HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (RECIDIVIST YOUNG OFFENDERS AND YOUTH PAROLE BOARD) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May 2009. Page 2709.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (21:10): I indicate to the house that the Attorney-General introduced this bill in May. I may be wrong about that, but it was some time ago. The aim of the bill is to address the issue of repeat offending by a number of young offenders in our society. The government claims that this bill is necessary to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, the Criminal Law Sentencing Act 1988 and the Young Offenders Act 1993 to make provision for a declaration of a youth who is a repeat offender and who would then be labelled 'a recidivist youth offender' under proposed section 20C. It is our understanding that, once a youth is declared as such, then he or she would be the subject of a much stricter sentencing regime; namely, the Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Serious Repeat Offenders) Amendment Act 2003 for repeat offenders would apply to youths declared as recidivist young offenders—the same as adult repeat offenders.

This parliament has considered this legislation for adult repeat offenders and the opposition was prepared to support the government on that initiative. How successful that has been, I suppose, we need to allow some time to identify. Nevertheless, how this works, as we understand it, is that the rules of proportionality do not apply and therefore a recidivist young offender, once they have this label, would need to serve four-fifths of their sentence of detention before becoming eligible for release; whereas, generally, a youth is required to serve three-fourths of his or her detention before release is considered.

The consequence of having been declared a RYO (recidivist youth offender) is that, instead of serving 75 per cent of the detained period before release is considered, you have to serve 80 per cent. We are not talking about a big difference in the sense of what the direct consequence will be, but this would be a mandatory imposition once you have 'graduated' to be assessed or labelled in this way.

The amendments to the Young Offenders Act 1993 will allow for the Youth Parole Board to review any RYO case, with the inclusion of a victims register. The victims register is based on the adult victims register, as per the Correctional Services Act, where a victim of crime committed by an RYO will be notified of any possible release of the offender and have the opportunity to make a submission in relation to the possible release of the offender.

The Young Offenders Act 1993 will also be amended to ensure that informal cautions given can be kept on record but not disclosed as part of a criminal history check. It is proposed that the bill, if enacted, will be reviewed within three years from its commencement, in consultation with the Attorney-General and the Commissioner for Social Inclusion.

In summary, the opposition's position is as follows. First, we totally oppose and reject absolutely the proposed RYO procedure for juveniles, and I will refer to those matters in some detail. However, I do indicate to the Attorney that the opposition does accept that a victims register is a reasonable thing, although not specifically attached to an RYO. We do consider that victims of crime, whether they are the victim of an adult offender or a youth offender, do need some consideration in regard to their understanding of the issues and that it is reasonable that they be kept in the loop, essentially, about when the offender is to be released and so on.

Historically, this is not applied to juvenile offenders because of privacy issues and the fact that we treat juveniles in an entirely different way. If there has been a conviction and there is a circumstance where it is reasonable for a victim at least to know these things—if a child has been incarcerated—the opposition feels that it is reasonable that that information be transferred. When we had a look at this matter, it also became clear to us that quite often in these cases the other party (that is, the victim) is also a child. This whole question of having a system to ensure the protection of the privacy of a child offender is significantly watered down, so the opposition is prepared to support a victims register process.

Finally, I indicate that the opposition also supports the position relating to informal cautions. Shortly after coming into the parliament, I joined our leader, Isobel Redmond, and other members of the parliament in a select committee inquiry into the juvenile justice system, which was chaired by the Hon. Bob Such, the member for Fisher. It was quite an extensive inquiry, and we provided what became the Youth Justice System Report, which was tabled in this house on 4 July 2005. Recommendation 34 of that report provided that 'informal cautions be officially recorded'.

It was the view of the committee that they should be kept by the police 'so that patterns of at-risk, antisocial, illegal activity could be noted and collated'. Further, it was stated that the database contain the names of young people who have been formally or informally cautioned, family conferenced or had received a Youth Court order; and, further, that the Guardian for Children and Young People would oversee the database and chart any trends. It further stated that there was no suggestion in the report that it would be used in some way to be taken into account in sentencing.

The government's initiative in this report that there be a recording of informal cautions is consistent with the recommendations of the select committee and is supported by the opposition. One of the disturbing things that became evident from the information which came out of that select committee and which I think all members of the committee found quite concerning was the age at which children came to the attention of police officers on a regular basis.

As we know, the age when children have the capacity to be charged with criminal offences is usually 10 years. It was being reported to us that children as young as six to eight were at large, perhaps homeless, but at least in the company of other young people who were sometimes a bit older at 10, 12 or 14 years of age. These children were regularly exposed to contact with the police as a result of their association with other, older juveniles. They came to the attention of the police, of course, usually in circumstances where they were reasonably suspected of being involved in activity that was antisocial, illegal or otherwise. This was concerning, because there was little they could do with children of this age, and they felt it was very important that the committee be aware that some of these children showed up time and time again.

When it gets to the age that they could see these children in the street, the responsible thing for a police officer to do, if they find an eight year old on the street or in the company of an older juvenile, especially if they are involved in some criminal activity, is to take that child into care and immediately place them with the appropriate authority, which is the Department for Families and Communities. They have their processes to invoke to protect the child and provide the child with shelter, protection and security.

However, often they are not and, if the children as a group are moved on and an older person in the group says that they are their older brother and that they are taking the child home with them, then the child could be at large. But once that child attains the age of 10 years and the police are able to go through some further processes, this initiative will enable the authorities who come into contact with these children to be able to make an assessment about whether they are new on the scene or, in fact, whether they have been around for some time.

So, the committee was concerned—and it is reflected in its recommendation—that there be a way of trying to capture these children a bit earlier and identify that they are already in serious trouble once they get to the criminal capacity age as such and if they had not been assisted successfully or had been resistant to assistance by other authorities in that time. I think this is an important initiative of the government, and the opposition is prepared to support it.

It is fair to say that the substantial initiative in this bill is the proposed application of recidivist youth offender declarations or assessments applying to a person under the age of 18 years. So, as an opposition, we could either oppose the whole bill or we could move to vote against just that portion, although I indicate it is clearly the most significant in the bill in the sense of substantive change. It is the most controversial, and it can be dealt with by amendment in order to delete the provisions to which it applies. It is in that way that we propose to deal with it.

In addition to that, and on the basis that we are not successful in defeating those provisions, I foreshadow that we will be moving a further amendment which will provide under the three year review proposal that the Social Development Committee be the forum which undertakes the assessment and inquiry and reports back to the parliament on whether this initiative (which we are opposing but which the government may be successful in passing) should provide that supervision and report back to the parliament—not the minister and the Commissioner for Social Inclusion.

From time to time, when novel legislation is introduced or when there is some level of concern or controversy, clauses are put in—sunset clauses, review clauses and the like. We accept that the government acknowledges that it is reasonable to have a review clause and it has it in its own field. However, it thinks that it needs to be reviewed by the minister and the Commissioner for Social Inclusion. We say they are not the appropriate persons. It is almost like Caesar reviewing Caesar. What is appropriate is that if a review occurs it be undertaken by the independent assessment of the Social Development Committee of this parliament.

I will address the question of whether we should have RYO orders at all. When I obtained a briefing on this matter I was informed that various parties and relevant stakeholders (the usual suspects, as one would expect) had been consulted. This included the Social Inclusion Unit and commissioner, the Department for Families and Communities, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department for Correctional Services, the Chief Justice, the Senior Judge of the Youth Court and the Victims of Crime Commissioner. Of those who had responded, the Law Society of South Australia had been the most ardent in its objection.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Surprise, surprise!

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister interjects but (and I am sure the Attorney was listening attentively) the Law Society had strongly opposed the unexplained wealth bill, an initiative which was the subject previously canvassed and debated here tonight and which the opposition had considered and—notwithstanding the Law Society's opposition—supported.

The opposition is always respectful and mindful of what the Law Society advises, particularly in regard to its jurisdictional committees which deal with these matters. That does not mean we always agree with the society, as was evident in the debate which we have just concluded. Of all the submissions I have seen from the Law Society, this would have been one of the strongest in its opposition and in its expression of great concern that the government would even follow this line.

It is interesting to note that when I inquired about the view expressed on this matter by the Commissioner for Social Inclusion (Monsignor Cappo) I was told there had been no response. That is very interesting because one would have thought that this is something on which he would have a very significant view. He has not been backward in coming forward and saying what is appropriate for youth and, in particular, those who go off the rails, so to speak, committing offences, breaching criminal legislation or generally undertaking criminal conduct, whether they are poor and homeless or victims of abuse. Monsignor Cappo has often expressed very strongly his view on what would be appropriate for their support, recovery and rehabilitation. However, apparently, from this briefing, there has been no response at all—not just by saying, 'I don't want to put in a submission,' but absolutely no response whatsoever.

The parties who have considered it, particularly after the opposition extended the list of stakeholders, offered some comment and indicated whose advice we had sought, have been coming in thick and fast.

Let me start with the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia. It has provided an extensive submission and I am happy to make a copy of that available to any members. Indeed, any of these submissions would be available. In the interest of brevity, I point out that YACSA considers that the administration of the youth justice system in South Australia must be consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory. Most significantly, YACSA considers that the youth justice system must hold the interests of children and young people as being its primary priority. The submission states:

YACSA does not support changes to legislation that do not support the primacy of this objective. YACSA members persistently note that young people's offending behaviours are often the result of developmental issues rather than offending issues. Similarly, members are concerned that some young people are entering the juvenile justice system not so much because they are offending but because a mental health issue is causing them to behave unpredictably and in a manner that brings them to the attention of the police.

Messages relating to the removal of liberty are ineffective on people experiencing issues relating to mental health, substance abuse or from unstable or disadvantaged backgrounds. Paradoxically, when young offenders are incarcerated, they may have access to a greater structure, safety and supports than they do living in the broader community.

It is a very extensive submission but really the gist of it is that the legislation is in breach of the Convention on the Rights of Children as issued by the United Nations, it will not work, it is inappropriate and, on balance, you will do more harm than good.

The South Australian Bar Association talks about this as though it is an extension of the 80 per cent nonparole period for youths once they have been declared SROs, in which case, as we have indicated, the principle of proportionality is not mandatory and the nonparole period must be at least 80 per cent of the custodial sentence. Its submission states:

The entire criminal justice system makes a fundamental distinction between sentencing adults and children. In respect of adults, principles of sentencing include deterrents to the offender and others as well as rehabilitation. In respect of children, rehabilitation is paramount due to their young age. Sentencing proceeds on the basis that they can become useful members of society.

The submission refers to the then chief justice Len King's judgment in Vartzokas v Zanker 1981 as to the principles of rehabilitation. Again that information is available. The submission states:

The making of a declaration that a child is a serious repeat offender with the consequence of mandatory minimum nonparole period when a custodial sentence…will almost guarantee that that child will become a career criminal as an adult. This is clearly not in the interests of the community, nor is it in the interests of the child to increase the criminal education of children who will have horrendous consequences. There is no justification for depriving the court of its ability to fix a nonparole period of less than 80 per cent. There is no justification for removing the mandatory principle of proportionality from sentencing in the case of children even if they are repeat offenders.

The Bar Association also makes comment about the Magill Training Centre and the abandonment of its rebuild but in particular that it is an unacceptable institution in this century to house and imprison children and is, in any event, at full capacity. All of these matters are factors for the basis on which the Bar Association rejects absolutely this proposed legislation.

The Law Society this month has a specific paper published in respect of the Magill Training Centre and the government's abandoning the building of a new facility at Cavan for children. The Magill Youth Training Centre, as most members would know, is really the children's prison in South Australia. We have two. Children up to about 14 are usually housed at Magill; there are 50 or so kept there. The older children are usually at Cavan—14 to 19 or 20 sometimes. There are mental age issues that relate to children over 18 who are kept at that facility. So, that is where they are incarcerated. Obviously, as one would expect, it is the extreme cases, the repeat offenders or those who commit very serious crimes who are incarcerated there.

Let's be under no illusion. Notwithstanding the criticism that this cancelled project has attracted, we need to understand in this house—which was very evident to me again when we did the juvenile justice inquiry chaired by the Hon. Bob Such—that the situation is the same as it was 20 years ago, when I regularly appeared at the Youth Court. It was called the Children's Court in those days. The profile of young, serious repeat offenders is that they are young, male, poor and predominantly Aboriginal. That is the category of youth that was there 20 years ago and is there now, and that category is still over-represented today. It is very disturbing to think that, with all the different programs and things we have been doing over the years, the children who are still slipping through the net are poor, male Aboriginals.

What is very concerning to us is that, when I contacted the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement on its view of this bill, it had not heard of it. They did not know how it might affect people who are more than likely in the category—that is, their clientele who are over-represented in that category—so, we forwarded it to them. We have not yet had a response but, certainly on the initial expression of concern that was raised by the chief executive officer, I expect they are concerned and will have something to say about this.

Perhaps this is consistent with the Attorney-General's previous comment during the debate on the bill that we have just considered; that is, we asked for information at the briefing. It has not turned up. It is not as if some bits have arrived and the rest has evaporated as far as our request goes. We do not have this information. We sought an indication as to how many children this prospective legislation would expect to cover each year.

If we are putting into prison for either short or prolonged periods 200 children a year—I do not know how many—how many of those are likely to be vulnerable to a declaration pursuant to this proposed legislation? Is it four, five, less than 10 or more than 10 a year? There was no clear indication at the meeting. They thought it would be a small number. Let's assume it is less than 10. We need to understand and have some information about this so that we can make some assessment about what we should really be doing to help rehabilitate those children rather than expose them to an order such as this.

One of the other things raised in the course of our consultation was the concern that, if a young person had been so irreverent, disrespectful and non-compliant with any instruction, advice, counselling or rehabilitation and angry with authorities, rejecting any kind of instruction or assistance, would they consider that receiving one of these declarations would to them be more like a badge of honour rather than actually having some therapeutic effect by saying, 'You're so bad that you have to be labelled this, and you are going to have to have an extra penalty because you have repeat offended'?

The Attorney called out before, 'You're soft on law and order. What about the gang of 49?' I will come to them in a minute. Commissioner Cappo, in his report on prevention and rehabilitation responses to serious repeat offending by young people, entitled 'To Break the Cycle', which was provided to the minister and subsequently tabled in this parliament several years ago, made specific comment about how some of these children can really be quite difficult. What he did not do is go so far as to say that we need to completely undermine the juvenile system we operate—which is completely distinguished from the adult system, for the reasons which are well known to members of this house—and move to what is a very radical, and novel at best, approach by this government to apply a declaration procedure on children. Not only does this not operate anywhere else in Australia, but those advising at the briefing were not able to identify any other jurisdiction in the world where it applied.

It is all very well to say that we will be tough on law and order, that we will deal with these three, four, five (or whatever it is) people a year who are totally resistant to rehabilitation but who are under the age of 18, that we will make them have 80 per cent rather than 75 per cent, and think that this will make a scrap of difference. Not only do we not have the numbers to whom this will apply, there is no other jurisdiction identified in the world that has applied it.

I think the government has failed the test to start with, but I will continue to refer to a few other people who have made a contribution. We know that there is absolute silence from Commissioner Cappo; there is nothing from him. His report does not at any time say that if all these other things fail they should be given a big stamp on the back as an RYO and everything will be fixed. No, he does not mention it in his report. He certainly does not come up with this idea; this has come from the government, and it has to take complete responsibility for it.

SACOSS has made statements, and was even critical when the government introduced previous legislation that was designed to strengthen the fight against juvenile crime. The gang of 49 issue was being reported extensively in the press and there was concern in the community, and Commissioner Cappo had even supported the initiative of legislative reform to enable child offenders to be dealt with in adult courts. The procedures would apply to them as though they were adults, even though they had committed the offence whilst under the age of 18 years.

There was some power to deal with that even before that legislation, but Commissioner Cappo said that it was something that needed to be considered in some exceptional cases (and I am paraphrasing his report in this regard). He was prepared to give some endorsement, and that is fine. At that time SACOSS and the Youth Affairs Council made a very public condemnation of Monsignor Cappo and the government for even making this assertion. They interpreted it as throwing away the key, that the government was really just turning its back on young people, giving up on them and surrendering in the face of any challenge; but it was not acceptable that it just throw away the key.

Notwithstanding the criticism it raised in the circumstances prevailing at that time, the opposition considered it at length, and felt that there were some circumstances where that may apply. It felt that, under the scrutiny of judicial determination and the protection of the court process, there may be cases that would justify that, and the opposition was prepared to support the government on that initiative.

I now move to Chris Varney, the Australian youth representative to the United Nations. I am sure people have heard his comments; he visited here recently, and on 10 August spent five hours at the Magill Training Centre. Mr Varney described the conditions at the centre as appalling, frightening and inhumane, and an abuse of children's and young people's rights. He went on, of course, condemning the situation. If this bill becomes law it will propose to keep children incarcerated in a facility such as this for even longer. He said:

It is simply unjust that successive South Australian governments have tolerated the conditions in Magill Training Centre and let it get progressively worse. The Rann government needs to assess the delegation of its state's funds and do its utmost to ensure the very worst conditions in Magill are remedied and that money is starting to be allocated to a new centre altogether.

The previous Liberal government set aside significant moneys to commence the rebuild of a new children's prison; it lost office, as we know, in 2002, and the government scrapped that. We have had the report of the committee, as I have indicated. After some years, the government picked up that initiative. It was the number one recommendation that a new children's prison be built. We were pleased that it did. We welcomed it, and we gave it credit and certainly commended it for that initiative.

No sooner did it make it than we are back here, and it has now been cancelled. Of course, the excuse is that we are in a global financial crisis. We are in such a global financial crisis that we are continuing to build a $43 million film hub in the middle of a mental health hospital at Glenside, but we do not have enough money to deal with a prison for these children, which, under current estimates is up to $100 million (it was $79 million in the original budget) and for which a big swathe of money can come in from the sale proceeds of Magill, bearing in mind that a new prison is proposed and could be built at Cavan, and that would deal with that financially.

Even today we heard the Treasurer tell us how we are on track, that things are going pretty well again and not to get too over-excited. We had Rob Chapman and all sorts of other experts. He told the parliament that we are on the road to recovery. Yet, do we hear of any restoration of this critical project being put back on the financial books? No; not a word.


[Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. M.J. Atkinson]


Then we have Professor David Kennedy. He was described in the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department 2007-08 as an internationally renowned expert in youth crime from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Apparently, he visited Adelaide earlier in 2008. I did not have the privilege of meeting him but, obviously, he was considered to be sufficiently important to be recorded in all the star priorities and features in the annual report. A media release states:

As a result of his visit the department is committed to developing during 2008-09 a cross-government initiative aimed at enhancing criminal justice, community and individual responsibility and resilience in young South Australians...Professor Kennedy will devise a program tailored to address the state's youth offending problems. [His] grass-roots approach has resulted in remarkable drops in crime in many towns and cities of the world.

In everything that I have read—and it has not been much—of Professor David Kennedy's, there is not one mention of this proposal. You would think that, if there was something at the forefront for people who work in this area, such as academics who are acclaimed enough for us to bring them here and get advice from them, we would have heard it from just one stakeholder; but they are absent.

Judge Peggy Fulton Hora is the current Thinker in Residence. They last month I was able to attend her inaugural lecture in Adelaide. Ms Hora gave a very interesting address about how the gaols in the United States have some 11 million people in them. They have 50 per cent of the world's gaols. They seem to know a thing or two about the profile of people in prison and those who offend, and also about the alarming level of alcohol and drug dependency and mental health issues among that population of prisoners, those who are in this repeat offender group that we are talking about. With the cost up to some $90,000 a prisoner per year, they had had enough in the United States and they introduced specialist courts, some of which have already been established here for more than 10 years now.

Ms Hora discussed the problem-solving courts, the importance of rehabilitation and how it worked. In a nutshell, instead of having a whole lot of parole officers, probation people, counsellors and social workers, some of whom were still there, in the United States they introduced—and she advocated—a high level of scrutiny by judges. Presumably, that means that you need a whole lot more of them, but the process of having recidivist young offenders come back and forth to a judge rather than a visit from the parole officer, or probation officer, was demonstrably more effective, and she put the case for that. The important thing, again, is to establish a leader in terms of how we deal with this problem.

When I indicated to her that some consideration was being given in South Australia to a process dealing with serious repeat offenders, which of course is the subject of this legislation, and I asked whether she considered that that would be an effective tool in the armoury of dealing with these young people, Ms Hora's response was one of wholesale rejection. In fact, she said that we need to understand that young people between 18 and 25—people in an age group to whom we give the right to vote, get married, go to war, own a firearm, drive a car and all sorts of other things—are what she described as apprentice adults and, even in that age group, need consideration.

The Law Society made a very extensive submission, and I just want to paraphrase it. It is a very well considered submission and it is very lengthy. Indeed, I appreciate the effort that the Law Society has put into its consideration of this matter. It brings to our attention its concern about the breach of the United Nations Charter on Children's Rights, but it also raises some other concerns. It takes the view that, due to the definition of 'serious offence', the bill will cast a wider net than its stated intention.

It claims that it will have no material impact on the rates of recidivism, that it creates a subclass of offenders, that imposing longer detention orders on children is in breach of human rights, and indicates that it supports the establishment of a victims register, a matter on which I have already indicated the opposition's view: so do we. It opposes the recording of informal cautions, as it claims that it defeats the purpose of making the caution informal and is a lack of specificity, etc.

I have already indicated that we will support the government in that regard, but the Law Society is very concerned about the declaration procedure under this bill and it is very clear in its condemnation of this proposal. In the absence of any known person, body, profession or expert anywhere that supports this proposal, in the absence of any further information from the government that would suggest otherwise, and in the knowledge that no-one else in the world even applies this, we think it is rather audacious, arrogant and foolish for the government even to attempt to present it.

Is there any kind of last-minute justification for labelling children in this way and having such disregard for all the professional people who have been consulted on this and other issues in relation to juvenile crime and rehabilitation? Their own Commissioner Cappo investigated this issue and provided extensive advice to the government, but it is proceeding in the face of opposition and without support.

It concerns me that the government would press ahead with something like this, which begs the question: why on earth would it try to do this? However, when you look at the history of what the government has done, it becomes clear that it has failed in so many other ways that perhaps this is just one last desperate attempt to try to convince the public that what it is doing is useful and effective, rather than its asking the real question, that is, what is necessary for us to deal with this small group of children who end up in our prisons, who are repeat offenders and who have a life history worse than a Shakespearean tragedy?

What can we do for these children? What intense resources do we need and what must we spend to make sure that they do not become the cast of the next Underbelly series? I note that the courageous candidate for Morialta published in today's paper his condemnation of the government's failure to rebuild a children's prison—John Gardner, the great champion of the children. Good luck to him, and we thank him for being brave with all the other people who have had the courage to come out publicly and say what needs to happen and be prepared to deal with it.

This is briefly the history of the government. First, in January 2007, I note that my leader, the member for Heysen, was then shadow attorney-general. She was concerned about the lack of action by the government in not activating any of the 43 recommendations of the select committee youth inquiry to which I referred. She was damning of that and concerned that the government had ignored all the recommendations, that it had jumped to this concept of recidivist young offenders and that it was considering this populist option.

Ten months later, the headline was, 'Government puts a jam on youth crime revolving door.' This related to an announcement by the Premier and the Attorney-General that there would be major reforms in the juvenile justice laws designed to block the revolving door of youth crime and repeat offending. They outlined the young offenders bill and the response to Monsignor Cappo's report.

As I indicated, it received condemnation from the Youth Council. We supported those initiatives, saying that we were not happy with some of this but that we would look at sentencing in higher courts for some of these young people. We were prepared to support the government on this and give it a go. It failed.

The government announced that it would appoint Port Adelaide Football Club legend, Gavin Wanganeen. I have to confess that I am a Port Adelaide supporter, so I have a bit of a conflict of interest here, I suppose. He is a great young person and a great role model for young people. However, appointing him as the Ambassador for Youth Opportunity was going to be some sort of panacea and part of the David Cappo led revolution on how we might deal with young offenders.

It seemed to recognise that the profile of many of these young people was that they were young Aboriginal boys and that we needed to take this initiative. It was a two year term (and I am not sure whether it has been extended), but I have never had any feedback on whether it has helped; however it was terrific that he took on that position. In February 2008, there was a big announcement by the government that the new laws we had supported had come into effect, and that was fine.

We had the accolades—again recorded in the Attorney-General's Department's Annual Report 2007-08—that this legislation provided new pathways for serious repeat young offenders to be dealt with as adults, as though this was some great, fantastic aspect. Finally, on 22 May 2008—just over 12 months ago—the Attorney-General announced $11.5 million to break the cycle of youth offending. This was going to be devoted to this particular task. Young offenders and children at risk of being involved in crime would be the focus of a coordinated package aimed at stopping youth crime at every stage, and so on. It then sets out the teams that would be there, including school retention programs, and so on.

Most of these programs—and I do not want to diminish them by saying this—relate to funding for a counsellor, adviser or coordinator—someone extra—who gets a salary to try to connect, coordinate and inspire the rehabilitation and recovery of young people. As meritorious as that is, we are still back here in 2009. I do not know how many of the gang of 49 or of that profile of young people in this category are still at large or non-rehabilitated, or whatever, but I do know that we have not addressed the problem. We still have a serious problem.

The opposition is prepared to do whatever it can to support the government in its initiatives to try to turn this around, but we will not accept grabbing some headline and trying to say, 'We will be even tougher on these kids, we will badge them, give them a stamp and say to them, "Here is your recidivist young offenders badge," and you are going to spend 80 per cent of your time in prison instead of 75 per cent and this will make you a better citizen.' What a joke!

I will read to the house letters from some of the children we are talking about here. If this legislation passes these children—

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you might invite members to resume their seats.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Could members hold loud conversations outside the chamber. Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are some of the children we are talking about here. We are talking about young boys who are repeat offenders and currently incarcerated at Magill Training Centre, the children's prison. These are the children that the Attorney-General wants to tattoo with this badge. This letter is addressed to the Prime Minister and it states:

Dear Kevin Rudd,

My name is [C].

I will not say his full name in order to keep it private. It continues:

I am 14 years old. I grew up in a family with drugs and alcohol problems. I never knew my real father. I was left with my brother and mother. Dad was always in gaol. I'm at the Magill Training Centre. I'm looking at serving two years. There really needs to be some more programs—for all residents with no bias towards race. There needs to be more drug and alcohol programs and more support from teachers. The rooms in Magill are absolutely shocking. It stinks, there's no light—it's dark, shit, piss, you name it, they've done it. You've got just enough to do a push-up.

I think he is referring to the size of the room. The letter continues:

A pin board to put up family photos needs to be put up. The clothing situation—the clothes are the same as 18 months ago. Same cups and plates. Should be able to have your own clothes.

The rooms smell like urine. It is really unhygienic and disgusting. Reading materials are inadequate—destroyed—

and I cannot read the rest of that.

When I was growing up I never knew if my mum would come home at night. I was left by myself at night and because of how I lived, I associated with the wrong people just to survive. I got addicted to drugs and then everything went downhill. I had to get drugs, do crime and hurt people to fit in and just survive. I then got put into foster care when my mum got into gambling, drugs and alcohol. But that made it worse because I didn't know who I was with and so I kept running away. I met some new people on the street and kept getting into fights. That's all I've known and all I've seen.

When I was 14 I had a daughter. I want to turn my life around for her, my girlfriend, my mother, who has got her life together, and my brother, who passed away in 2007...Currently the support services aren't there to help me achieve this and if they were my brother might still be alive. I hope they are improved and I am taught new skills for when I get out.

They need to start looking at doctors and vets and stop giving out cough medicine and ketamine (horse tranquilliser) which are sources of the drugs that are out there. The cops really need to stop the spread of drugs. They need to raid clubs and prevent ODs. Drugs are a menace and ruin people's lives. More control of dope and make it safer. Maybe legalising it will sort people out.

Alcohol is a man-made poison..Yet it's sold. It needs to be controlled. Cigarettes are also disgusting. You might as well sell gear at the Smokemart. I really hope you try and read everyone's letters because people need to be heard. The things I've talked about also need to be addressed and fixed. Change will be better for all the kids in here.

The letter is signed by that young man. There are many other letters, but there is one short one to which I will refer members, and that was from B. He writes:

Dear Kev,

My name is [B]. I am 15 years old and currently at Magill Training Centre in SA. I have been coming here since I was 11 years old, the longest I've done here is four months. I grew up with not much in the fridge—my mum had a problem, she took a bit of speed for a while. I have never known my dad. My older brother looked after me until I was 14. When I was a kid I went to school only a few times. I felt really lost at school because I couldn't read and write, which meant that I couldn't really work on the computers. All up, I went to six primary schools and three high schools. My third high school was really good—Paralowie Youth Service.

At Paralowie, there was really good support. I kept getting in racial fights, they became really violent, almost deadly. The only reason it stopped was because of friends who looked after each other. At this point I left high school, teachers had been really unsupportive. After that I started smoking weed and getting in trouble with police. Around this time I was also homeless—I stayed at people's houses for a long time. I found that motorbikes chilled me out—but if I'd had something else to distract me I would have done that—something more practical, like giving me skills.

2004 was the first year at Magill for me. The conditions here are really bad—you have to wear old clothes and socks. The worst thing are the gangs and the violence in here. I think they really need a new centre. I think there needs to be more programs in here. As a job I would like to be a motorbike mechanic. If there were more speakers inside, visits from different industries and courses, I could achieve this. And Kev, drop the bikies law.

He has obviously been reading the newspapers, at least. It concludes:

Thank you Kev. B of Adelaide.

Next is a rather sad story from one of the few girls at Magill. Members would be aware that the overwhelming majority of detainees at Magill are young men. This is from a young girl, and she says:

Dear Kevin—

again, referring to the Prime Minister—

My name is J. I am 16 years old. From the age of eight years I have been back and forth between homes. My mum has been locked up most of my life. I have been surrounded by drugs and alcohol and violence and I really think that we should have more support, more people to turn to when we get stressed. I've just been sentenced to 14 months in Magill. I have been [through] so much stuff in my life and I can honestly say that being locked up and surrounded by positive adults has helped me so much. I would like to see more positive people in our life. How are we meant to get on with life and not do crime if that is all we know of? It is not fair. I feel that the only way I have is changed is because I have got locked up. Please come. Can you help me to put us more support out here? From J.

Here we have a child who is 16 years of age and been in and out of homes since she was 11, and she is begging to stay locked up because it is the only place that she is safe and can actually get any protection, but she is begging for some extra services. How tragic that is. This letter is from L, and it says:

Dear Kevin, I think that the centre should get toilets and showers in their rooms. I have been coming here since I was 10 years old. This place has become a regular part of my life. I would like to see these things happen to us in the room. Better quality shoes. We should be able to have a barbecue on the oval. These things would help my time and other people's time better. I think there should be more teaching staff, more living skills for our youth today. Thank you, L.

And he goes on to write some further correspondence, all in the same vein; and there is another heart-wrenching story from a boy who is also about 14 years of age.

These children are the ones that we are talking about, the ones who are repeat offenders who are currently going in and out of prison. They are the ones that this government wants to say to, 'We are going to deal with you now by badging you with this label.' It is a disgrace, and I urge all members of the house to understand what a serious situation this will initiate. As novel as it might be, it is what I would call draconian and unacceptable, and contrary to any human rights charter that you can look at.

What is necessary is that members in this parliament need to stand up and say, 'We will support the government in doing whatever it takes to help these children have some chance to lead a normal life, but we will totally reject branding them further and permanently placing them into the gutter.' These are children who have literary skills which I think it is fair to say are limited for the age at which they present, from the information that I have just read.

From my own personal observation, many of these children have very low oral skills, and the oral ability of children in these circumstances is something which I personally have always been concerned about. It is one thing to have someone learn to read and write—and they are very important skills for work, lifestyle, relationships, communication; in fact, everything—but the capacity to be able to speak confidently and clearly and to be able to communicate with others orally is obviously a very important life skill.

It is what we call the 'yep, nup, dunno' syndrome in young people who have grown up in households where they have been isolated from what many children in our own families and neighbourhoods enjoy, and that is a rich environment of nourishment and a very expanded vocabulary because they have caring, competent parents who are concerned for the education, wellbeing and development of their children. The children to whom I refer live in communities which are supportive. They have the opportunity to go to school, they are healthy and they are given a chance in life.

We hear the stories of these children whom this government wants to condemn under this new program, when really what we should be doing is saying: how can we ensure these children have the skills for which they are begging? They want a room that does not stink of urine; they want clothes that are not months old; they want some decent things to write with; they want some extra programs; and they might even want to have a barbecue on the oval. They also want a chance in life.

Our obligation is to work with anyone who is in government and who is prepared to commit to ensuring that these children have a chance and not do what is clearly the intention of this government; that is, to say, 'We are writing you lot off. There may not be very many of you, but we are going to be saying to the public of South Australia that we are tough on law and order. Those wicked Liberals are soft on law and order. They are not supporting this legislation but we are, and this is how we will deal with it.'

I also note on page 9 of this month's Adelaide Review an impressive article by Jillian Paull, the South Australian State Director of Mission Australia. This is a very powerful article. It implores that South Australia's approach to juvenile justice must change. It is reported that Australia's youth detention centres are bursting at the seams. Incarceration rates are at a four year high and more than 1,000 young people are locked up around the country every night. Obviously, there is scathing comment (as we have heard from so many others) about the fact that the government had cancelled the rebuild of the children's prison. She joins the chorus of others such as Ms Pam Simmons, who is the children's guardian and who has been quite public in describing the cancellation of this project as very concerning but, in particular, pointing out that the current conditions at the Magill Training Centre are disgraceful and inhumane.

We have the children pleading for relief. We in this parliament have the privilege of having a say on this matter. Some of us have seen these children and some of us have worked in youth crime. I have seen them at the pointy end. I have seen them when they come into my office, with or without mum and dad, charged with a string of offences. The first thing some of them do is try to flog the pencils on your table while you are doing the interview to work out whether or not they will plead guilty. These are seriously damaged children who are pleading for help and who have every adviser, advocate and representative in the community saying to the government, 'It's time you understood that you are going down the wrong track and that your approach to juvenile crime is wrong, and this new initiative is totally wrong. It is unacceptable and we are very much on the wrong track.'

Some have tried to convince the government in some other ways that the outcomes of this type of approach are not only dangerous to the children but also proving to be a very expensive outcome for the taxpayer. Tragically, some of these children will come to an early demise as a result of drug or alcohol addiction, will be involved in a crime in which they are injured or killed, will have a car accident or will commit suicide. These children will be released from these institutions at some stage and they will be living next door to us. Undoubtedly, they will perpetuate the same behaviour, which will not only be destructive to their own lives but potentially highly destructive to the lives of others. They will obviously be a very poor role model for other children living in the community It is important that we understand the danger of that. Jillian Paull highlights considerable research that says a number of things, one being that more than half of young Australians released from detention will reoffend. She says:

The picture is even worse in South Australia, where about 90 per cent of young clients released from custody reoffend within two years. No doubt, that is partly why the average number of young people in custody in South Australia on any one day stands at 72, when in 2005-06 it was 52. The younger a person is when they first enter the juvenile justice system, the more likely they will return as they get older.

Another symptom of the system's failure is the over-representation of minority groups. Only five per cent of 10 to 17 year old Australians are indigenous, but 40 per cent of all young people under supervision or in custody are of this background. These are dismal outcomes and come at a high cost to the community. It costs the government tens of thousands of dollars to keep a young person in custody in South Australia—and we get off lightly. In New South Wales, the cost exceeds $150,000 to keep a juvenile in custody for 12 months.

Detention intensifies the need for greater levels of expensive post-release support. So, the community pays for the system's failure well into the future. Add to that the cost of renovating Magill or building a new detention centre at Cavan, and I think South Australians are entitled to ask whether they receive a good result from the money that is spent.

So, what is the alternative? Most of these people are very experienced in what they are dealing with, and they do not usually come out with just a criticism: they are forthcoming in providing ideas as to how the problem should be dealt with. This is what Jillian Paul says:

Mission Australia runs programs around the country that have had enormous success in keeping young people out of trouble and preventing crime—sometimes 50 times cheaper than locking a young person up. The results of Mission Australia's Pasifika program, aimed at young offenders from South Pacific Island backgrounds in Sydney, are a good example.

In the six months after their referral to the program, offence rates amongst participants were cut by more than half. Serious offences such as assault were reduced by close to two-thirds. Sixty-five per cent of participants have not reoffended within 12 months of program completion. Stunningly, these outcomes were achieved for the princely sum of about $2,500 per person, the average cost of an individual receiving Pasifika support for between three to six months.

These diversionary programs help divert a person from entering or re-entering the juvenile justice system. They are about addressing the root cause of a young person's problem, as well as showing them that they can have a future outside of stealing cars or break and enters. They receive help with education, personal and social skills, finding work, health and wellbeing, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, and financial literacy.

Arguably, the most effective support of all is in encouraging open communication between young people and their families and helping the families understand and reconcile the range of expectations placed on young people by their parents, their peers and school institutions. Many juveniles in custody have some form of serious abuse in their past, including violence and neglect; this is a more appropriate response to what is lying at the root of their problem than locking them up. It is certainly more successful.

Jillian Paull goes on to refer to Mission Australia's providing encouragement for what the government needs to do and its indication that it can be achieved. So, we have NGOs who are demonstrably reporting to us, through the publication of this information and their reports, programs that work, yet no-one seems to be taking any notice.

We, on the Select Committee on the Juvenile Justice System, had programs presented to us that worked, but then we found out that they would be cancelled. We put forward recommendations that there be extra funding into Operation Flinders and programs like that when we found a program that worked. But it was soul destroying to find a program that worked which was then cancelled. Sometimes it is necessary to cancel programs because they do not work and because you need to put that money into something that will work. A program for one child will not necessarily be as effective as for another child.

Nobody expects to find one single program that is the silver bullet to all these problems—of course not. We need to tailor activity that is of interest to young boys, and it is quite distinct from activities that interest older boys or young girls in a similar situation. Remember that some of the girls in this situation are already mothers at the age of 13, 14 or 15. They have had some life experiences which frankly some of us will never experience in our lifetime, and we would hope not to; they have had to shoulder responsibility way beyond their years, and we wonder why they are incapable of being able to manage serious responsibility like having young children and being able to care properly for them, let alone themselves.

It is terribly important that we review the situation, that the government takes stock of how absurd this approach is and their persistence with it. This model may be unique and novel—it may be the world's best practice, first class, and whatever they say it is—but the truth is that nobody else thinks so, and I am yet to find one single organisation or representative body that understands about children.

If you have another thinker in residence who says your current thinker in residence, Judge Hora, is wrong and, if you have an expert on juvenile crime other than Professor David Kennedy, fine; let's hear from them. But so far, everyone who has been either appointed or presented by the government or welcomed here to help us with some of these difficult issues or representative bodies who have this responsibility in our community says no. They say it is wrong and that you are demonstrably undermining the opportunity for these children not just to rehabilitate but also to have any chance in life. The government members should hang their head in shame if they have been prepared to sit with you, Attorney, in cabinet and approve such an approach. I have to ask myself, as I am sure others in the parliament would, what other members of cabinet who have responsibility for children would have sat there and let this happen?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Well, let's have a debate about it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will be very interested to hear what the minister for women and families and communities has to say, and what support she might have from her department that would justify this action in a proposal that clearly you have taken to cabinet, Attorney, and had their support on. This is a dangerous road to go down and it is totally destructive and unacceptable for any future chance of these children who otherwise would be suffocated by circumstances which are plainly highly destructive and on which you are pouring fuel and exacerbating.

We still have some stakeholders to hear from, as I said, like Mr Gillespie at the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. We think we should know about what he says because he is someone who works with children. Obviously, we hear from the other experts and from the information that has been put before this house by the high profile indigenous young people who are in this category, and they should have say. I am very disappointed that the government has not, before it has even started with something like this, gone to people like Mr Gillespie and sat down with him and said, 'We are at our wits' end and we do not know what else to do. We have appointed Gavin Wanganeen; we have ambassadors for youth; we have had these programs; we have dished in money here and we have done all this and tried everything. Before we proceed with this idea, which is novel but we think might have some merit, what do you think?'

You would think, wouldn't you, that they would do that. But again, you have to ask the question: why haven't they sat down with these people? They are the very people who would be able to throw some light on the subject for the government and say to the government, 'Why waste your money? Why go through this whole process of having legislative reform and a whole lot of new legal processes, why pay more lawyers to learn about it, have more arguments in court about the interpretation of it, create more work for the courts to do at more cost, if it is not going to work?'

I think we are at the end, Mr Attorney, of all the programs that you have thrown up in the parliament which we have been prepared to support and which we have given the benefit of the doubt to the government, even if you have not demonstrated it to us with much detail, we have been prepared to accept it in the past and we have been prepared to say, 'Okay, it sounds reasonable; we're prepared to give it a go.' But you have really taken us far beyond the pale on this, Mr Attorney, and we are not prepared to sacrifice the state's children with this initiative. It is completely unacceptable to us.

I foreshadow amendments to delete all provisions which provide for processes in the three acts of parliament that we have referred to which would facilitate the introduction of a recidivist young offender declaration procedure. In the event that that is unsuccessful and the government, therefore, has its way in passing this part of the bill (which, in fact, would go through with the rest of it because we are happy to support the rest of it), then we foreshadow that there will be an amendment to ensure that the review is ultimately done by someone who is independent of the government.

The second amendment is, of course, to ensure that we do not have a Caesar reviewing Caesar situation but that we have an independent body. In the past, when we have reviewed the operation of courts (for example, the Nunga Court or the Drug Court—and the Attorney would be familiar with this because I remember it being the subject of deadlock proceedings on a bill in this house), on those occasions when there have been 10 year reviews, for example, of the operation of courts that provided alternate judicial processes (the Drug Court and so on) the government of the day commissioned independent parties to conduct a review.

They would be paid an appropriate fee and would provide a review report to the Attorney-General and, in the cases that I was aware of, the Attorney kept it. In fact, in the course of some discussions on another bill, we had asked to see them because they had never been tabled in parliament. It was a bit surprising to me and, I think, the Hon. Robert Lawson in another place (who had been an attorney-general himself) that these review reports had not ever been tabled.

There may not have been any obligation in those circumstances to table them but you would think that, if you had a report reviewing whether alternate court processes work, you would come back to the parliament and say, 'Look, we've found that we've reduced the recidivism of offenders in the Drug Court and it is working in this way. We have been successful in this age group'–or otherwise—and that they would be willing and, in fact, rushing to come in with a report to show us that.

Equally, if it was not successful, they would come back to say, 'Look, the reports indicated we were not making any headway in this area so now we want to try XYZ.' That would seem to be the logical purpose of having an independent review and ensuring that it does what it has to do—and that is to tell us how something is going and, if it needs to be remedied or appealed or removed or amended, then we can do it.

If you never know what is in those reports or you get someone to do a report who is potentially unable to provide an impartial and independent assessment because they are too close to the scene, it raises the question whether there is any point at all in having a review. So, the government in this instance is saying, 'Well, we acknowledge there might need to be a review. We suggest that it be at three years and that it be done in tandem by the minister and Monsignor Cappo, or whoever is in charge of the Social Inclusion Unit.' The government appoints the person in charge of the Social Inclusion Unit and, obviously, the minister and the Attorney-General are members of the government which has brought in the legislation in the first place. So, on anyone's assessment, it could not be described as independent.

Here is what is really interesting. If the government's proposal was one which valued the view of Monsignor Cappo (or whoever might hold the position of head of the Social Inclusion Unit), so much so that it wanted to support him to have the responsibility to do the review, and his advice would be important, valued and useful in that process, then one has to wonder why on earth the government has not asked Monsignor Cappo to give it a report on what he thinks about the proposal in the first place.

As I said at the briefing, the opposition was informed that Monsignor Cappo had been forwarded a copy of the bill and the second reading speech. I do not know whether or not any other explanatory material went with it or whether he received it by email or courier pigeon, but it was sent off. The advice we had at the briefing was that there had been no response from Monsignor Cappo. We do not know whether he even got it, whether he considered it or whether he had an opportunity to investigate this proposal, but what we do know is that the government is pressing ahead with this legislation.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: standing order 128 deals with irrelevance or tedious repetition. I have been listening carefully for 15 minutes and I have not heard a discernible point made by the speaker. There is no doubt, after having seen a note handed to the speaker to keep talking until someone gives her further advice, that she has no intention of making a point. The standing orders require that the speaker at some point make a point. I have been listening for 25 minutes. She is plainly engaging in irrelevance and tedious repetition.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On a point of order, sir, standing order 128 only gives the Speaker the opportunity to raise that point, not a member. The point of order raised by the minister is out of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order! It is still reasonable enough for a member to raise standing order 128 with the Speaker. It is at the Speaker's discretion whether a member is engaging in tedious repetition—I think they are the words of the standing order. I will listen carefully to what the member for Bragg is saying. Standing order 128 is one I am loath to invoke. It has not been used in the light of members having a time limit of 20 minutes for their speeches but, given that the member is the lead speaker and so has unlimited speaking time, I will listen to what she is saying. If I think she is not speaking to the bill or engaging in tedious repetition, I will pull her up. The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, the government's decision to have a procedure of review by the minister responsible—that is, the Attorney-General—and Monsignor Cappo is a case of Caesar reviewing Caesar, and that is not acceptable; it is not independent and it does not in any way make provision—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order. Those exact words were used some 20 minutes ago.

The SPEAKER: I will listen to the member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: During the course of the briefing, a question was raised by a person on the staff of a member in another place on the issue of providing for victims of youth offenders rights commensurate with victims of adult offenders. This is the question of allowing for the provision of a victims register. Historically, there has been a rejection of the principle involving the provision of information about youth offenders, including details of the time they might be released, details of the sentence when they are, in fact, sentenced, and also details surrounding the escape of any offender from custody. These are all things that, under our adult offenders law, are provided for by having a victims register, with the opportunity that such information provides. However, it has historically been denied to victims of child offenders, following the principle not only that children should be treated differently in terms of their sentencing, but that the confidentiality—that is, the non-publication of information—is an important part of protecting them against public humiliation and scrutiny, which is deemed to be unproductive for children. It is consistent with the principle that supports and underpins the fact that we have a different system of justice for children.

For example, the system that operates for youths is such that it is the exception rather than the rule that members of the public are allowed into the courtroom. It is the exception rather than the rule that children's names are published in any way—either in the cause list or in the reporting of their trial or sentence—and their anonymity is broken. That is a pattern which underpins the basis upon which we treat children differently and by which we have a totally different and distinct set of rules under our juvenile justice procedures. Part of that is the privacy of that information about them and, I suppose, quarantining them from—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order. Not only is there absolutely nothing in the bill about this, but I again raise standing order 128. The member spoke about how the system of youth law protects the publication of the person's name in any way. She then went on to describe the many ways it might do so, after having said it protected disclosure in any way, and she then went on to talk about the privacy. If that is not tedious repetition of a point! I make this point: we know, in this house, that she has been asked to keep talking for reasons other than this bill, and so she is tediously repeating over and over again points that are not relevant to this debate. I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether it is appropriate that she keep getting notes from other members of the opposition to fuel her tedious repetition?

The SPEAKER: Order! I was distracted, so I did not hear the points that the member was making, but I will listen closely, and if she is engaging in tedious repetition I will draw her attention to that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For your benefit, I was referring to the matter that was raised by a member of staff at the briefing of a member in another place. During the course of the briefing, the question of the victim's register and an anticipated amendment to this bill was raised. It was raised on the basis—and I will read the correspondence in a minute, which followed it, from the member of parliament's office to me—of that information and the foreshadowed amendment, a copy of which I have received.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So?

Ms CHAPMAN: And, I will be reading it all out. The issue that it was under scrutiny by the member was the historical position that we have taken in the privacy of the information about a juvenile offender that underpins the reason that we do not let victims of children have that information. We do not tell them the sentence that these children receive or the offence that they are ultimately convicted of. We do not tell them what date they are going into detention, or wether they are going into detention. We do not tell them the details of the sentence. We do not tell them what reparation order is made. We do not tell them all these things that normally a victim of an adult offender gets access to. I can see that the minister has been following this debate carefully, and that he will realise that it relate to clause 21 of the bill.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The lead speaker for the opposition has reinforced my point: she has just repeated what she has said before. I do not know how obvious it is to this chamber, but she, having thought of nothing new, is deliberately trying to wind out this debate for reasons not associated with this debate, and I do not know what is less relevant than that.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bragg must not engage in repetition.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, the clause proposed to be amended is clause 21, which, if the minister is following this debate, is to remedy this problem, where, in relation to an offence for which a youth is sentenced, there is a registered victim, and the release of the youth, under this provision, is subject to a condition that relates to the registered victim or the registered victim's family. The registered victim must be informed of the terms of the condition of release.

The opposition can certainly see some merit in that. I have indicated that we will support the government's register of victims proposal but that we would also support an amendment along those lines, whether by the government or by the member in another place who has foreshadowed it. However, they do qualify some of this by a proposed new clause 21A, which would be an amendment to section 64, namely, information about a youth may be given in certain circumstances. Section 64, after its present content, is proposed to insert the following:

2. Any eligible person may apply in writing to the chief executive for the release to him or her of any of the following information relating to a recidivist young offender.

(a) details of the sentence or sentence of detention that the recidivist young offender is liable to serve.

(b) the date on which and the circumstances under which the recidivist young offender was, is to be, or is likely to be released from detention for any reason.

(c) details of any escape from custody by the recidivist young offender.

3. A person is an ineligible person if he or she is:

(a) a registered victim in relation to the offence for which the recidivist young offender is detained…

Mr Speaker, I am sure you are listening attentively to this debate and following this bill, so you would know that that is part of the procedure which the government is proposing and which we are supporting.

(b) a member of the recidivist young offenders family or a close associate of the recidivist young offender; or

(c) a legal practitioner who represents a recidivist young offender; or

(d) any other person who the chief executive thinks has a proper interest in the release of such information.

4. The chief executive has an absolute discretion to grant or refuse an application for release of information to an eligible person.

5. A decision of the chief executive as to whether a person is an eligible person, or to grant or refuse an application under this section is final and is not reviewable by a court.

6. The chief executive must not release information relating to a recidivist young offender's conditional release from detention without the consent of the Youth Parole Board (but the board may waive this requirement in such circumstances as it thinks fit).

One other aspect of the discussion with this—because there was some inquiry by representatives there for the government; I am not sure whether they were from the department or the minister's office—was what the view was of Mr Michael O'Connor, who is the Commissioner of Victims' Rights. As has been indicated earlier, he had been sent a copy of the bill and he had, apparently, not registered any objection to the bill. This is what he had to say to the Hon. Ann Bressington MLC, who is a member of the Legislative Council, who had sent her amendments to this to Mr O'Connor. He says:

Dear Ann Bressington MLC,

Re: Youth Parole Board—Victims' Rights

I refer to your letter inviting me to comment on amendments that you propose to the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders and Youth Parole Board) Bill 2009. May I first thank you for your invitation and note your intent to advance victims' rights in our state.

Please know that I make the following comment as the Commissioner of Victims Rights and nothing I provide should be construed as representing the government's policy and/or the views of the Attorney-General, Hon. Michael Atkinson MP.

Please also note that the Attorney-General did consult me on the bill. Furthermore, you should note that I support the separation of so-called 'hard-core' or 'recidivist' young offenders from other young offenders, and for that reason I support the concept of a Youth Parole Board.

It seems to me that the vast majority of young offenders are not recidivists. Much youth offending is irritating for the public but also can foster antagonism between young people and others. Public demands have grown for tougher screening of young offenders and a greater focus on recidivists.

From a victim perspective, no matter who commits the crime; crime hurts. Very occasionally that hurt manifests in anger, even hostility. Many victims, however, want offenders, especially young offenders, to stop committing crime. Victims have talked to me about the need for constructive rehabilitation programs and treatment for drug dependent offenders and those with mental illness. They do not want others to be hurt like them. Practices such as family conferencing have shown that there are ways to develop favourable (not forgiving) victims' attitudes towards young offenders and victim empathy among young offenders.

It is my firm view, however, that the recidivist young offenders who become eligible for consideration by the proposed Youth Parole Board have forfeited their right to certain liberties, including the usual right to confidentiality, as reflected in the privacy provisions of the Young Offenders Act (YOA).

The Declaration of Principles Governing Treatment of Victims of Crime that is enshrined in the Victims of Crime Act 2001 is commonly portrayed as a declaration on victims' rights. If the principles are rights, then victims have rights to information about offenders and prisoners. The declaration does not discriminate on the basis of the offender or prisoner being young or old; child or adult.

Pursuant to the declaration, victims who ask are entitled to information about, amongst other things:

The charge laid and details of the place and date of proceedings on the charge.

If a person has been charged with the offence—the name of the alleged offender.

If an application for bail is made by the alleged offender—the outcome of the application.

The outcome of the proceedings based on the charge and of any appeal from those proceedings.

Details of any sentence imposed on the offender for the offence.

If the release of the offender into the community is imminent—details of when the offender is to be released.

If the offender was ordered to undertake community service—whether the offender completed the community service.

If the offender was subject to a bond—whether the conditions of the bond were complied with.

If the alleged offender escapes from custody—the fact that he or she has escaped.

Victims are also entitled to make written and/or verbal submissions to the Parole Board on questions affecting the parole of a person in prison for the offence.

These rights should be respected and up-held by all public officials and public agencies.

There are confidentiality provisions in the YOA. These provisions apply in different ways. Part 2 of the YOA deals with minor offences. If an offence is a minor offence (as defined) then, in certain circumstances, the youth may not be charged with an offence but rather dealt with by way of informal cautions, formal cautions or family conference.

Debated adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT