HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3574.)

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (16:27): In 2002, when the Rann government came to power and Michael Atkinson became Attorney-General, most of the so-called gang of 49 were 12, 11, 10, eight, or even seven years old. They were children, almost certainly troubled and disruptive, but not yet dangerous. They became dangerous on the watch of this government and this parliament. It is not as though we had no warning: there are forests of reports and speeches about youth offending.

Back in 2004, the Social Inclusion Unit conducted in inquiry on young offenders called 'Young offenders—breaking the cycle,' yet, here we are today, not breaking the cycle, but repeating it. So, while I am open to some of the changes proposed in this bill and certainly willing to acknowledge that genuinely dangerous young people may need to be detained for long periods, I am not at all convinced that this bill really is a serious attempt to deal with these issues or whether it is just another attempt to look tough. I am not sure whether this bill and the government's strategy is about catching criminals or about creating demons that can then be used to inspire more fear and draconian legislation. So, I will take the bill clause by clause and listen to all the arguments.

I think we need to be careful about calling young people evil or even referring to them as irredeemably dangerous. As a youth worker 20 years ago, I saw a couple of boys vandalise several properties, incite a riot, steal and crash several cars and tie up several police squads, all in the course of one night, so I know how much damage they can do. Those boys were doing dangerous things, but they were a long way from evil.

I recently spoke to a young Vietnamese woman who has two brothers in Yatala. She told me that the gang in Sydney inspiring the same sort of fear that the of gang of 49 is here in Adelaide is a Vietnamese gang called the 5T gang, and they create mayhem and terror. Apparently, 5T—when you look at the original Vietnamese—means something like 'the boys who lack love'. That does not change the terror and the fear that they may have created, but it does give a different perspective, and it highlights the need to actually understand what it is we are dealing with when we approach the issue of youth crime.

One of the things that undermines any confidence I have that the government knows what it is dealing with is the notion of sending messages with the things that we say here and the laws we pass here. The people to whom we are sending those messages, if we are speaking of the people in the gang of 49, do not spend much time reading papers or paying any attention to parliament. They are not receiving the messages. Generally, their lives are lurching from one crisis to another, taking one impulsive action after another, coping with one threat after another. There is not much room for rational calculation about the future, the prospects of getting caught, or even much awareness of any sort of penalty for the offences they are committing. It is not nearly that rational.

My position on this bill will depend on the government's answers to two sets of questions. I have two questions about the bill that need to be discussed. What is a serious offence? Given that public safety is supposed to be paramount, is a serious offence one that involves a threat to safety or does it include issues such as property offences?

My second major question about the bill itself relates to the release of information about detainees to a victim. The category of victim and offender are not nearly so black and white as we might imagine. People can be both victims and offenders. Someone could be a victim of an assault but be in a rival gang, for example, to the offender. Therefore, should that information be released to people in rival gangs or people involved in longstanding feuds? The category of victim and offender is not nearly as neat as we might think, particularly when we are talking about severely disadvantaged people, often clustered in distinct geographical areas.

My second set of questions relates to the context in which the bill operates. Dealing with youth offending and youth crime is not a simple matter of just passing laws: it is about the interaction between the various laws we pass and the programs and services we provide. I have several questions in this regard to which I would need answers before I could be convinced that the government is serious about addressing these problems.

The first question relates to what the government might be doing to rehabilitate young offenders. The recent crime wave raises questions about our approach to policing and detaining young people; and some of those questions are being responded to with this legislation. It also raises questions about our approach to rehabilitation, some of which the Hon. Stephen Wade has discussed.

How seriously do we take this issue? Has the government provided enough of the right sorts of rehabilitation programs and post-release support programs to stop young offenders from moving into more serious offending? What is the government doing to intervene with young offenders and their families before they move from disruptive to dangerous? Does the government have a systematic approach in our schools, community centres and hospitals to identify children at the point at which they begin to offend? What is the government doing to prevent children from becoming young offenders in the first place?

Kate Lennon—the former head of the Department for Families and Communities—once said that she believed that the majority of problems in the indigenous community were caused by 100 families and, if those families could be targeted and intensely worked with, enormous gains could be made across a range of areas, including crime reduction. Does the government have any programs that provide this sort of intensive targeting of potential problems before they become worse? Is the government looking at the full cost of detaining young people as opposed to further prevention and rehabilitation?

Last night government members gave the Hon. Robert Brokenshire an absolute grilling about the costs of an ICAC, but no figures are provided with this bill. What will it cost to lock up young people for longer? Will it be new money or will the government just cannibalise community-based prevention programs? Finally, is the government thinking ahead?

As I said at the outset, in 2002 when the Rann government came to power and Michael Atkinson became Attorney-General most of the so-called gang of 49 were children—disruptive and troubled but, generally, not yet dangerous. I accept that we need to detain genuinely dangerous people, but I suspect that the gang of 49 exists for two reasons; first, because of years of policy failure. The government and this parliament—we all have to share responsibility in this—have not paid enough attention to prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation.

The second is because of the relentless media hype and hysteria which have been systematically fuelled by the government. I have no doubt that we would be facing problems with juvenile crime carried out by smaller, more isolated groups if the government had not fed the media frenzy around the gang of 49, but it is the media label and the government hysteria that are causing this group to coalesce around the gang of 49. The government has actually created a group that young offenders can identify with.

But what does this mean for 2014? Is there another group of 10 year olds out there watching and learning from the gang of 49? Is the government going to ramp up prevention and early intervention programs to head off future gangs? If it is not, then the crime waves of 2014 can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of Rann and Atkinson. If they have not learnt from this experience, then the gangs of 2014 will be Rann's gangs and Atkinson's outcasts—so much so that they might as well declare the next generation of gangs a government project, put on their hard hats and launch them.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:36): At the beginning I should say that I concur with the Hon. Mr David Winderlich on the gang of 49 because, clearly, if real effort had been put in it could have been nipped in the bud. In fact, if you look at the history of it, the government tried to dismiss it as a significant issue for quite a period of time, which played in favour of the gang of 49. Even now we need to be careful with copycat behaviour, but the sad fact is that many of those people are right off the rails now because of neglect and not getting in there with enough focus, support and initiative, and let us hope that governments now and in the future learn from that.

This bill comes at a time when media attention is fairly and squarely on the gang of 49 crime gang and a spate of recent violent crimes perpetrated in Adelaide. This bill is not about the gang of 49, but some of the gang members might well feel its impact. It mirrors the serious repeat offender provisions brought in for adult offenders. Family First supports the creation of a youth panel board, but I ask the government whether it is confident that it will not end up at war with the people it has appointed, as it has with the current Parole Board.

I want to speak about some other issues that tie in with this and, whilst we will be listening to the debate and watching members' amendments closely, Family First does intend to support the government on the basic principle of this, because I hope that this is a positive attempt that will have some genuinely pro-active outcomes in the future. I want to talk about an operation that I have raised in other forums, and that is operation challenge. I was one of the ministers responsible for that operation, and that was an excellent program that ran right through the time I was correctional services minister.

The sad part about it was that, soon after coming into government, in less than 12 months the government cancelled that program. That program had gone through a significant review in the university. I had actually visited that program and been right through it and in fact was at a graduation of incarcerated adults who did have a future after that. I think that if the government of the day were to look at the review from the university it would find that it probably had a better outcome in stopping most people from reoffending than any other program.

I remember the Governor going up there on one occasion. It was, in a sense, a quasi-boot camp, but it worked. These people had never been subjected to discipline or community at all before, and in fact some of them had terrible problems with literacy and numeracy; they did not know about health and hygiene or any of those things. It was a comprehensive program.

The government talks about rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em, but at the end of the day we have seen the results of that with some of the gang of 49, where in fact they were racked, stacked and packed and, as soon as they were unpacked and sent out into the community, guess what? They were there committing crime again. It was no different to the unfortunate and sad situations that occurred when I was minister.

Something that hurt me a lot was trying to keep drugs out of the damn prison system; it is hard. One person got out of the prison system and unfortunately overdosed on heroin within 48 hours of getting out. We failed then and we are failing now. This operation did work, will work, can work and can be modified for juveniles. That is what I am calling on the government to do. It is one thing to make legislation but another to put in proper resources. What is happening at the moment is horrendous—it is dangerous, unsafe and scary for those people faced with these violent criminals but, on the other hand, we have to ensure that when these people go in they come out better people.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Less law, more order.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Exactly, as the honourable member says, less law and more order. I strongly encourage the government to say, 'We're a bit naive; we'd just come into government, we hadn't been here long and we wanted to put our mark on things. We cut correctional services and operation challenge, but it was wrong.' I had an email only yesterday from a senior Aboriginal gentleman who strongly supports an initiative like operation challenge for these people. He told me that, whilst he was upset about it at this point, some of those gang members are related to him. He alleges that in 2007 he contacted the Premier's office advocating something like operation challenge. He has not had a response, and now we have this situation occurring, which is why I support what the Hon. David Winderlich said.

I also touch on what Frances Nelson QC from the Parole Board said today in an interview on 891. The government does not always appreciate the forthright, honest, intelligent and sensible approach of Frances Nelson. However, I put on the public record that David Bevan asked her what she thought about the operation challenge program I had talked about. She said that she did not specifically know about operation challenge, which is fair enough, and she talked a bit about operation flinders.

She then went on to talk about an example where, during the dreadful bushfires on Eyre Peninsula, prisoners in Port Lincoln went out on work camps and restored fences, helped farmers and the community, learnt skills and learnt to deal appropriately with other people. She said that in a bizarre way a great spin-off from those fires was teaching people work and social skills in order to ensure they did not reoffend. She tracked one of those prisoners who went out and said:

As far as I am aware that prisoner completed his parole for the very first time, got a job and has been offence free, so there are examples. If you have nothing to do all day of course you get into trouble, especially if you're an adolescent male.

She was asked specifically about an issue like operation challenge, which I point out is not like the situation involving gang boot camps in America. In New Zealand they have one and they have been doing more work with that, and they have them in America. I do not support some of the draconian American methods, but they have them in Canada. Frances Nelson also said:

Any program like that, and...whether it's called a boot camp or some operation is irrelevant—

That is true, the name is irrelevant. I do not mind if they badge it the 'Rann Labor Government operation challenge', as long as they put in resources and support. This type of person, like those members of the gang of 49 and others, cannot be simply integrated into mainstream prison, as they will not immediately integrate. You have to have a program, and I want the government to reinstate the program. She says that whatever you call it is irrelevant. Her key point was:

but something which actually teaches people a work ethic and teaches them some skills and teaches them some self-discipline I really think is worth while, whether they're juveniles or adults.

That statement comes from a learned person—and the government can learn. The government does not know everything. It would get whole-hearted support, I am sure, going by the head nodding of my colleagues, if it was to do something like this. We would probably all come out with a joint press release saying, 'Well done, Mr Rann.' So, there is an opportunity here.

I conclude by coming back to the bill. I thank the Law Society of South Australia for its submission on the bill, which was the only submission that Family First received. Whilst we are perhaps on closer ground on issues such as WorkCover, I think its submission follows a largely ideological line in regard to policy and resource issues and how you incarcerate and rehabilitate offenders. As I indicated with respect to operation challenge, our focus is more on discipline and rehabilitation rather than a cuddle and rehabilitation.

We support the creation of a victims' register in consultation with victims of juvenile offending before consideration of release on parole. I have had numerous people contact me concerned about potential parolees, and those people feel powerless. Several times, we have written to the Parole Board on behalf of those constituents. So, from that point of view, I think this is good reform. It does not give those victims absolute power but rather allows their views to be considered. The Youth Parole Board or Training Centre Review Board can opt to not take those considerations into account; but I hope, if this bill passes, in light of those recent cases, they will give a considered hearing to the concerns of former victims.

In closing, as I said, in principle, Family First supports the second reading and is looking to the government and, indeed, the opposition and our crossbench colleagues to contribute. If they feel inclined to raise issues with the government on an idea like operation challenge, I would encourage them to do that, because everyone loses at the moment. It costs $90,000 per prisoner. Prisoners are being released and people are scared and not able to go about their normal duties, and there are a lot of wasted resources. Surely we have learnt something in this day and age, so let us get proactive rather than reactive.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (16:47): I thank honourable members for their contributions to this bill. I thank the Hon. Mr Wade for his expression of support for the bill, although I think it is rather a pity that his expression of support did not extend to his speech or his proposed amendments, which I would have thought do not necessarily indicate support for the bill. The Hon. Mr Wade asked a number of questions and I will attempt to answer a few of those today and make sure that, when parliament comes back in a week, if there are any matters that I have left out, we can pick those up. However, at least I will begin the process today.

I inform Mr Wade that the Community Protection Panel was established as a result of a recommendation by Monsignor David Cappo's report To Break the Cycle. The aims of the Community Protection Panel are to reduce the seriousness and frequency of reoffending by repeat offenders and to enhance community safety; and oversee the identification, assessment and intensive case management of serious repeat offenders. The panel was established and first met in January 2009. It is made up of nine members, including two community members, and is chaired by Anne Gale from the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs.

The state government has allocated $5.6 million to this process over four years. In May 2008 the state government announced $5.6 million to the Community Protection Panel. The total budget for 2008-09 was $1.321 million, for 2009-10 it is $1.367 million, for 2010-11 it is $1.415 million, and for 2011-12 it is $1.465 million. In 2008-09, $911,147 was expended on intensive case management. The remaining funds are expected to be expended on the operations of the panel in intensive service provision in the coming years.

Thirty seven young offenders, including operation mandrake offenders, have been identified by Families SA as presenting a risk to public safety and are receiving intensive service provision funded by the Community Protection Panel program. Eight offenders have been specifically reviewed by the Community Protection Panel and multi-agency case planning has been implemented for seven young offenders. One offender on review did not meet the Community Protection Panel referral criteria and was referred out of the program. Of those seven, I am told four are considered operation mandrake offenders and they are all currently in custody. None of the Community Protection Panel offenders have been released and the majority are not scheduled for release in the near future.

In relation to some other questions asked by the Hon. Mr Wade, I am advised that Families SA is currently case managing nine young people identified as of interest to operation mandrake. Eight of the nine are in custody and the youth in the communities are currently complying with supervision. I am also informed that Families SA is never involved by SAPOL in investigation processes.

My advice is that the 17 year old youth arrested as part of the recent operation was not under supervision. He was under supervision from 1 June until he returned to custody on 12 August. He went into remand from 17 August to 6 September and was then released on supervision on 7 September. On 24 September he was then remanded into custody where he was arrested for the April event.

That is just some very quick information that has been provided in relation to questions today. Obviously, we will check all that and collate the information, and I will provide that when we resume debate on this bill in the committee stage in a week. Listening to Mr Winderlich's contribution, I just want to make the point that the young offenders, at whom these measures are aimed, are beyond the question of what makes a person a young offender in the first place.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: 'Pure evil'.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, I am happy to call them that.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: That is what the government calls them.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, I am quite happy. This group of young offenders which the Hon. Mr Wade appears to be apologising for—apparently, he is tolerant of their behaviour but I am not. I am not tolerant of their behaviour. The Hon. Mr Wade can apologise for it if he likes but I will not.

This group of offenders—and we are talking about 12 to 16 of them—will have gone through the proper diversionary and rehabilitative mechanisms designed to deal with the offending of most young people. They have been through this, probably many times in some cases. They are, by definition, a very small group which the public rightly demands protection from. We are talking about violent, armed robbers who put the public in fear. This is beyond any sort of diversions, cautions and ordinary rehabilitation. So, let us get this bill into perspective. We are talking about very serious recidivist offenders. This government is not going to tolerate nor apologise in any way for their behaviour.

Again, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I have provided some information which has been hurriedly collated, but if any matters have been left out we will have a fuller response when we resume debate on this bill in the following week.

Bill read a second time.

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