HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

YOUTH COURT

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (14:43): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Attorney-General a question about the Youth Court procedures and Crown Law representatives.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I have spoken with solicitors and carers who have been parties in various Youth Court matters over the years. Last year my staff were expelled from the Youth Court premises whilst attending to the needs of constituents. They were not even permitted to be in the corridor of the building and were actually escorted off the premises. This was later remedied with an apology and a directive to cease such practice. More recently it has been brought to my attention that another practice has since been adopted by the Youth Court to deny carers the presence of personal advocates and supporters within the courtroom. Even counsel representing the aggrieved parents and/or carers who are about to lose care of their children have to seek the permission of Crown Law representatives before allowing advocates and supporters of families, whose lives are to be put under the microscope, rather than leaving it to the judge on the bench to decide whether those parties should have access to their support networks within the courtroom. Almost invariably it seems that such permission is denied.

This practice never used to be the norm, and certainly I am told that it has never been more prolific than it is presently. The predictable excuse given is that it is because these cases involve children. However, I am advised that the practice in the Youth Court used to be very similar to that of the Family Court and, unless a judge had expressly suppressed the public and/or certain parties or witnesses from attending, Youth Court matters were relatively accessible. Many child protection advocates would argue that, because Youth Court matters involve vulnerable children, they should be all the more open to public scrutiny of the proceedings. We know that family law court judges have come under fire recently for what seemed to be unreasonable decisions not in the best interests of children. However, unlike the Family Court, at the Youth Court the legal guardians are not in dispute with another private individual but are against the state. Usually, they are unable to afford proper representation, often denied by Legal Aid, and almost as often the carers are from low socioeconomic backgrounds, inarticulate, unable to understand the processes, unable to understand how to seek out and gather information, or even how to instruct their own counsel. My questions are:

1. Why are Youth Court judges and Crown Law representatives refusing carers, who are the subject of Youth Court proceedings, access to their personal support networks whilst the state is permitted to be armed to the teeth with the presence of separate representatives, ministerial representatives, social workers, psychologists, sheriffs officers, and a host of other people employed by the state?

2. Will the Attorney-General investigate the motivation behind these actions and bring back an answer as soon as possible?

3. Why do Youth Court judges and Crown Law representatives feel that it is appropriate to deny access to advocates and supporters of parties who are challenging state authorities?

4. Will the Attorney-General give an undertaking to take steps to ensure a more level playing field for the carers, who are trying in earnest to keep families together, and ensure that the authorities follow the proper policies and procedures?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:46): Given the separation of powers that exist, obviously, just like this parliament has its own rules in relation to what happens in Parliament House, judges have authority over their courts. Obviously, it would be improper for parliament to intrude into that area other than to set the broad guidelines under which our judicial system operates. The honourable member has raised some important issues. I will refer them to the Attorney-General for his consideration.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, yes; that's right. Crown Law is obviously a different kettle of fish, but I think the honourable member referred to judges. Obviously, they have the discretion, and under the separation of powers we should not be interfering in that part of it. I will refer the honourable member's question to the Attorney and bring back a reply.

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