth training centre after a period in adult custody.

This is a challenging area of public policy. We understand the concerns that have been raised on a number of occasions by the Public Service Association, who represent staff members who look after and support the young offenders in our youth training centres. It is of course a natural concern for a number of them that a young offender—somebody who has committed an offence as a minor—upon attaining the age of majority, may well be physically powerful. If they are behaving in a physically threatening manner, it is only natural of course that the way in which we deal with young offenders may provide significant challenges for those officers.

I have met with a range of officers—youth workers, education workers and management, of course—at the centres, and I think there is a really strong workforce in those centres, but it can be very confronting and challenging when you have large young men, muscled young men, 18, 19 or 20 years old, who have obviously at some point committed a crime that has meant that, two or three years after they have attained the age of majority, they are still in a youth detention centre. These young men have shown a propensity or capacity to commit a significant crime of violence in the past, and they have to be dealt with by youth workers if they present a problem.

There have been incidents in recent years that have highlighted the concerns of the Public Service Association. A number of these incidents have come to public light. They have been incidents of violence by these young men against other inmates and, indeed, by these young men against staff. The way this is framed in the bill may well be the outcome that is necessary. The current situation of course requires that, effectively, there has to be an application to the court for a transfer. In this bill, there is an age limit so that people move to adult custody when they turn 21.

We will see how this works. If it does indeed resolve the issues, then we will be pleased by that. It has our support as a measure for the moment, but I am certainly open to further discussions in the future about further improvements to the legislation that may be necessary, depending on whether it works.

Further amendments, in section 16, relate to the powers of the training centre visitor and their capacity to gain access to the training centre for visitors without notice. As I identified before, there are some matters there that it would be good to have some further clarity on.

The government had some early consultation, well over a year ago, and people including the staff from the Attorney-General's Department, the Guardian for Children and Young People, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, and the Department for Education and Child Development have been identified. We have also had feedback on the bill from the South Australian Law Society, as is their wont. They provided written feedback on a previous draft of the bill, and I note that a number of their recommendations were accepted by the government and adopted in the current bill, so I am grateful to them, as we all are, for their contribution.

The people who volunteer for the Law Society work pretty hard on some of these things and I know that sometimes they wonder whether parliamentarians notice the contribution that they make. I note some comments made from time to time by the Attorney-General about his views on submissions made by the Law Society in a fairly derogatory way. I am pleased that this minister has on this occasion paid respect to the Law Society by taking on board some of their views and incorporating some of their recommendations into the bill as tabled in the house.

The Law Society is also one of the groups that queried the power of the training centre visitor and was very eager that the training centre visitor be able to visit the youth training centre unannounced, especially where they had good reason to visit without notice. For example, where a visitor might be provided with contradictory information by management and residents in relation to conditions in the training centre then it would be useful for the training centre visitor to have that power.

I was thinking about this matter in relation to some meetings that I had in Perth, I think about five or six months ago, where they had a somewhat different arrangement in relation to oversight of their custodial facilities, and they have an inspectorate which is responsible for oversight and maintaining standards in both their adult corrections facilities and their youth justice facilities.

I had the opportunity to visit the youth justice facility in Perth which is a much larger facility than we have in South Australia. I also note that of course we do have significant overrepresentation of Aboriginal young people in our training centres. It is unfortunate, it needs addressing, and it needs the constant bipartisan work of this parliament to continue addressing it.

However, I do note that Western Australia's problem is far more significant than ours in that sense, and they have such extraordinary distances, even larger than those that we face when young people come to Adelaide from the lands. In Western Australia there have been some utterly appalling cases where the system has failed to adequately manage the challenges of bringing young people or indeed adult prisoners or offenders to the city or to wherever the facility is.

The inspectorate that they have in Western Australia is significantly staffed, and it reports on all of the facilities every couple of years. They visit when they see fit, they do regular reports and they do reports into specific incidents, and it is about generating best practice as well as identifying those specific reports. That is the role that the centre visitor here in South Australia will hopefully continue to do and, in fact, enhance the opportunity for not only inspecting individual cases but also implementing best practice. By the very fact that people know that they may be visited unannounced, they will be more likely to seek out best practice; it is human behaviour. Through the reports of the training centre visitor, they will continue to be able to add value and improve the practices of the system.

I note that another concern the Law Society had was the bill's failure to include a prescribed duty of care by employees of the youth training centre to residents. While there is an assumed duty of care in the bill, the Law Society argues that there should be a coverall statement of employees duty of care in relation to the protection of residents. We are not moving amendments today but that is something that is worth further consideration.

There have been some other suggestions made by stakeholders. I think this would fall into the category of a policy matter more than something that should have been included in the bill, but there has been some suggestion that post-release planning should be formally assigned to the chief executive. More often than not young people—or too often certainly—leave youth detention without any post-detention support or structures, or certainly without sufficient ones.

The chief executive has a range of powers to delegate in this sort of role. The suggestion has been put to us that the chief executive should be formally responsible for ensuring that each minor has a post-detention plan in place and that that plan is implemented. I think that is probably more appropriately dealt with as a policy consideration rather than in the bill. It is certainly an ambition that is sought. I do not think anyone who comes to this place as a member of parliament or seeks to represent this area has gone out thinking, 'I want there to be no post release plan in place,' but, frankly, this is an area where the government has failed over a long period of time to deliver in a manner that we would hope that it should. So, we will continue to look for ways to improve that and calling on the government to do the same.

There are also discussions. At the moment, it is possible for a young person to be transferred to an adult prison in the sort of circumstances that were identified previously at 16. There have been questions raised by some quarters as to whether they should be increased to 17. I am not convinced, because I think the circumstances within which a 16 year old might be transferred to an adult prison are so rare that I am not entirely sure that we would want to limit the capacity for such a transfer to take place. If something of that violent nature is taking place and there is no capacity for them to be held in our youth training centre then I think that flexibility needs to be there, however undesirable it is and how rarely it should be exercised. I am not aware of any examples of where that transfer has been abused since I have been the shadow minister again. I am open to further discussion on the matter, but we are not proposing any changes to the bill.

I also note that the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement in their considerations also commended the inspectorate model from Western Australia. It may well be that the training centre visitor, a role that is to be played by the Guardian for Children and Young People in the years ahead, may well benefit from appropriate resourcing to ensure that they can do the job as necessary; but I think in terms of the legislative framework, those creating the bill will hopefully be sufficient. I am very grateful, as I said before, to the Law Society of South Australia for their contribution to a range of matters. The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement has provided comments.

I am not going to go through all of the issues that they have all raised; however, they can rest assured that we have taken on board their comments and suggestions and, whether through further legislation or through feel the policy, they will be implemented. Pam Simmons, the Guardian for Children and Young People, is always responsive when legislation of this nature comes up. I have been grateful to her for the opportunity to have discussions with her directly, and she has also been available to talk to my staff about matters. I do not think it is necessary this afternoon to traverse every single aspect of the youth justice system. There are plenty of opportunities for that in the years ahead.

I do note that the numbers in the youth training centres are not expanding at the rate the adult prison system is suffering from. I think there is adequate space in our training centres at present. There are opportunities to transform lives. The likelihood of somebody in an adult prison having spent time in a juvenile justice facility is extraordinary. It is one of the highest predictors of later incarceration. There is a whole range of reasons that provide the backdrop for young offenders becoming older offenders and, indeed, people becoming young offenders in the first place.

The thing about this system, though, is that it provides an extraordinary opportunity for change in people's lives in a way that very few other areas of government can. We know that there are areas of government that can do better. We know that there are areas of government where, through administrative incompetence or ministerial failure, the community gets a far poorer outcome than it should.

However, in terms of areas where you can get a bang for your buck as a result of public policy and government achievement, youth justice is extraordinary. It is the opportunity to help somebody whose own life would be lost to them through their wasted endeavours and whose impact on the community can be entirely negative through the crimes that they commit, the impact on victims, the cost to victims, financial and personal, through their activities and the extraordinary cost to the community of being a guest of Her Majesty in a youth justice centre or an adult prison.

Over the course of somebody's life it is an extraordinary cost—to themselves, to the community, to their victims, financially, personally, emotionally and psychologically. When somebody is in a youth justice centre (somebody who has committed a crime of a threshold that will get them into a youth justice facility, because, of course, most young people going through youth justice do not end up incarcerated), we have the opportunity to address their needs and get them set up for a life where they are actually going to contribute to the community.

If we can fix their educational needs, if we can address their cognitive behavioural issues and their criminogenic behaviours (and this goes particularly to the area I was talking about before in relation to post-release planning) and if their need is that they are driving but they do not have a driver's licence, that work can be done in this situation; if their problem is that they do not have appropriate housing, that work can be done in this setting; or if their need is that there is a lack of education, that they have never been able to engage in the education system, that work can be done in this setting. Frankly, what else are you going to do when you are locked up other than engage?

We can engage with them in a negative way—I do not use the term in relation to people lightly, but it is often described sometimes as people being considered to be 'warehoused'—or we can engage with young people and set them on a path where they may contribute to the community in the future, and contribute to society. This is such an important area of public policy.

It is good that we have a useful legislative framework surrounding it and I think that the bill is a good contribution to that but, as far as an area of public policy goes, I can think of very few areas where there is a greater opportunity to have a positive contribution to the outcome of both the individuals involved and the entire community. I commend the bill to the house and I urge all members to take an active interest in our youth justice facilities, both in community corrections and the training centres themselves.

I am grateful for the several opportunities I have had to visit our youth training centres, both in my current role when I previously had this portfolio and, indeed, as a candidate at the old Magill Training Centre. We have come a long way since then. I was pleased that the member for Bragg and the Hon. Stephen Wade, who was the shadow minister at the time, used a great deal of energy to drag the government, kicking and screaming, into knocking down that appalling travesty of human rights that was the Magill Training Centre. Its rebuild was cancelled early on in the life of the Rann government and eventually, in 2009, reinstituted after having been cancelled as a project several times.

I recall, on visiting that centre, the letters that were coming from some of the residents that were picked up by the United Nations report on the matter. I was thinking: this is happening in South Australia about a kilometre from where I grew up, and I was just appalled. So I took a long interest in that and I am pleased that that has been replaced by a more modern facility. There are some issues with the build but, at any rate, it is certainly a much improved facility on the old Magill Training Centre site.

I thank my colleagues for their interest in this matter. I know that the member for Davenport has a long interest in youth justice and makes a contribution to the Liberal Party's policy development in this area and I am looking forward to his comments on this bill shortly. I know that the member for Hartley has made a very positive contribution towards development of youth justice policies, and a range of members on the opposition side continue to do so. I urge all members to continue that policy interest and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:39): I rise to speak on the Youth Justice Administration Bill 2015 and the expressed intent and objectives of this reform. Really, streamlining of the legislative framework around juvenile justice has been adeptly covered by the shadow minister. There are just two matters I wish to comment on; one is in relation to the training centre visitor program, which is consistent with the recommendation of the Guardian for Children and Young People that there be a strengthened and independent monitoring mechanism in place, which I welcome.

I have to say that it took many months to convince a former minister in the Rann government, the Hon. Jane Lomax-Smith, to facilitate a similar program in our mental health facilities. Eventually she relented, the reformed mental health legislation passed and we have a visitor program. The key to it is, of course, the capacity to be able to attend and have access without notice, otherwise they are pointless. The implementation of this will be a responsibility for the minister to make sure that it is more effective. I will give an example about why it is so important shortly.

The second matter I comment on is generally the introduction of obligations in respect of the protection of rights, if I can put it in a general way, of residents at a training facility at a youth prison where there are to be limitations on the use of safe rooms, use of force, use of sniffer dogs, power to drug test, power to search residents and the like.

There are a number of these which are currently in regulatory form which are going to be upgraded into the statute. I have no objection to that. I think it is important to have a very clear instruction as to what is to be the limitation in respect of that, especially when there is a very significant power imbalance between the captor and the captive. In this case, the captives are children, so they are in an even more vulnerable position, and therefore that is important.

What I do want to highlight, though, is that to date the government have not been, I think, very constructive in dealing with the important protection of children and in recognising that the policies and even legislative reform they have implemented in recent times have not been effective and have been the wrong way to go. With a relatively new minister who has the conduct of this bill, I bring these matters to her attention.

Firstly, let me outline the repeat offenders legislation, which was to give an aggravated penalty to a juvenile repeat offender. It was pushed through this parliament under strong objection from both the United Nations, and indeed contrary to recommendations that had been outlined by our visiting expert and Thinker in Residence Judge Hora, in respect of how we treat children. There has been a review of this legislation: it has demonstrably failed. The approach that the government have taken in recent years to hammer children in this way is totally unacceptable.

The second issue is the prosecution of major indictable offences. Tragically, some children are convicted of serious drug offences, murder and other major indictable offences. The government's recent decision to abort the pilot of requiring the DPP to prosecute these matters (that is, the most senior legal people in the state) and revert back to the police as prosecution I think is entirely inappropriate. If the minister has any influence in ensuring that we have this issue remedied, I ask her to take it up with her colleagues.

It is clearly a cost-saving exercise; in fact, the DPP in his recent annual report identified that they were happy to continue this role. They thought that it was an important role for them to continue. I agree with Mr Kimber QC, and I think that, from the point of view of the police, as best I could ascertain, they are not in a hurry to have the responsibility back because they recognise the significant difference in the resources and the expertise and experience of the DPP.

The current proposal to remove a District Court judge as the head of the Youth Court is scandalous. Again, if the minister has any influence in that regard, she should speak to the royal commissioner for the inquiry into child protection systems, Margaret Nyland, who is a former judge of the Supreme Court and who is currently charged with a review of the child protection systems in the state. She has made her position abundantly clear, and I would hope that, in the absence of the Attorney-General taking any notice, perhaps the persuasion of the minister might assist.

Our children are important, and when they are in that category of the most vulnerable, the most broken, the most fractured, and the most isolated—I am talking about the children who ultimately are under state care and/or in the prison system—they need to have all of the powers of protection.

I now mention what I read with alarm yesterday, which was the Ombudsman's Report 2014-15. Mr Wayne Lines reported on a number of cases that he had reviewed during the year, and one of them was the stabbing of a juvenile whilst in a detention facility. The case may be known to the minister. I appreciate it probably occurred prior to her appointment, but let me just outline where there needs to be some remedying of this.

In short, this was a case about one child stabbing another with a pen in a class facility within a children's prison. The Guardian for Children and Young People referred this matter to the Ombudsman for investigation. I note Ms Simmons did not, as best I can see, report on this in her annual report, which was tabled a few weeks ago, mainly because I expect she did not do the investigation. She sent it to the Ombudsman to do. Nevertheless, it has been caught up.

The Ombudsman looked at this question of, firstly, whether the department had erred in failing to protect this child, and, secondly, whether the department had erred in respect of investigating the allegation of the failure to protect the child. Not only is there a clear duty to protect the child whilst in the children's prison, but secondly, there is an obligation, when it has been brought to your attention, that you do investigate it.

Here is the litany of findings that were made by the Ombudsman in yesterday's tabled report, Firstly, that the child did pose a risk to the complainant, and that that was known to the department (that is, that there was a history of threats to the safety of this child and that had been reported to the department). Additionally:

the complainant [himself] had repeatedly told staff about threats…

[the child's] behaviour leading up to the incident indicated he was volatile

[the child] should not have been placed in a class with the complainant

the complainant was a juvenile in the care of the department at the time—

so obviously, the responsibility of the duty of care was there, as I have indicated—

the department failed to ensure that information concerning the risk posed to the complainant was made known to [the] staff

even if the risk was not quantifiable, the department failed the complainant by not disseminating the concerns [etc.,] to relevant staff

the department failed to treat the complainant’s concerns with sufficient seriousness

the department erred in failing to implement a strategy to ensure the complainant had no contact with X

the department erred in failing to report the relevant context of the assault to [the] Child Abuse Report Line…

the department erred in failing to investigate the incident in response to the complainant—

as referred to by the Guardian for Children and Young People's request of the department—

the department failed to handle the Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People's enquiries about the investigation in a satisfactory manner…

There are about 10 counts of failure which left this child vulnerable in a known environment to be stabbed by another resident in a child prison. The acting ombudsman at the time recommended that, firstly, there be an acknowledgment and a written apology sent—that is reported to have occurred, thankfully—and furthermore, that the department 'favourably consider any claim for compensation'. It is reported in the annual report tabled yesterday that a request or application for compensation from the complainant had not yet been received, but this is a report as at 30 June.

I accept that these situations are certainly at the pointy end of the pencil, but whether children are in a classroom in a school or whether they are in a classroom in a children's prison, in both circumstances there is a clear obligation on the part of those who are responsible for them to keep them protected. Accidents can happen, as can unforeseen events, and I understand that. But, when the department knows about it and they do nothing when there have been multiple complaints, it is a bit like Chloe Valentine all over again. Thankfully, this child is not dead, as best we know.

I make the point that this is an example of a comprehensive failure, and, unfortunately, what is omitted from this bill, in my view, is any obligation in respect of the duty of care being enforceable in respect of these children. And I note, as I understand it, the Guardian for Children and Young People has in fact suggested that there be some coverall statement of employees' duty of care in relation to the protection of residents, and that does not appear to have been picked up in the bill.

I think, if I recall correctly, that the member for Morialta has taken up this matter (but at least it has been canvassed) to ensure that there is some proper protection. Now, if ever there was an example of a gross breach of responsibility this is a classic example, and I would ask the minister to work with the member for Morialta to ensure that we have added to this bill some reasonable protection to ensure that this is not repeated.

Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. Z.L. Bettison.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (16:51): I also rise to make a small contribution to this debate and to echo the sentiments of the member for Morialta who very truly has had a long interest in these matters and who has really put the case quite well in his contribution to the house.

I will not go through the bill in its detail, but I picked up two themes when I was having a read of it that I would like to discuss and flesh out, and they are to do with education and disabilities. Education is the key to future prosperity as we all know, and in the minister's second reading explanation she touches on some of the feedback she received from her Youth Justice staff when they were interviewed for their input in the bill.

The staff did raise several key points for consideration that they would like to see improved in this legislation. One of those points was the inclusion of, and I quote, 'the provisions which provide greater flexibility in managing older residents accommodated at the Adelaide Youth Training Centre', and one of these very important accommodations is that of education.

The staff in the department, those who are working within the juvenile justice system, understand that, quite often, education is key to rehabilitation and redemption. Additionally, the government's Youth Justice Strategic Policy Paper 2015 (in the companion to the draft Youth Justice Bill) states:

Children and young people involved in the criminal justice system are more likely to have had contact with the child protection system, be disengaged from education, experience disadvantage and poverty and are more likely to experience mental health issues.

To me it is imperative that offenders be given the opportunity for education and involvement with their families and support networks whilst in detention. The policy within South Australia—and it has been for many years—is that a young person's family, both immediate and extended, forms a key role in supporting a young person to lead a non-offending lifestyle. This bill appeals rightly to sensible party policy as it integrates family involvement in the rehabilitation of young offenders. This would suggest that the reform will be welcome within the community due to the focus on family support networks, which I believe it will be.

Section 27 of this bill provides powers for the chief executive to implement educational programs in a way which they 'think fit'. Nevertheless, according to section 75 of our own education act, it is compulsory for a child to be enrolled into a school from age six to 16, but the inconsistency here under the Youth Justice Administration Bill is where it states that the chief executive must, as much as reasonably practical, encourage a resident of a training centre for their further education.

To me the word 'encourage' is inadequate in this bill and in that context. The word 'encourage' does not necessarily suggest that training centre residents will be made to attend further education whilst in detention, rather it is a choice to do so, and perhaps in the committee stage this is something we can flesh out further. To me the result is ambiguous, and conflicts with the principle that education is paramount and compulsory for South Australians under the age of 16.

This bill, the Youth Justice Administration Bill, provides people under the age of 16 with the ability to not attend school. The bill aims to rehabilitate the offenders, and an offender lacking education is less likely to assimilate back into society and more likely to stay within the justice system for many years. British academic Richard Wilkinson stated that education lasts a lifetime. According to Wilkinson, little or no education results in poor health, cognitive skills and emotional dysfunction as an adult. Therefore, along with having access to good health care, education is a key to preventing unemployment and poor housing standards.

However, if this bill is to be successful in closing the gap when young people leave the juvenile justice system and the Adelaide Training Centre, in my view the legislation should have some consistency. Therefore the word 'encourage' should be changed to 'make' to ensure that we provide the best education, as soon as possible, for young offenders to cater for their educational needs.

This bill also considers young people with a disability within the juvenile justice system. It is recognised that the chief executive officer, through the department, must give consideration to a young person's cultural background, development and cognitive capacity, ability or disability, and any special needs of the youth. A young person with a disability is not defined within the act; however, within the Disability Services Act there is obviously an interpretation of a person with a disability and I think there is a need for this definition to be included in the bill—and once again this is something to be looked at in committee—to understand what a young person with a disability needs, given that 18.5 per cent of Australia's population has been diagnosed with a disability of some sort.

The University of New South Wales recently undertook a study which discovered that people with a disability, including a mental health disorder or cognitive impairment, are six times more likely to be in detention than young people without a disability. This is significant when comparing it with one in three young Aboriginals who are within detention. However, people with a disability require more social, medical and educational attention than others due to the impairments from which they suffer

The most practical avenue for a juvenile with a disability was recently cited in that New South Wales study by McCausland, Baldry, Johnson and Cohen. The case study they used was quite revealing. It described a 20-year-old Indigenous person within the New South Wales juvenile system who had an intellectual disability and a number of mental and cognitive conditions. This resulted in a cost to the taxpayer of $5.5 million for that young person to be caught up within that juvenile system. Obviously, this was a person with an intellectual disability who was already from a disadvantaged community.

The cost resulted from the accumulation of 356 police incidents, 604 days in custody and 270 days in hospital for this young person. As the authors established, if early intervention were supported and were in place in these matters, as in the case of the offender in New South Wales, it probably would have resulted in that juvenile not entering the justice system and approximately $2.4  million of taxpayers' money could have been saved by the time that person was 20 years old. This is a significant cost, when we take into account the high rate of youth with a disability in the juvenile justice system, and as a government, as a department, as a parliament we should do all that we can to make sure that people, especially those with disabilities, do not get unnecessarily caught up in our youth justice system.

Those are really the two points I wanted to raise on this bill. Our youth detention centres should be setting the standard and should be doing all they can to rehabilitate and reintegrate our young offenders, and provide them with the ability to transform their lives, as a member for Morphett alluded to.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:59): I would like to thank those who contributed to the second reading debate, the deputy leader, and the member for Davenport. I would particularly like to thank the member for Morialta who, I know, has a general interest in this area. He has taken a bipartisan approach in progressing this bill through the parliament. The overarching purpose in working with young people who become involved in the justice system must be to support them to turn their lives around, to stop offending and to reach their potential. By helping young people to rehabilitate, we provide stronger and safer communities for everyone.

The bill brings together into one concise piece of legislation the core powers and functions required for youth justice operations. This will simplify the current legislative arrangements and reflect contemporary standards in the administration of youth justice in South Australia. Appropriately, the bill aligns with the principles and objectives of the Young Offenders Act and, together, they provide South Australia with a comprehensive and connected legislative framework for responding to young people involved in the justice system. This starts from the point of police involvement and the administration of a court order, right through to successful community integration.

The bill contains some new provisions, which are a significant inclusion in legislation, specific to the administration of youth justice. The first is the inclusion of provisions regarding community-based supervision, which will be outlined in legislation for the first time. While the department supervises around 60 young people on any given day in the Adelaide Youth Training Centre, a much larger number of young people (about 360) are supervised in the community. Community supervision is an important part of the work we do, because it provides the opportunity to intervene when a young person may be heading down the wrong path in life. With the proper support, they can be diverted from further offending while remaining connected to their family, education or employment, and their community.

Also included for the first time in legislation is the youth justice Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principle. The continued over-representation of Aboriginal young people in the justice system is an enduring and complex policy area for government. No single policy initiative will work alone but, collaboratively, we can work to continue to improve the circumstances of Aboriginal young people in our communities.

I have had the opportunity to meet directly with key Aboriginal stakeholders and, as a result of these meetings, the first stage of the drafting of the principle has taken place. The principle will be included in regulation and will reflect a strong focus on best practice approaches in working with Aboriginal young people, and their families and communities. I want to thank those stakeholders for their contribution to this important area of work. I look forward to our ongoing work in striving to improve the lives of Aboriginal young people.

Through this process, I have also heard about the need to strengthen the management of the youth justice population, and the bill provides key amendments to clarify this framework. These include a ceiling age of 21 years for a custodial placement in the training centre and for community supervision by the department, increasing periodical reviews for residents 18 years and older, and restrictions on custodial placement in the training centre after a period of adult custody.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the important work of the Public Service Association of South Australia on behalf of their members in raising this issue. These amendments represent a balanced approach to upholding the rights of young people and the right to safe work places for youth justice staff. A further amendment to the bill will be proposed to lift the age in which application to transfer a resident to adult custody can be made from 16 to 17 as part of this strengthened framework.

I now turn to provisions about the administration of the Adelaide Youth Training Centre. These provisions have been significantly extended from existing legislation. The bill more thoroughly accounts for the management of residents in the training centre, including admission, behaviour support and release processes. I have also made further amendment to the bill to better reflect the importance of release planning and support for community reintegration.

Importantly, the bill contains very clear provisions to protect the rights of young people who are detained. The inclusion of an independent monitoring body provides an accountability mechanism, offering the community confidence that the wellbeing of young people is assured. The role of the official training centre visitor will be provided by the Guardian for Children and Young People. These provisions have been developed in close consultation with the guardian and other stakeholders, and will allow for unannounced visits to the Adelaide Youth Training Centre.

I am proposing an amendment to the bill to provide greater clarity on the question of unannounced visits. Only in exceptional circumstances where entry would compromise the safety and wellbeing to the training centre visitor may access be refused. For example, in the case of a significant security event or medical concern, such as serious communicable disease evident in the facility, refusal may occur. These are rare events, and any refusal requires a written response outlining the reasons.

Finally, I draw the members' attention to the extensive consultation that has occurred with the youth justice sector, including government, non-government and community members. I again thank all stakeholders for their contributions. Your efforts have ensured we are proposing sound legislation which strikes the right balance between the rights of young people and the safety of our communities.

Of course, this extensive consultation could not have occurred without the dedication of the department, and I take this opportunity to thank them for their efforts. In particular, I acknowledge the work of Ms Julie Marsh, the principal policy officer, who has had carriage of this bill right through its inception. Your commitment to this important work is to be commended. In closing, I thank the members for their constructive comments, and I look forward to dealing with this bill expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [CommSocInc–1]—

Page 5, after line 25 [clause 3(1)]—After paragraph (j) insert:

(ja) to support the reintegration of youths with the community as part of their rehabilitation; and

Amendment carried.

Mr GARDNER: In relation to clause 3(3)(a), which identifies that the regulation-making power is to observe the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth justice principle, I invite the minister to identify whether we have a draft set of words yet from which there may certainly be further stakeholder consultation that might further inform them. It might be useful at this point, if there is a draft set of words, so that we can have clarity, as I described in my second reading speech.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I recently hosted a round table with Aboriginal stakeholders to start the discussions about the implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth justice principle. There was a set of words agreed by stakeholders to provide the basis on which the regulations will be drafted. Once they are drafted, there will be a further opportunity for consultation provided to interested stakeholders before they are finalised. The principle is:

that, in acknowledging the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the individual cultural identity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people be recognised and their beliefs and practices be supported, respected and valued;

that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people will be supported to uphold their cultural responsibilities and have access to, and participation in, cultural ceremonies, funerals and cultural practices, relevant to their individual cultural identity;

that assessment, case planning and decision-making includes consultation with relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or organisations to assist the young person;

that, where it is appropriate to do so, the young person's identified family, significant person and community are participants in assessment, case planning and decision-making;

that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people are provided with programs, services and supports that have regard to their age, maturity and individual cultural identity;

that the assessment of appropriate accommodation in a training centre will consider the individual cultural identity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people;

that, where necessary, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people will be provided with interpreters and, where possible, translated documents;

that the particular health, education and wellbeing needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people are considered and, where practicable, met;

that youth justice officers actively participate in the cultural training and demonstrate culturally respectful engagement; and

that the department actively recruit and support the retention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff.

As I have noted, these are still drafts. We intend to put them within the regulations.

Mr GARDNER: I thank the minister for that. I am just wondering if there is a time line for that further consultation, as the regulations are developed, that has been established yet, or are these matters for further discussion?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, we need to see the bill passed through both houses of parliament and we are thinking probably February/March of next year and we will look at that consultation. As you can tell, we are quite advanced. It was a very good round table that we held and we talked quite openly about what people wanted to see in there, but of course we will go back and discuss that further with relevant stakeholders.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 4 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I move:

Amendment No 2 [CommSocInc–1]—

Page 13, line 2 [clause 16(5)]—Before ', the manager must' insert:

because of any genuine concerns the manager may have in connection with the safety of the Visitor (whether related to a security risk, a health related risk or some other reason)

The amendment follows consultation with the Guardian for Children and Young People and the member for Morialta about the manner in which unannounced visits are made. The government supports the concept of unannounced visits by an independent body to ensure transparency and accountability in detaining young people in training centre facilities.

As indicated in my second reading speech, the amendment provides that only where the safety and wellbeing of the visitor is compromised, can entry be refused to ensure the intent behind this clause is strengthened.

Mr GARDNER: Rather than ask questions on the clause, I might ask them on the amendment because the amendment seeks to address the issue which I expressed some concerns about. I appreciate that the amendment just deals with subclause (5), which deals with the manner in which the manager of the training centre must provide written advice on why entry to the centre was refused. While the amendment provides increased clarity about the nature of matters which might enable a refusal to take place, I am only three-quarters of the way there as to whether this fulfils the stated goal of it.

So maybe the minister can clarify in this answer, which will provide direction to managers now and future of training centres, that it must be these very exceptional circumstances, such as she outlined in her second reading response, that would lead to a refusal. I want the minister to provide some comfort that it is in fact the visitor who has the whip hand, the power in this situation, and that it can only be in those extraordinary circumstances where a refusal is to be allowed.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: While I accept your concerns, I think the clause is strengthened enough. Of course, if entry is to be refused, written advice is to be given, but it would be my understanding that it would be in an exceptional circumstance that it would be refused.

Mr GARDNER: Subclause (4) of clause 16 provides that the only circumstances in which the visitor does an unannounced visit are already going to be exceptional circumstances, or at least considered by the visitor to be exceptional circumstances, so the point of contention here is that, firstly, an issue has arisen which is exceptional, that the visitor considers to be exceptional, that requires an unannounced visit. Then, on top of that, the one I am concerned about is the manager then refusing a visit as well. I appreciate that clause 5 deals with not only refusal of unannounced visits but also refusal of announced visits, but presumably announced visits can just be rescheduled. All I seek from the minister is confirmation that the sorts of very exceptional circumstances that she identified before are not undermined by the words in the amendment that say 'or some other reason'.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you, member for Morialta. I will endeavour to express more details. I can perhaps say that when we look at the guidelines for the centre manager that that can be detailed more exceptionally. I feel satisfied that the guardian will be accepted to do unannounced visits, that will not be an issue, and this will only be used in very exceptional circumstances, where the safety of the training visitor would be at the forefront.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 17.

Mr GARDNER: I have a concern that has been raised by the Law Society in relation to clause 17(2), and I will quote from their words in expressing this concern and then invite the minister to respond to see if she has a particular reason why it is not in the bill or if there is, in fact, some willingness by the government to consider this between the houses. The Law Society suggests, in relation to 17(2), that if a request is made by a resident to see the training centre visitor, the condition that the chief executive advise the visitor within two days after the receipt of the request should be amended to be 'as soon as possible after the request is made but no later than the two days after it is made'. In the society's view this places greater importance and priority on a request. This is not the end of the world sort of territory, but I do invite the minister to identify whether it is a drafting reason or if there is some other purpose why this suggestion has not been taken on board.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the member for raising the issue of the Law Society. I think between the two houses we can talk this through further. I think this is reasonable and I stand by the clause as it is, but of course we can talk further and understand the protocols between that time and why the two days was proposed.

Clause passed.

Clauses 18 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I move:

Amendment No 3 [CommSocInc–1]—

Page 16, lines 24 to 26 [clause 23(6)]—Delete 'that contains particulars of any proposals for the education or training, medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment, and rehabilitation, of the youth,'

Amendment No 4 [CommSocInc–1]—

Page 16, after line 27—After subclause (6) insert:

(6a) A case plan for a youth prepared, added to or varied under subsection (6) must include particulars of each of the following:

(a) proposals for the education or training of the youth;

(b) proposals for medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment of the youth;

(c) proposals for the rehabilitation of the youth;

(d) proposals relating to the youth's release into, and support in, the community.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 24 to 55 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I move:

Amendment No 5 [CommSocInc–1]—

Page 39, line 34 [Schedule 1, Part 6, clause 26, inserted section 63(4)]—Delete '16 years' and substitute '17 years'

Amendment No 6 [CommSocInc–1]—

Page 40, line 29 [Schedule 1, Part 6, clause 26, inserted section 63(9)]—Delete 'the Judge of the Court or'

Currently, the chief executive can apply to the Youth Court for a detained a young person over the age of 16 years to be transferred to a prison in certain circumstances. These provisions are both infrequently and cautiously applied due to the vulnerability of young people in the adult system. A very small number of transfers has almost been exclusively applied to young people over the age of 17 years. As such, these provisions are being lifted to reflect this, which is supported by the Guardian for Children and Young People.

Mr GARDNER: I note the guardian's advocacy on this matter. I wonder if I can just ask a question and, if the number is not readily to hand, the minister is invited to take it on notice and provide the answer before the Legislative Council debate. How many transfers of 16 year olds have been sought in each of the last 10 years, and how many of those have been granted by the court?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I will take that on notice.

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (17:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.