HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 September 2009. Page 3876.)

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (15:58): The most glaring omission from this bill, in my view, is the recognition that offenders are human beings and should be treated as such. I believe that it is an abdication of its responsibilities by this government that young offenders are given harsher punitive orders and sometimes marked for life as criminals, with no hope of fitting into society and with no hope of ever being accepted as a participating citizen.

The government should put more money and resources into the Department for Families and Communities so that reports of child abuse and family breakdown can be investigated and dealt with promptly, and also much more funding should be allocated to successful crime prevention programs. The funding for several of these on Eyre Peninsula was withdrawn by this Attorney-General and has never been replaced.

The staff of the Department for Families and Communities is now so stretched that only the worst cases of abuse or other problems can be seen. It is far better to put a fence at the top of a cliff than an ambulance at the bottom. The fence that protects and serves the community in child abuse and family breakdown cases is the Department for Families and Communities.

I have been told of children being expelled from primary school (fortunately, not in my electorate), one of whom (a girl) was a prostitute and the other (a boy) a drug dealer. These children did not get into these activities without adult involvement. Of course, unless the associated problems are resolved, children will go on to worse behaviour.

It is well documented that abused children often go on to be abusers as adults and that many of them are so traumatised mentally that it affects their judgment and behaviour for the rest of their life. Effectively treating these children while they are children removes them from the criminal scene as they get older and gives them the chance of a future. Many juveniles in custody have some form of serious abuse in their past, including violence and neglect, and diversionary programs are a more appropriate and successful response to what is at the root of the problem rather than locking them up.

Better mental health services are also an essential component of effective treatment, but this government seems happier to put millions of dollars into a film hub than mental health facilities. An article in the September 2009 issue of The Adelaide Review states that the cost of keeping a young person in custody in South Australia for 12 months runs into tens of thousands of dollars, although South Australia's costs are said to be less than that in New South Wales, which is quoted at in excess of $150,000 to keep a juvenile in custody for 12 months.

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 having a young person locked up. These outcomes were received for the small sum of about $2,500—the average cost of support by the Mission's Pasifika program for three to six months. The Pasifika program is aimed at young offenders from South Pacific Island backgrounds in Sydney. In the six months after their referral to the program, offence rates among participants were cut by more than half while serious offences such as assault were reduced by close to two-thirds. Sixty-five per cent of participants have not re-offended within 12 months of program completion.

These diversionary programs help divert a person from entering or re-entering the juvenile justice system and prove that alternatives to incarceration are cheaper and more effective than having children locked up. They are about addressing the root causes of a young person's problems, as well as showing them that they can have a future outside of stealing cars or breaking and entering. They receive help with education, personal and social skills, finding work, health and wellbeing, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption and financial literacy.

If any child deserves specialist treatment, it is those children who are so deeply entangled in the youth justice system that they have been unable to comply with previous judicial orders or unable to resist committing further offences. If rehabilitation is to be assertively pursued, as recommended by the To Break the Cycle report, children who have repeatedly offended should not be labelled as recidivists and remain for a longer period in an environment that does not facilitate their rehabilitation.

Those who deal with child offenders should genuinely believe that every child is able to be rehabilitated. To act with any other belief is to get across to some children that they are worthless and can never change. We are seldom aware that what we think comes across to those we meet more strongly than what we say.

The Children and Law Committee of the Law Society of South Australia states that, in March 2008, a review program in the youth training centres found that 67 per cent of residents re-offend within six months and nearly 100 per cent within four years. Research by Mission Australia shows that about 90 per cent of youth clients released from custody re-offend within two years. These rates of re-offending are not the result of young people being released from custody prematurely but are a reflection on the lack of rehabilitation they receive while in custody.

Adults who are trying to break a drug habit must also change their social life and contacts to avoid the temptation to backslide through returning to the same community that they are attempting to escape. This aspect of child offending must also be a strong part of their overall rehabilitation program because without it re-offending is an almost foregone conclusion.

The Children and the Law Committee states that the bill will not have any material impact on rates of recidivism as evidence shows that longer sentences for young offenders do not correlate to a reduction in offending. Why should it when no alternatives have been put to offenders and they have received little or no training in how to deal with problems and how to alter their actions, behaviours and thinking?

This, of course, comes directly to the detention centres where these child offenders are incarcerated. The government has money to spend on signs and advertising that say how wonderful they are, on overseas jaunts and ministerial staff, but the same government does not have funding for mental health and appropriate residential facilities for young offenders, which illustrates the wrong priorities of the government's spending. As the Children and the Law Committee states:

The environments in which longer detention orders are to be served have been found to be lacking in the provision of therapeutic interventions targeted at the reasons for offending.

Remaining in an institution found to be lacking in appropriate therapeutic support is not in the best interests of the child. A child who is hungry will steal. In the 1770s such children were transported to Australia as convicts. Surely 200 years later we can consider ourselves more enlightened and humanitarian than to condemn such a child without attempting to rectify the reasons why he is not being fed properly.

It is noted that this bill presumes to deal with that proportion of young people who are repeat and serious offenders. Incarceration and transportation as the accepted and only means of dealing with offenders did not reduce crime in the 1770s nor will it today.

When condemnation and punishment are put forward as the only means of dealing with repeat and serious offenders, they have neither the encouragement nor the inclination to change. The Children and the Law Committee states that creating a subclass of offenders declared as recidivists and making it more difficult for them to qualify for their conditional release will do nothing to encourage or motivate in them a change in attitude or behaviour or ability to desist from offending upon eventual release.

Members of the Children and the Law Committee regularly act for children charged with an offence of assault whereby the child verbally or physically assaults residential care staff. No violence in the workplace is to be tolerated; however, there is no indication of possible actions or behaviours by staff which prompted the child's response. We have heard heartrending stories of children assaulted by adults when placed in care. It requires a special person to cope with these children who, for the most part, are a product of their environment.

Adequate staff in training centres, so that staff do not become overstressed, and more staff in the Families SA department are more positive ways to deal with young offenders and to bring about lasting change. Funding in these areas will have an impact on lessening crime and preventing children from committing crime in the first place. 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.

Certainly, putting the same amount of money into juvenile justice as the government is spending on a film hub would have a more lasting effect on reducing crime and rehabilitating offenders, thus taking them out of the criminal system for their lifetime.

As Mission Australia has demonstrated, detention is not the most appropriate means for tackling juvenile crime and stopping reoffending. The younger the person is when they first enter the juvenile justice system the more likely is their return as they get older. Another symbol of the system's failure is the overrepresentation of minority groups. For instance, only 5 per cent of 10 to 17 year old Australians are indigenous but 40 per cent of all young people under supervision are from an indigenous background.

Locking up young people for long periods of time, as proposed in this legislation, is a breach of their human rights. Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory, states:

States parties recognise the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.

Article 3 provides that the best interests of the child should be of primary consideration in all actions, thoughts and law. Rule 19(1) of the United Nation's Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice echoes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and states:

The placement of a juvenile in any institution shall always be a disposition of last resort and for the minimum necessary period.

Declaring a child to be a recidivist and a danger to the public does not promote a child's sense of dignity and worth nor does it make the community a safer place.

I urge the government to put more money into those services that deal with children and families, such as Families SA, and into proven, successful programs, such as those conducted by Mission Australia, to keep children out of the justice system in the first place, and rehabilitating them before they become adult crime statistics. This will be cheaper and more effective than the government's proposed draconian approach that ignores common humanitarian principles.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (16:11): I am speaking on the government's legislation which labels serial young offenders as recidivists. The background is well set out in the report To Break the Cycle, prepared by Monsignor Cappo in 2007. Monsignor Cappo was asked by Premier Mike Rann to report on problems of youth crime. Page 10 of his report states:

It is important to put the issue of youth offending into perspective. There is no youth crime wave. The rate of youth offending in South Australia is falling. In 2005 there were 6,127 police apprehension reports, this was 5.5 per cent lower than the number of reports in 2004 and the lowest in the 12 years. For example, police apprehended 25.1 per cent of young males born in 1984 before they turned 18 years of age. However, the majority of cases involved petty, often one-off offences, many of which were dealt with by the police without the matter going to court. That is, many of these young people 'wake up' to themselves and grow up to be productive and law abiding citizens. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a small number of young people who repeatedly break the law. This is the area for real concern and is the focus of this report.

Obviously, these were the concerns that led the government to introduce this legislation. It is worth stressing that it is for a very small proportion of young people and, indeed, even a small proportion of those who offend as young people.

There are a couple of other points that I wish to highlight from the To Break the Cycle report. Page 26 states:

I think that is a very telling conclusion drawn by Monsignor Cappo. If the government really wanted to get criminally offending young people off the streets, the best thing it could do would be to spend money in therapeutic, education and training programs so that these young people could be turned around.

The simple solution is to lock them up for longer. The government seeks to take that simple approach because it seems to make good headlines; people do not have to think about that solution. If a certain young offender is incarcerated for a few months longer, people assume they are safer but, if the young person does not come out any better than when they went in, it is a false sense of security enjoyed by the public

What we really need is more concentration on the causes of crime, and we are not seeing that. The rubric 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' has been twisted by this government to be 'tough on crime and tough on anyone who does not agree with them'. One cannot see any great headway being made in relation to overcoming the causes of crime.

When we come to this piece of legislation, it is worth bearing in mind recommendation No. 2 from the To Break the Cycle report. That recommendation was as follows:

That the objects of the Young Offenders Act 1993 (Part 3, Section 3) be amended to strengthen the requirement to take account of community safety when sentencing serious repeat young offenders. The strengthening of these provisions should occur in the context of a stronger focus on rehabilitation.

So, quite clearly, what the government has done is adopt that recommendation about stressing community safety, but what it has not done is take a matching step down the road of more rehabilitation for young offenders.

The same sentiments are echoed by the Children and the Law Committee of the Law Society. The member for Bragg has fulsomely related to us the views of the committee, but the main points are worth repeating. The committee describes the bill very concisely in the following paragraph:

The Committee understands the Bill (materially Parts 3 and 4), proposes to permit a court sentencing a child for committing a serious offence, where the required criminal history exists, to declare that child 'a recidivist young offender'. Such a declaration would override sentencing considerations of proportionality to the offence in question, and require the child to complete no less than four-fifths of the resultant detention order before being eligible for consideration for conditional release by the Training Centre Review Board constituted as a Youth Parole Board.

So, there we have the essence of the legislation. Where there are repeat offenders and they are under 18 they can be labelled as recidivist and then a mandatory minimum penalty, dependent on their detention order, is imposed, and must be imposed.

The Children and the Law Committee of the Law Society opposed the legislation for the following reasons. It was concerned that the number of recidivist offenders would increase due to the definition of 'serious offence' that is used in the legislation. There was a concern that there is not evidence to show that longer sentences will reduce offending. There was a concern about the labelling of offenders—that those who are labelled recidivist may start to think that there is no point in trying to change—and there were concerns about longer detention orders on children breaching their human rights.

In relation to that, we also need to bear in mind that the conditions of incarceration are not really conducive to rehabilitation or a sense of dignity. The cells at Magill are not pretty and are certainly not conducive to a dignified standard of living. I was visiting people there in the early 1990s, and I am told that they have not changed since then—and, indeed, they have not changed for decades.

I also refer to a submission from the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia. It has put a lot of work into analysing the bill quite exhaustively. Again, the main points have been well presented to the House of Assembly by the member for Bragg, but I will just highlight a couple of the main points.

The best interests of the child should be paramount here—and this comes back to my point about rehabilitation. That really should be the focus as much as anything: turning young people around so that they do not offend as adults. Surely that is the best, most important policy priority.

Secondly, the YACSA submission highlights the relevance of mental health issues for young people. It is often not just a matter of providing security, encouragement, self-esteem, education and training for troubled young people but also addressing mental health issues. To some extent, mental health issues need to be considered as beyond the control of young people, and they need to be adequately treated if there is going to be any prospect of turning them around. The YACSA submission also stresses rehabilitation, not surprisingly. In fact, it is a common theme from submissions concerning youth justice, particularly, all around the world.

It is unfortunate that the legislation has a punitive emphasis. There is no argument in the community about appropriate and strict punishments for repeat offenders, but that must be coupled with appropriate efforts and resources directed toward rehabilitation, otherwise it is just plain stupid.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:21): The bill arises from the government's concern about the harm done by a small cohort of young offenders who cycle in and out of detention and persist in serious crime despite the best endeavours of diversion and rehabilitation. These measures have been introduced to balance the interests of young offenders and their need for rehabilitation with the legitimate interests of the public and its need for protection.

Remember that repeat juvenile offenders are few in number, representing about 15 or 16 offenders, as was estimated to be so in July 2008 by Lisa Perre, Youth Justice, Families SA. These are the 15 or 16 that meet the criteria of a recidivist young offender under the legislation. Given the small numbers of people involved, this measure does not represent an assault on the youth justice system, as the members for Bragg, Mitchell and Flinders would have us believe, and, indeed, for reasons I am about to state, it does not even represent an assault on recidivist young offenders.

The bill was designed to meet, specifically, recommendation 2 of Monsignor Cappo's report which states that:

The objects of the Young Offenders Act 1993 (Part 3, section 3) be amended to strengthen the requirement to take account of community safety when sentencing serious repeat young offenders. The strengthening of these provisions should occur in the context of a stronger focus on rehabilitation.

And we are doing that.

Mr Hanna: Ha!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, perhaps the member for Mitchell could have taken some interest in the Aboriginal Power Cup. The member for Mitchell looks perplexed. Doesn't he know about the Aboriginal Power Cup?

The bill meets recommendation 2 of the Cappo report in that the bill amends the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act and the Young Offenders Act to strengthen the requirement to take account of public safety when sentencing serious repeat young offenders. Indeed, Monsignor Cappo provided this commentary in a letter dated 20 July 2008 on the draft bill. This is what Monsignor Cappo had to say about—

Ms Chapman: We are now being told?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, I am telling you. He said:

A key focus of the To Break the Cycle report was to balance the individual needs and rehabilitation of young offenders with community safety. The most socially responsible way of achieving community safety is through a combination of preventive measures that target young people at risk and through a planned, responsive rehabilitation approach for those young people already in contact with the juvenile justice system.

The To Break the Cycle investigation identified that there is a very small group of young offenders who are responsible for the majority of youth crime, some of whom pose a significant risk to both themselves and the broader community. It is this very small group of young people for whom the only sensible, immediate course of action is detention that is coupled with assertive individualised case management. For all young offenders, the focus should be delivery of individualised case management within the community setting.

As such, I would like to communicate my in principle support of the draft bill. I would also like to take the opportunity to emphasise that any legislative changes that enable a young person to be deemed a recidivist offender should only be used in the most severe cases of repeat offending. For this group of young people, a continued focus on rehabilitation must remain. Using detention as the sole means to manage this group of young people cannot be an option if we are to justly improve community safety. For all other young offenders, legislative change must not be allowed to encroach upon their management within the juvenile justice system.

I wish to conclude Monsignor Cappo's remarks by saying that the legislation meets the objectives of public protection, without undermining the rehabilitative focus of the Young Offenders Act and the wide range of diversionary measures that are available to deal effectively with the vast majority of offenders.

Not one of these mechanisms has been removed or affected by the legislation, except for informal cautions, where there is now a mechanism for recording informal cautions, an amendment that I think the opposition supports. This is an operational amendment that assists police in being able to determine which youths will best respond to cautions by checking to see who is new to being cautioned and who may respond to cautions and diversion from the criminal justice system. If the member for Mitchell got his way, the police would be unable to know, when informally cautioning a young offender, whether that offender had been informally cautioned dozens of times before. The member for Mitchell would blind and hobble the police. Protections have been retained so that cautions may not be used for the purposes of a criminal record check or allowed for use in judicial proceedings.

I turn now to deal specifically with the critique of the bill by the member for Bragg—and what a tour de force the member for Bragg's contribution was last night. The critique essentially encapsulates and distils criticisms contained in the lengthy submissions of the Law Society in particular and the Bar Association. Indeed, the honourable member's speech refers to the Law Society's submission at length. It could be seen that the member for Bragg was somewhat leaning upon the Law Society. I propose to outline my responses to the topics raised by the Law Society and the Bar Association.

Firstly—and this is the claim from the member for Bragg—the bill will cast the net wider than its stated intention and increase numbers of recidivist offenders owing to the definition of 'serious offence'. The recidivist young offenders measures will not widen the net beyond the bill's stated aims. The measures are targeted to a very small cohort of repeat offenders who are responsible for the commission of the majority of crime in South Australia. For instance, in any one year, 10 per cent of male juvenile offenders in South Australia are responsible for nearly half of all crime, a figure repeated nationally, internationally and across time and cultures. Around 5 per cent of male juvenile offenders will be sentenced to detention each year.

The mechanisms of a declaration: a longer custodial term and conditional release upon youths to be of good behaviour, assisted by mandatory supervision by Families SA officers, who are qualified to work with young offenders within the rehabilitative framework of the juvenile justice system, are aimed at protection of the public.

We are talking about, roughly, 16 offenders who are part of the so-called gang of 49. We are talking about crime machines. We are talking about offenders who commit the vast bulk of serious juvenile crime in South Australia. Yet those people found a voice in this house last night through the Liberal Party, and the victims of those offenders who contact my office and the offices of members of parliament will be getting a summary of the advocacy on their behalf by the member for Bragg and the Liberal Party in this house last night and today.

These measures do not ignore the legislative aim of rehabilitating young offenders under the Young Offenders Act, given the range of rehabilitation interventions available for young offenders in custody and under supervision. Any possibility of net widening is also likely to be mitigated under other provisions of the bill.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, the member for Kavel says that anything I mail out must be accurate. It will be the speech itself, the record of Hansard. Just recently the Leader of the Opposition has tried to stop me circulating—trying to use quasi legal means—the whole speech of a Liberal member, on Hansard. Why would that be?

Firstly, the eligibility criteria for the declarations are strict. A young offender will have to have been convicted of serious offences on three separate occasions—three separate occasions—for sexual offences against a child, under the age of 14 years on two separate occasions. Secondly, a declaration is likely to arise after initial, if not considerable, exposure by a child to diversionary mechanisms under the Young Offenders Act, including cautions, community service orders and family conferences.

Thirdly, a declaration would only follow successful prosecution, being a proceeding of last resort. Prosecution proceedings would only be instituted in the event of the commission of either a very serious offence or serious repeat offending. Fourthly, a declaration would only be made where custody is deemed to be the only appropriate penalty, which is again a penalty of last resort, under the framework of the Young Offenders Act, assuming the eligibility criteria for a recidivist young offender is met.

Finally, the courts retain a discretion to make a declaration for eligible offenders who fulfil the criteria referred to above. This will ensure that such declarations can be expected to be made when the need for public protection is considered the priority.

In sum, given the statistically small numbers of offenders to which such declarations apply, the eligibility criteria that apply to recidivist young offenders and the retention of the court's discretion to make declarations, the government considers there is unlikely to be much net widening.

Let me tell the member for Kavel and the member for Bragg that I am willing to debate this with them in any forum. I will go to Mount Barker, I will go to Lobethal, and I will go to Burnside to debate this very question, because I am sure their constituents would be astonished, in the face of the damage and the number of victims created by the so-called gang of 49, that the member for Kavel, the member for Flinders, the member for Finniss and the member for Bragg would vote against this sensible measure. I think their constituents would be astonished about how they side with the gang of 49 against society.

A second claim: the bill will not have any material impact on rates of recidivism as (a) evidence shows that longer sentences for young offenders do not correlate with a reduction in offending. Well, tell that to the victims of the so-called Gang of 49 when members of that so-called gang are released early from youth detention and immediately begin a course of creating more victims; and (b) (this is the member for Bragg's claim, and one she adopts) the environment in which the longer detention orders are to be served—

Ms CHAPMAN: On a point of order—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It is not a point of order. She is disagreeing with me.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney-General is attempting to present to the house claims I have made, which are not true. He is reading from the Law Society's submission, not mine.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Just as the member for Unley introduced the forgeries to the house, so the member for Bragg introduced the Law Society's submission to the house at great length and endorsed it. This is the claim, (2b): the environment in which the longer detention orders are to be served have been found to be lacking in the provision of therapeutic interventions targeted at the reasons for offending.

The member for Bragg swallowed this hook, line and sinker. My response: the government's bill is designed to protect the public. However, it can also be said that youth training centres are also designed to deliver rehabilitative interventions to young offenders in custody. On advice received from Families SA, South Australia's youth detention centres currently run rehabilitation programs in addition to education programs, sports and life skills that are specifically tailored to young offenders' needs, including (I will list these because you will never hear this from the member for Bragg):

victim awareness, a focus on the experience of victims to improve cognitive empathy skills;

the STAR program, systematic training anger reduction;

moral reasoning, a cognitive behavioural therapy program;

cultural identity, run with the Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth and Family Service; and

individual behavioural management programs.

Other programs include juvenile justice job placement and Alcohol Services South Australia; drug and alcohol education and counselling services, in conjunction with Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia; continuing the journey for youth in transition to community; and the healing room: journey to respect, in conjunction with Child Adolescent Mental Health Services.

Ms Chapman: Is that all?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No; I will finish the list in a minute. As to the first list, with the so-called Gang of 49, who have had most unfortunate lives, who couch surf, who do not get proper nutrition and who do not have a father or male mentor in their life, what chance do you think you have of those offenders doing these rehabilitative programs unless they are in youth detention? How else are they going to be required to attend? Do you think they will turn up voluntarily?

New programs that began in 2009 include apprenticeship and employment, through OneSteel, a metal industry and mining business, and also a mentoring service in conjunction with WHITELINE SA, funded by my department. A Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres report was released by the Guardian for Children and Young People and the Minister for Families and Communities accepted recommendations in the report already being implemented in part by the recommendations of the Commissioner for Social Inclusion made in the To Break the Cycle report.

Here is the Law Society and the member for Bragg's third criticism: creating a subclass of offenders declared as recidivists and making it more difficult for them to qualify for conditional release will do nothing to encourage or motivate in them a change in attitude or behaviour or ability to desist from offending upon eventual release.

Our first task is to disable them from committing serious crimes against South Australians by putting them in detention in the immediate aftermath of their crimes. This is something the parliamentary Liberal Party seeks to stop us doing by opposing this bill. The government's priority is the protection of the public from a very small but persistent group of young offenders who have not benefited from past lenience or past interventions at rehabilitation. The measures will require the assessment of strict criteria for the conditional release of recidivist young offenders.

However, it is important to note that the views of the young offender and the victim will be important to the Youth Parole Board's decision. These interested parties will not only have the opportunity to make sense of their own experience at a youth parole hearing but also to the debate of what they would like to see happen after a young offender's release from detention. These views, apart from the utility of other expert reports, will not only affect the board's decision to release an offender but also influence the type of conditions that are imposed to meet the needs of the offender, the protection of the victim and society. For instance, conditions for release may also be of a rehabilitative kind, including, for example, a youth's continued attendance at a program, under supervision of Families SA workers, who are best qualified to deal with juveniles, within the rehabilitative framework of the youth criminal justice system.

We come to the fourth criticism of the government's bill by the Law Society and their servant, the member for Bragg: imposing longer detention orders on children is a breach of their human rights. Those shadow ministers who simply read into the record interminably the submissions of lobby groups and pressure groups ought to reconsider the way in which they are fulfilling the responsibilities of their shadow portfolio.

The answer to the member for Bragg's point is this: the government has taken a view that the rights of recidivist offenders need to be balanced against the need to protect the public, and that is a balancing act the parliamentary Liberal Party has rejected. Although detention of young offenders helps prevent the commission of further offences, this is not at the expense of rehabilitation of the offender, taking into account the range of rehabilitation interventions available for young offenders in custody and under supervision, and I have enumerated those. Rehabilitation interventions available in the youth criminal justice system aim to promote the child's reintegration and assumption of a constructive role in society and, by doing so, promote the child's sense of dignity and self-worth. The member for Bragg would merely leave the so-called gang of 49 on the ran-tan. Her approach and the approach of the parliamentary Liberal Party is all carrot, all chocolate and no stick.

Let us deal with the South Australian Bar Association's submissions, and this forms point five: serious repeat offender declaration and removal of proportionality in sentencing by requiring young offenders to serve four-fifths of their sentence in custody will guarantee the child as a career criminal. Again, that is a submission the member for the Bragg and the parliamentary Liberal Party decided to adopt.

Ms Chapman: They're wrong, too, are they?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, they are wrong. They are completely wrong. Our response: the government has taken the view that the rights of recidivist young offenders need to be balanced against the need to protect the public. The member for Bragg takes the view that, if a youth offender is required to serve four-fifths or more of his sentence, then he will be a career criminal as a result. What an extraordinary analysis. The member for Bragg is saying that no-one should serve their full sentence if they are a youth; in fact, they should not even serve four-fifths of it. Extending the non-parole period to four-fifths of the sentence will help achieve the aim of balancing, in the mix, the rights of victims—

Ms Chapman: As if you care about victims.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —as will the imposition of stringent conditions by the Youth Parole Board after release. Well, the member for Bragg ought to ask some victims of the so-called gang what they think—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —of our proposals compared to the Liberal Party's proposal. On the last interjection, the woman who has just collected a damages payout of something like $500,000 from the government would not agree with the member for Bragg about children in state care. It should be remembered that this sentencing discretion will vest in the court and will be reserved for a very small category of repeat young offenders who have not benefited from past leniency and who appear to be going straight back into crime after being caught, charged and convicted. The Liberal Party says: let 'em rip.

Proportionality will be maintained for the vast majority of young offenders. Recidivist young offenders are not lost to the criminal justice system. I refer specifically to the interventions pledged to detainees including post-release by the Department for Families and Communities in the examples that I have already supplied in my contribution to the house today.

I would now like to touch on comments raised by the member for Bragg about the creation of a victims register and the release of some information to victims about detainees. I note proposed amendments that the Hon. Ann Bressington has sought to move concerning the release of detainee information to victims. The government proposes to move amendments that mirror similar provisions in the Correctional Services Act for the release of information about detainees to victims. I will speak to these amendments in committee.

Bill read a second time.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. M.J. Atkinson]


Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 3, lines 3 and 4—Delete 'Recidivist Young Offenders and Youth Patrol Board' and substitute:

Miscellaneous Criminal Procedural Matters

I am speaking to amendment No. 1 and advise the house that the remaining amendments up to No. 16 (as circulated) are consequential upon the deletion of 'Recidivist Young Offenders and Youth Parole Board'. Consistent with what I have outlined in my second reading contribution, the opposition opposes the declaration of young persons for the purposes of introducing and imposing a different sentencing obligation.

The Attorney-General has provided today his estimate of the number of children to whom he would expect the proposed definition and process to apply. I am not sure whether that is on an annual basis. I assume from what he has said that 15 or 16 children a year would come under the definition (to which this would apply) out of some 200 children who are sentenced to some kind of detention provision per year. That is certainly within the realm of what was estimated as a possibility in information provided at the briefing—that it could be four or five or 10. There was no certainty as to what it would be, but an estimate was requested. I am pleased that the Attorney-General has provided this information in his response prior to the conclusion of the second reading debate.

Further information that the Attorney-General has provided in his response does not in any way persuade the opposition that its introduction is justified. The Attorney-General has done two things. In addition to just repeating and dismissing—without producing further corroboration—the criticisms made by the SA Bar Association and the Law Society, he did two other things. First, he quoted what appear to be excerpts from a letter or submission, apparently dated 29 July 2008, from Monsignor Cappo in respect of this proposal of the government.

Two things concern me about that. First, at the time of the briefing on this matter, the information that was conveyed to those in attendance—and other members of parliament and/or their staff were present—was that Monsignor Cappo had not responded to the referral of this information to him on the basis that he was one of the stakeholders to be consulted. The understanding was that it was taken as some acquiescence.

Today the Attorney-General has produced a letter or excerpts from a letter or a submission (as he described it) dated 29 July 2008, which runs through a number of things that Monsignor Cappo thinks are important, but the Attorney-General is hanging his hat on the fact that he provides in-principle support. Of course, we have not seen this submission. As far as we are concerned, it did not exist at the time of our briefing. In any event, if it transpires that it was in existence—and the indication from the Attorney-General is that it has certainly come to his attention—then as members of parliament we need to see it. I ask again that the Attorney-General provide a copy of the full response from Commissioner Cappo in respect to this legislation.

What is evident, even from the information that was provided by the Attorney-General in this regard, is that it is clear that Monsignor Cappo suggests that there are a number of other ways that we should be dealing with these children—these few children, relative to the total number—to which this would apply. One of them is that they have individualised plans that are responsive to the needs of these children. We did not see any indication from the Attorney-General, other than a list of apparent programs that apply, or are applied, in the prisons.

I am sure that members would know this very well, because we all receive letters from people, not just from adult prisons and children's prisons, but from those who regularly complain about government programs, not the content of them or that they may not be very effective, but that they cannot get access to them, they have to go on a waiting list, or the program is not actually available at the facility where they are at any one time, or—in the prison population—that they are frequently moved from one facility to another so that even if they start a program they never get to finish it. I do not know about other members, but I get plenty of those sorts of letters.

It is not a question of this parliament simply saying, 'Here is a list of the things that we offer, some by way of program, for children.' Clearly, whatever is happening in there is not enough. It may be that individually each of these programs are fantastic. It may be that they are only getting to one or two of the children. It may be that they are not long enough or that, at the end of the day, they need some other supplement for them to actually be effective.

So, I find that wanting in respect to any support for the concept that these children need to be held in detention longer to enable them to have access to the programs, which he says are adequate. It is totally unacceptable to the opposition to in any way support the merits of the proposal that is before us in respect of this declaration procedure.

The second thing that the Attorney-General says today is that if we want to know how the victims are feeling then we should go and ask them. We do ask a number of the organisations that support these people. We are not allowed to know who the actual victims are because there is no public list. There is no list out there where we can say, 'Okay, well, here's this person who is a victim of this child's offence,' so that we can ring them up and say, 'How do you feel? Do you think this should be happening?'

What I do know is this: when I was a member of the Juvenile Justice Inquiry, chaired by the Hon. Bob Such, we had a number of people come before us and we heard a lot about the importance of family conferencing. We heard a lot about the merits of restorative justice.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We are still doing that.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney interjects to say that we are still doing it; as we should. It was recommended that that should continue. That had been under review. It had been operating, I think, for 10 years in the Youth Court, under their supervision, and it was making headway. One thing that was overwhelming amongst the victims, whether it was a Coles supermarket which had had products flogged out of its shop, whether they were someone who had been the recipient of a blow during an assault, whether property or personal damage applied—there were some issues relating to victims of sexual offences and whether family conferencing was appropriate or not, although certainly some people take the view that that is still an appropriate forum and way of managing rehabilitation in a restorative justice program for even victims of those offences—is that they were very happy to come in, sit down and meet with the offenders in relation to these offences and see some demonstrable commitment from those children to changing their lives.

It may even be things which may seem little to us but which are very important to the victim. We were told that something that was very therapeutic and to the advantage of the offender was the obligation, which was imposed through this conferencing process, for the offender to write a letter of apology to the victim. This is a very powerful means by which the young offender is not just given the opportunity but has imposed on them something that will make them think about what they have done and the consequences, and that has had some very significant benefit.

A number of people have provided examples to us of the types of letters that have been provided. We heard from members of the judiciary, when we attended for the 10 year Youth Court conferencing celebration (at which, from memory, the Attorney-General was present), who reinforced the importance of children being obliged to do this and its value not only to them but also to the victims.

The Attorney-General can say, 'Why don't you ask some of the victims about what happens with this?' We have done so, and the position in relation to this matter is that the people out there have demonstrably told the committee of the advantages in undertaking those processes.

In addition, we have heard from the groups in the community that have to represent these people, one of which still has not provided us with any information but to whose representative I have spoken and to whom I have referred in my address, that is, the Chief Executive of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. We have not heard anything from the government about what its response was.

After the briefing, I was speaking to the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement about another bill—a corrections bill, in fact, which is another matter working its way through the parliament and which is outside the Attorney's portfolio (there is a different minister to which they are directly responsible). In the context of looking at that legislation, I was having a discussion with the Chief Executive of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement.

I said, 'I would be interested to know what you think about the recidivist young offender procedure the government proposes to introduce in its recidivist young offenders bill.' He said, 'I don't think I've seen it.' I said, 'Perhaps you have a committee or some structure that gets to view these things.' He said, 'No. If it came through here I would have seen it.' I said, 'Look, I'll send you a copy of it, and also the Attorney-General's second reading speech. In a nutshell, there were three—'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: He could have been mistaken.

Ms CHAPMAN: Absolutely. I said, 'The government is proposing three initiatives. One is the program that is under immediate review, and I am speaking on that. The second is that there be a Parole Board arrangement, and the register for the victims, and we have indicated our position and our support to the government in respect of that bill. There is a third leg of the bill that relates to recording informal cautions.' He said, 'Oh, yes. I'll certainly have a look at that,' or words to that effect. I said, 'Well, be assured that in relation to that aspect the opposition thinks that that is quite a good idea, and it has been supported by the select committee inquiry,' etc.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. P.L. White): Order! I remind members the committee of standing order 364, which limits questions on clauses to 15 minutes. I notify the member for Bragg that, while I have not had the clock on her, she has been going on for quite a long time. If she has a question for the minister, would she please ask it very briefly.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Madam Acting Chair, for reminding me of that. I suppose I could speak for 15 minutes for all 16 of these but, as I indicated, they are consequential, so I was hoping to shorten the debate on this aspect by speaking, obviously over time, just on this. I may need to use some of that time on amendment No. 2.

Can I say in conclusion, to do with the consultation process, that it does concern me very greatly that someone who represents at the senior level the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement apparently is not familiar—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Apparently?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Of course, you could be wrong.

Ms CHAPMAN: I said that before, Mr Attorney. You're not listening.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Why didn't you check it before you came into the house?

Ms CHAPMAN: I spoke to him, as I indicated, and the position is, as I said yesterday in the debate, that we have not had the response yet from them as to their attitude, but at the conclusion of this discussion, he said, 'Yes, I'd be very interested to have a look at that because that would have some concerns.' In reference to what you have described as the estimate of 15 or 16 children (or whatever the number was going to be, because we did not know what the number is going to be,) he agreed with me that the likelihood is that the profile of the people that this would apply to will be young, male, black, poor children—his clients.

Yet, would you not expect in those circumstances that, having raised it even yesterday, if he had had some response or had felt that there had been some consultation and some indication of acceptance or support—'Great, this is fantastic'—at the very least it would be important for the Attorney-General to have rushed in here today not only to produce a summary of bits of whatever Monsignor Cappo presented but to have rushed in here with the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement submission, if there is one, to say, 'What a great idea!'

Of course he has not, because they do have concerns, obviously, from that conversation that I have had. I think it is incumbent on the government when it consults with these people that it properly consults with the very people who have to work with these children and represent them and pick up their lives and be able to give some chance of rehabilitation, and not just dismiss this issue as though it is of no importance.

So, the opposition is not persuaded even by what the Attorney-General has come back with today to suggest that this has any merit whatsoever, that it is going to provide any greater or safer community protection or, most importantly, that it is going to provide any benefit for the recovery and rehabilitation of the young people to whom this will apply. My amendment effectively amends the initial reference in the bill to this proposed structure and I indicate that, in the event that the passage of this amendment is not successful, I will not be proceeding with the balance. I thank the chair for her indulgence and the extra time allowed.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am advised by my staff that the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement was sent the consultation documents on 5 June and, when it was followed up by members of the Policy and Legislation Section, Mr Gillespie was unsure whether or not he was making a submission but referred the staff member to a lawyer for ALRM who was on long service leave and therefore not available to enter into dialogue about it.

Ms Chapman: Another pathetic excuse!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: A pathetic excuse? What—by ALRM or by my department?

Ms Chapman: By your department.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: By my department! There you have it—a pathetic excuse. My department mails the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement on 5 June, does not receive a response then follows up by phone and that apparently is a pathetic response. Today's contribution to the debate by the parliamentary Liberal Party has hinged entirely, swung entirely, on a set of facts which has just been falsified. Like so much else—like the Mount Gambier kidney, like the Ceduna classroom, like the Kate Lennon payout—all of them prove to be false and when they are falsified, does the member for Bragg ever come back to the house and say, 'Look, I'm sorry. I got that wrong'? No; she never accepts responsibilities for her error. Here is another one today.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (11)
Chapman, V.A. (teller) Evans, I.F. Gunn, G.M.
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Hanna, K. McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. Penfold, E.M. Pengilly, M.
Venning, I.H. Williams, M.R.
NOES (24)
Atkinson, M.J. (teller) Bedford, F.E. Breuer, L.R.
Brock, G.G. Caica, P. Conlon, P.F.
Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C. Geraghty, R.K.
Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W.
Koutsantonis, A. Lomax-Smith, J.D. Maywald, K.A.
O'Brien, M.F. Piccolo, T. Rann, M.D.
Simmons, L.A. Snelling, J.J. Stevens, L.
Weatherill, J.W. White, P.L. Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (6)
Redmond, I.M. Rankine, J.M.
Griffiths, S.P. Portolesi, G.
Goldsworthy, M.R. Ciccarello, V.

Majority of 13 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 6, lines 10 and 11—Delete:

'must be a period of not less than the mandatory period prescribed in respect of the relevant offence' and substitute:

(c) must be a period not less than the mandatory period prescribed in respect of the relevant offence; and

(d) if there is more than one such offence in respect of which a mandatory period is prescribed—must be a period not less than the greater of any such mandatory period; and

(e) must be commenced or be taken to have commenced on the date specified by the court (which may be the day on which the person was first taken into custody or a later date specified by the court that occurs after the day on which the defendant was taken into custody but before the date on which the person is sentenced).

Note—

See PNJ v The Queen [2009] HCA 6

These technical amendments have been included to give effect to clause 10 of the bill which amends section 32(5a) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act. Section 32(5a) is a provision that deals with the setting of a minimum nonparole period for a global sentence that is imposed for multiple offences under section 18 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act.

Amendments to section 32(5a) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act were introduced in this bill to give effect to the comments made by His Honour Chief Justice Doyle in the famous case of Dundovic, reported at 2008 South Australian Supreme Court at page 136 in paragraphs 42 and 43. His Honour queried whether the four-fifths nonparole period rule applied to the offence that attracted the mandatory nonparole period or whether the rule applied to the total sentence imposed under section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act. His Honour considered that the latter would work a hardship against the offender. His Honour also queried how pre-custody ought to be taken into account in the setting of a nonparole period for a global sentence.

The current amendment makes clear that the prescribed nonparole period must be not less than the mandatory period prescribed for the relevant offence. The effect of the proposed additional amendment clarifies, first, the calculation of the nonparole period where there may be more than one offence attracting a nonparole period. For instance, paragraph (d) proposes that, if there is more than one such offence for which a mandatory period is prescribed, this must be a period of not less than the greater of any such mandatory period. This paragraph not only provides clarity but addresses the concern raised in Dundovic that the provision does not operate in a way that works unnecessary hardship to a young offender.

Finally, paragraph (e) clarifies how sentences may be backdated to take into account pre-custody, in accordance with the principles in PNJ v The Queen (2009) High Court of Australia at page 6. It is a judgment of 10 February this year. A sentence that is backdated must be commenced or be taken to have commenced on the date specified by the court, which may be the day on which the person was first taken into custody or a later date specified by the court that occurs after the day on which the defendant was taken into custody but before the day on which the person is sentenced.

For example, this will cover the situation where an offender has been placed in custody after his arrest until such time as he has been sentenced for an offence. It will also cover the scenario where the offender may have been bailed for an offence after arrest but was taken into custody because he breached his bail conditions. The court, in that instance, could exercise its discretion to backdate the sentence to the date the offender was taken into custody, assuming that he remained in custody until sentencing.

Ms CHAPMAN: I indicate that, whilst the opposition opposes the general principle of the regime that is being imposed, we do accept that this amendment is for the purposes of clarity. And so, even though we oppose the new regime, we accept that it needs to function and operate and certainly pre-sentencing periods need to be taken into account, so there will be no opposition from the Liberal Party.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 9, after line 32—Insert:

(1a) Section 37—after subsection (5) insert:

(5a) If, in relation to an offence for which a youth was sentenced to imprisonment for life, there is a registered victim and the release of the youth on licence under this section is subject to a condition that relates to the victim or the victim's family, the Training Centre Review Board must notify the victim of the terms of the condition.

(5b) However, the Training Centre Review Board is not required to notify the registered victim if—

(a) the victim has indicated to the board that he or she does not wish to be so notified; or

(b) the board is satisfied that, in the circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to so notify the victim.

(5c) A decision of the Training Centre Review Board to notify or not notify a victim of the terms of any such condition is final and is not reviewable by a court.

The amendments to these clauses are identical and may be considered together. This amendment adds to a proposed amendment by Ms Bressington to clause 21, section 41A(4a) permitting the disclosure to a registered victim of the terms of any condition of a young offender's release that relate to a victim or a victim's family.

For consistency, I propose to add a similar amendment to clause 16—that is, section 37(5a) of the act—permitting similar disclosure of the terms of any licence relating to a victim or his or her family which has been imposed for a young offender who has been convicted of murder. However, my proposed amendment will provide a discretion to the Training Centre Review Board not to notify a victim if he or she has indicated to the board that he or she does not wish to be so notified, or, alternatively, the board is satisfied that, in the circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to so notify the victim.

In some cases, an offender's health or wellbeing may be put at risk by the release of such information. These additional clauses are, I think, an improvement to the Bressington amendment and again serve to demonstrate the government pledging itself to victims of crime.

Ms CHAPMAN: The opposition understands the proposal submitted to it by the Hon. Ann Bressington foreshadowing her amendments, and I accept the Attorney's explanation that this is largely to cover her proposals. I think the only correction to that is to provide for a decline of information in certain limited circumstances, which certainly appears to be in order. The opposition has no objection to the same; in fact, we support it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 17 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 14, after line 34 [clause 21, inserted section 41A]—Insert:

(4a) If, in relation to an offence for which a youth was detained, there is a registered victim and the release of the youth under this section is subject to a condition that relates to the victim or the victim's family, the Training Centre Review Board must notify the victim of the terms of the condition.

(4b) However, the Training Centre Review Board is not required to notify the registered victim if—

(a) the victim has indicated to the Board that he or she does not wish to be so notified; or

(b) the Board is satisfied that, in the circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to so notify the victim.

(4c) A decision of the Training Centre Review Board to notify or not notify a victim of the terms of any such condition is final and is not reviewable by a court.

Ditto.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 22 passed.

New clause 22A.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 16, after line 38—Insert:

22A—Amendment of section 64—Information about youth may be given in certain circumstances

Section 64—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) If the youth is sentenced to detention or imprisonment for an offence, an 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 the youth:

(a) the name and address of the place in which the youth is for the time being held in custody;

(b) details of any transfer of the youth from one place in which the youth is being held in custody to another;

(c) details of the sentence or sentences that the youth is liable to serve;

(d) the date on which and circumstances under which the youth was, is to be, or is likely to be, released from custody for any reason;

(e) details of any escape from custody by the youth.

(3) The Chief Executive has an absolute discretion to grant or refuse an application for release of information to an eligible person.

(4) 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.

This amendment is an alternative to the proposed amendment by Mrs Bressington regarding the disclosure of information about young offenders who receive custodial terms. My amendment mirrors the provisions of section 85D to include the release of information about those matters referred to in that provision for offenders.

Proposed section 64(2) therefore permits the release of information about the names and addresses of the training centre where a youth is detained; details of any transfer of the youth from one training centre to another; details of a young offender's sentence; the date of a young offender's release from custody; and details of any escape.

The amendment stands in contrast to the Bressington amendment, which is confined in its application to recidivist young offenders and also omits from disclosure information about the name and address of the training centre where a young offender is held, as well as details of any transfer of the youth from one training centre to another. I do not see any reason to confine the provisions to recidivist young offenders, nor any reason to exclude details relating to the training centre where the young offender is being held, since we have only two, as, clearly, this would be of interest to a victim.

Proposed section 64(4) allows for the release of information to eligible persons defined to include a registered victim, a member of the youth's family, a close associate, a legal practitioner representing the youth, and any other person whom the chief executive thinks has a proper interest in the release of such information, which may conceivably include a registered victim's family member.

The effect of proposed section 64(3), (4) and (5) is that neither the Department for Families and Communities or the Training Centre Review Board will be compelled to release information to victims of crime or any other person or organisations. Again, it is possible to envisage that, in some case, the offender's health or wellbeing may be put at risk by the release of such information. It is proposed that the chief executive officer of the department or the Parole Board have the discretion to refuse to meet requests, where circumstances dictate.

It is further provided that a decision by the chief executive officer or the board as to whether a person is an eligible person or to grant or refuse an application for information is final and not reviewable by a court. Similarly, this clause serves to demonstrate, among other things, this government's continuing pledge to assist victims of crime.

Ms CHAPMAN: The opposition supports this amendment. We place on the record our appreciation to the Hon. Ann Bressington for having raised this matter, undertaken the consultation and obtained the support of the Commissioner of Victims' Rights. It is important that there be this information, subject to the restrictions, as indicated, by the Attorney. It is her attention to this that brought the matter to our notice, and we express our appreciation to her for undertaking to do that and indicate our support.

What I will say is that, more often than not, the situation is that the offender is a child but so is the victim, in many cases. Therefore, there has to be some opportunity to have this information and recognise that youths, in some situations, lose the right to privacy in relation to some of this information. However, with the safeguard of there being some administrative supervision of that information, the opposition will support the same.

New clause inserted.

Clause 23.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 17, lines 3 to 10 (inclusive)—Delete the clause and substitute:

23—Social Development Committee to inquire into the report on operation of act

The Social Development Committee of the parliament must, within three years after the commencement of the Statutes Amendment (Recidivist Young Offenders and Youth Parole Board) Act 2009, in consultation with the Attorney-General, inquire into, consider and report on the operation of the act (including any effect the operation of the act has had on the criminal justice system in South Australia)

It is the opposition's view that, if we are to have the new regime of the badging of certain young offenders as recidivist young offenders, which we have been unsuccessful in having removed from this bill, it is appropriate that there be a review. The government, in its own bill, proposed that there be a review, and I think that is an acknowledgment that, because of the novelty of this approach by the government, unique in the world, as far as we know, at least there should be some review period. So, at least we agree on that.

What we say is that it is important that, if there is to be a review and it is to be effective, it must be independent, and a review procedure that includes the minister is not independent. Monsignor Cappo, as head of the Social Inclusion Unit, is someone who would have a very significant input, as he should, in matters being reviewed. However, what we say would be more appropriate, just as we do in court reviews, is to have someone appointed independently to undertake that assessment. Certainly, it would be appropriate that Monsignor Cappo or his successor would be, as the head of the Social Inclusion Unit, a valuable person to present submissions and to put their view as to the effectiveness of this procedure. Although we have not yet been able to see even his first submission, we agree that a person in his role should be consulted and obviously serious consideration given to what he may contribute.

One of the roles and responsibilities of the parliamentary Social Development Committee is to deal with issues in relation to children. Therefore, I have moved this amendment on the basis that it be the Social Development Committee which is vested with the responsibility to conduct the inquiry within three years, which is the same time period as proposed by the government, and that would remain in consultation with the Attorney-General because, after all, he is the minister responsible for considering the report. Then, of course, we could review this matter in parliament, if necessary.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Bragg proposes an amendment for parliamentary review of the act by the Social Development Committee of the parliament within three years of its commencement. The legislation was drafted in response to recommendations by the Commissioner for Social Inclusion in his report To Break the Cycle, a report to the government. I refer to recommendation 2:

That the objects of the Young Offenders Act 1993 (part 3, section 3) be amended to strengthen the requirement to take account of community safety when sentencing serious repeat young offenders. The strengthening of these provisions should occur in the context of a stronger focus on rehabilitation.

This bill strengthens the Young Offenders Act without undermining the diversionary mechanisms of that act to assist with the rehabilitation of young offenders. Given that this bill seeks to carry other recommendations of the Commissioner for Social Inclusion, we think it is appropriate that the Commissioner for Social Inclusion review the act. Therefore, the government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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