Young Offenders Amendment Bill 2002
Page: 3395
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 18 June.
Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [10.11 a.m.]: I support the amendments foreshadowed by the Coalition, and I highlight my concerns in relation to the Young Offenders Amendment Bill 2002. The Government's legislation does not do anything to help the community. The issue of crime, especially juvenile crime, is a huge one in rural New South Wales and indeed throughout the State. Time and again I have been approached in my electorate of Lismore by residents, businesspeople, victims of crime, community groups, and even police officers concerned about seemingly unabated juvenile crime. I am sure honourable members of Parliament would share the same experience. The message I am consistently getting as a representative is that the core group of young offenders is repeatedly committing crimes with no fear of the consequences.
In this State repeat offenders know very well their rights, which they can use to manipulate the system without even being forced to acknowledge their responsibilities to the community. I highlight that point because last week in Lismore four youths drove around Lismore in a vehicle—the oldest youth was aged 17—and they damaged 19 vehicles. The youths were first-time offenders so they will probably get only a caution. However, their actions resulted in $2,000 of damage to the vehicle owned by a young person aged 17. The vehicle was uninsured. Consequently the young person will have to pay off a loan of $2,000 for the next two to three years, which he cannot afford.
Yet, the people who committed the crime just walk away from the offence with a caution. That is not the right way to be handling this system. These juveniles have to be made accountable in some way or another; we have to make them accountable at least for their actions. For these young offenders to receive only a caution and walk away without taking responsibility for their crime is totally unacceptable. In the country communities people have had a gutful of the lawlessness that causes senior citizens to live in fear, afraid to leave their houses or leave their vehicles unless they lock them up like Fort Knox. They are totally frightened and live in fear of becoming the victim of a break and enter or assault. People are disgusted with the system that has allowed young criminals to wreak havoc and walk away with nothing more than a weak slap on the wrist. I support the Coalition's amendments.
Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Debus [10.15 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. The Government introduced the Young Offenders Act in 1997. As the honourable member for East Hills noted, by introducing the Act, the Government showed leadership and innovation in its approach to dealing with juvenile offending. During the debate the Opposition members tried to convey the impression that the Act is a failure, which they well know is incorrect. Independent studies have shown that the Act is successful and effective. A report released last month by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] found that juveniles who had participated in a conferencing system were much less likely to re-offend than juveniles who were dealt with by the court. An earlier report released by BOCSAR in 2000 found high levels of satisfaction among juveniles and victims who had participated in a youth justice conference.
The Young Offenders Amendment Bill 2002 aims to build upon the good results achieved so far under the Act by improving and enhancing aspects of the Act and addressing concerns that have been raised in relation to the Act. First, the bill takes a fair and sensible approach to juveniles who repeatedly offend by limiting the number of cautions they can receive and ensuring that a more appropriate form of intervention is used. Second, it ensures that investigating officers who have first-hand knowledge of the facts of the case are consulted on decisions to deal with the young offender by way of a youth justice conference. Third, it allows representatives of the young offender's school to attend a youth justice conference, if appropriate. Fourth, it ensures that young offenders who are dealt with by way of a youth justice conference are able to access programs that will help them overcome their offending behaviour. Finally, the bill gives each and every victim who attends a youth justice conference the right to veto any proposed outcome plan.
Unlike the private members' bill introduced by the honourable member for Oxley, the reforms in the Government's bill are measured and sensible, and consistent with the fundamental principles underlying the Young Offenders Act. The Young Offenders Amendment (Reform of Cautioning and Warning) Bill is a simplistic, ill-conceived and crude attempt to amend the Act. The provisions of that bill run contrary to the fundamental principles of the Act and will undermine much of the success that has been achieved under the Act so far. Many of its provisions are unnecessary, while other provisions will, paradoxically, have the intended effect. However, it will create more problems than it solves. For example, the bill of the honourable member for Oxley will require police to give cautions to young offenders within seven days of giving the offender a written notice of caution.
Currently the Act allows police up to 21 days to give cautions. The private member's bill would have the effect of making the job of police even harder. Police need adequate time to book in a caution, having regard to their rosters and other work priorities. Reducing the time frame for cautions will reduce the capacity for police to properly manage their caseload. It also has the potential to change rostering and work arrangements around cautioning, to the detriment of other important police work. Another example of the ill-conceived nature of the bill of the honourable member for Oxley is the mandatory requirement for police to notify the parents of children who receive warnings and cautions. While the Government strongly supports the notion of parental responsibility, it is obvious the Opposition has not thought through all the consequences of this amendment. Under the bill of the honourable member for Oxley, police would be required to notify the child's parents in all cases, even when there is a history of neglect or abuse of the child. This is clearly inappropriate.
Mr Hartcher: Point of order: In reply, the Parliamentary Secretary may not introduce new matter. He may reply to points made by honourable members at the second reading of the bill. The Parliamentary Secretary is speaking about the private member's bill on the notice paper in the name of the honourable member for Oxley. That is a separate matter to be debated by the Parliament. Though the second reading debate may range widely, comments made in reply should be limited to responding to matters raised in the second reading debate. Therefore reference to a private member's bill listed on the notice paper is irrelevant to debate on the bill now before the House. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to comply with the standing orders and confine his comments to issues raised in the debate on this bill.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty the Chair faces in ruling on the point of order is that the Chair is not privy to the whole of the second reading debate and would need to refer to the Hansard record to determine whether any member made reference to the private member's bill.
Mr CRITTENDEN: To the point of order: I have been referring to amendments that have the same import as the provisions in the private member's bill of the honourable member for Oxley. I was referring also to amendments that will be moved in Committee. I submit it is totally appropriate for me to address those amendments.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order.
Mr CRITTENDEN: Mr Speaker, I thank you for your wise decision. I would point out that the honourable member for Oxley made a number of references to his private member's bill during what passed for his contribution to the second reading debate on the bill before the House. I repeat that an example of the ill-perceived nature of the honourable member for Oxley's bill and the amendments to be moved is the mandatory requirement for police to notify the parents of children who received warnings and cautions.
Mr Stoner: Point of order: The Opposition's amendments do not deal with a mandatory requirement for police to notify the parents of children who received warnings and cautions. Nor did my contribution to the debate touch on that issue. My contribution—as did the Opposition's entire contribution to the debate—related to the Government's bill, and specifically to the number of cautions that young offenders ought to receive. It did not refer to notifications to parents or many issues that are being dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr CRITTENDEN: To the point of order: The honourable member for Oxley indicated that he made several references to his private member's bill in his contribution to the debate.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now have the Hansard record of the speech made by the honourable member for Oxley. In it the honourable member made reference to his private member's bill and read its objects. One of those was to provide a more expeditious application of the scheme established by the Act by depriving the child, or a person responsible for the child, of the opportunity to delay the matter by refusing to choose an adult to be present at the time of admission, caution, giving of explanation or conference. The objects of the private member's bill were referred to in detail. The Parliamentary Secretary is in order.
Mr CRITTENDEN: I can appreciate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition being sensitive on this issue. I would be too if I were in his position. Under the honourable member for Oxley's bill, police would be required to notify the child's parents in all cases, even where there is a history of neglect or abuse of the child. This is clearly inappropriate. It is a sad fact of our society that not all children enjoy a supportive and functional relationship with their parents. The Opposition has failed to recognise this reality and to recognise that there may be people, other than a child's parents, who may be responsible for the child and are in a better position to provide supervision and support. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be well aware that a number of children on the Central Coast are under the care of their grandparents, who fulfil the role of parents, and do so very well, in circumstances where the parents have totally neglected their responsibilities in this regard. The Attorney General's Department is currently finalising a review of the Young Offenders Act. The review is considering, among other things, how to increase the involvement of parents under the Act in ways that are appropriate.
The third example of the ill-conceived nature of the private member's bill are the provisions allowing police to choose the adult to be present when explanations are given to children under the Act and when children make admissions for the purposes of the Act. The honourable member for Oxley has failed to understand the role of the adults in these circumstances. An adult is present to support the child, make the child aware of his or her rights, and ensure that the child is not coerced by police into making admissions. The adult must have the best interests of the child in mind at all times. An adult chosen by police may lack independence from the police and therefore not act in the best interests of the child. Additionally, an adult chosen by police may lack knowledge of the child's situation and therefore not be able to properly support the child or assist the process. Those are just three of many examples of the problems littering the Opposition's private member's bill.
During the debate the Opposition suggested there should be a limit on the number of warnings a young offender may be given. Under the Act, warnings are given by police at their absolute discretion. The Opposition is implicitly attacking the judgment of police in their criticism of this legislation. It would be inappropriate, as the Opposition suggests, to limit the number of warnings a juvenile may be given. Warnings are considered less serious intervention than cautions. In order for a caution to be given, a juvenile must admit that he or she has committed the offence. By contrast, a warning may be given even where a juvenile has not admitted the offence. Warnings are generally given only for trivial matters, and under the Act the police decide whether it is in the interests of justice to give a warning. The Young Offenders Act recognises that many children who commit a trivial offence do not go on to commit further offences. Contrary to the allegation made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, warnings are not repeatedly given for burglary offences.
I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Youth Justice Advisory Committee, which was established under the Young Offenders Act to provide advice on the Act. The committee has an independent chair and comprises representatives of the Attorney General's Department, the Department of Juvenile Justice, NSW Police, and the Cabinet Office; representatives nominated by the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council and the Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Committee; and representatives of the interests of victims and the interests of children and young people. The Youth Justice Advisory Committee gave the Attorney General much better advice than he got from the Opposition before and during this debate. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 1
Mr STONER (Oxley) [10.31 a.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 7 in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1, lines 5 to 12. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(7) Despite any other provision of this section, a child is not entitled to be dealt with by caution in relation to an offence if the child:
(a) has at any time been dealt with under this Part or under Part 5 in relation to some other offence, or
(b) has at any time been convicted or found guilty of some other offence by a court.
No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1, lines 15 to 22. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(5) Despite any other provision of this section, the Director of Public Prosecutions may not refer a child for caution in relation to an offence if the child:
(a) has at any time been dealt with under this Part or under Part 5 in relation to some other offence, or
(b) has at any time been convicted or found guilty of some other offence by a court.
No. 3 Page 3, schedule 1, lines 25 to 31. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(5) Despite any other provision of this section, a court may not give a caution to a child in relation to an offence if the child:
(a) has at any time been dealt with under this Part or under Part 5 in relation to some other offence, or
(b) has at any time been convicted or found guilty of some other offence by a court.
No. 4 Page 4, schedule 1, lines 3 to 10. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(6) Despite any other provision of this section, it is not appropriate for a child to be dealt with by caution in relation to an offence if the child:
(a) has at any time been dealt with under this Part or under Part 4 in relation to some other offence, or
(b) has at any time been convicted or found guilty of some other offence by a court.
No. 5 Page 4, schedule 1, lines 16 to 23. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(5) Despite any other provision of this section, a specialist youth officer may not refer a child for a caution in relation to an offence if the child:
(a) has at any time been dealt with under this Part or under Part 4 in relation to some other offence, or
(b) has at any time been convicted or found guilty of some other offence by a court.
No. 6 Page 5, schedule 1, lines 14 to 20. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(9) Despite any other provision of this section, a child may not be referred for a caution in relation to an offence if the child:
(a) has at any time been dealt with under this Part or under Part 4 in relation to some other offence, or
(b) has at any time been convicted or found guilty of some other offence by a court.
No. 7 Page 5, schedule 1, lines 23 to 29. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(5) Despite any other provision of this section, a child may not be referred for a caution in relation to an offence if the child:
(a) has at any time been dealt with under this Part or under Part 4 in relation to some other offence, or
(b) has at any time been convicted or found guilty of some other offence by a court.
The intention of the Opposition amendments is to reduce the number of cautions that a young offender is entitled to be given under the Young Offenders Act prior to being dealt with in a more serious way. The problem with the bill as it stands is that young offenders will still have the opportunity to be cautioned up to three times. A number of speakers have said that repeat young offenders are a problem throughout New South Wales. The same kids are committing crime time and again. We need to get serious about repeat offenders. Make no mistake: the Opposition does support youth justice conferences, but the current regime of an unlimited number of warnings or cautions prior to young offenders being dealt with more seriously is simply unsatisfactory, particularly for victims but also for police officers, who do a magnificent job in trying to uphold law and order.
The amendments provide for one caution, warning, or youth justice conference prior to the young offender being dealt with by way of a youth justice conference or in the courts. Young people who make a mistake deserve a chance. But if they have received one warning or caution by police or attended a youth justice conference, on the second occasion they ought to be dealt with more seriously. Youth justice conferences, by allowing the attendance of victims and providing for an outcome plan for the young offender, are far more effective in changing the behaviour of repeat young offenders. Surely that should be our objective in the case of young people who have strayed from acceptable behaviour on more than one occasion.
In my consultations with victims groups, police officers, local government and small business, people have been saying that the Government has been far too lax in its treatment of young offenders. A high percentage—in the order of 90 per cent—of crimes committed by young people are committed by a core of young people. It may be for a host of reasons—dysfunctional families and all the rest—but we ought to be steering such young people into programs which are more likely to result in a change of attitude and behaviour. That is why we would like to see young offenders who have been apprehended by the police channelled into youth justice conferences in particular more quickly than the Government is proposing.
The bill provides that an offender who commits a crime serious enough to warrant an official caution by police can receive similar treatment for a further offence. If there is a change of the police roster, a different attitude, or a loss of continuity in the investigating officers, that could be the result for young offenders who commit quite serious offences. Many of the Christmas-New Year bushfires were lit by people under the age of 18. Such crimes may be dealt with under the Young Offenders Act. Following the fires the Premier stated that youth justice conferences for such offences ought to include visits to burns units and so on. However, there is no requirement under the Act for the offenders to be dealt with by a youth justice conference. They could have been warned or cautioned.
So even with the passage of this bill a young person who lit three separate fires causing damage could be cautioned on three separate occasions before receiving more serious treatment by way of youth justice conferencing. The Opposition believes that we should heed community concerns, standards and views in relation to repeat young offenders. They commit a high proportion of nuisance crimes. The laws relating to such young people have been far too lax. It has been perceived that the consequences of committing crimes are minimal. Young people have been aware of their rights under the Young Offenders Act. They do not care about getting warnings or cautions because they can be warned or cautioned an unlimited number of times.
The Government now intends to put a cap on the number. That is simply not enough. At what point does a young person think, "Whoops! I'd better think about doing this crime. I might get into trouble here"? The Government is saying that the young offender can commit crimes on four occasions before being dealt with in a serious way. That is simply not good enough. I commend the Opposition amendments. They address community concerns and expectations and will send a message to repeat young offenders that there are consequences for the offending behaviour and that we would like to help them through behaviour changing programs such as youth justice conferences.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.39 a.m.]: The Coalition supported the original bill and supports the idea of an emphasis on rehabilitation for young offenders, but it also supports the principle of community protection, which must be paramount. By these amendments, the Coalition seeks to ensure that young offenders do not build up a system of multiple cautions. The Government's legislation acknowledges that that was happening, and that is why the Government has restricted the maximum number of cautions to three. The Government's legislation is an implied admission that its original legislation, the 1997 bill, has been rorted by some young offenders who were getting away with repeat offences without being properly dealt with by the criminal justice system.
The Government's position is that the only way to handle that is by reducing the number of cautions that can be given to an offender—but the number of cautions has been reduced to three. The Government is still telling young offenders in our community—the hoodlums, the vandals, the car thieves and the drug pushers—that they can get away with three cautions. That is what happens, and that is what the Government's legislation will allow to continue. One of the principal instances of abuse of the cautioning system is when a young offender gets, for example, a caution for stealing a car, a caution for a drug offence, a caution for a break and enter offence, and then a caution for vandalism.
All those offences are from different categories, so the offender is not receiving multiple cautions for a single line of offences; he is committing across-the-board offences and is just getting caution after caution. That is why the Government has introduced the legislation and has limited the number of cautions to three, but the legislation will continue the cycle. It will allow offenders to have three free goes. At the end of the day, under this Government the hoodlums of our society still have a licence to rampage because they know they can argue that only one caution is used for each offence and not all the cautions are exhausted at once. That practice will become established, because if there is one thing that young hoodlums are aware of, it is the legal frame work in which they operate. They tend to be more aware of that than even the police. They will say, "I have only had one caution," or "I have only had two cautions, so I am still entitled to another go."
The Government may write out lines for the Parliamentary Secretary stating that what I have just said represents a misunderstanding of the system, but it is not a misunderstanding at all. That is how young offenders will argue and that is how the system will operate. Irrespective of the words put on paper in the bill and the practice notes that are issued by the department, that is how the legislation will be interpreted during the day-to-day operation of the criminal justice system from the point of view of police officers across the State, and that is why it will result in a higher number of offences. Offenders will say they have not exceeded their allowed maximum of three cautions.
Either the Government has been foolishly pretending that that is not the case or it is simply being disingenuous with the community when it claims to be taking action to restrict the activities of hoodlums in our society. This measure was announced at Port Macquarie, not by the Attorney General but by the Minister for Police, as part of his crackdown on young criminals. The Attorney's advisers wrote out the lines for the honourable member for Wyong to assert that the scenario I have put to the Committee does not happen, but their assertion is simply not true. During the second reading stage I gave an example, which has not been refuted, of a hoodlum who killed a young doctor and his partner in Maitland.
The offender was at large, having been given multiple cautions, and he had received innumerable cautions and warnings from the police prior to stealing a BMW, driving down the road and killing that couple. He then received a derisory sentence in the juvenile detention system and is once more circulating in the community. At the Mount Penang Juvenile Detention Centre in the Peats electorate, which is near my electorate of Gosford, one can meet many young offenders who received numerous cautions before they were finally put behind bars for murder, armed robbery or rape. Under this Government, that is the only way for young offenders to be committed to a detention centre.
The Coalition's proposal is for a cautioning system to operate when it is appropriate, such as in circumstances in which young offenders have committed a very minor offence—for example, a minor property offence—when they have been high-spirited or silly, and when no great danger is posed to others in society. Certainly, when appropriate, those young offenders should be cautioned and thereafter appropriately inducted into the youth conferencing system. I urge the Government not to build up a credit system, which this legislation will impliedly do—there is no point in members opposite suggesting that the legislation does not do that, because it certainly impliedly does—by creating a maximum number of cautions. I urge the Government not to build up a credit system whereby young offenders will simply be able to say, "I have used up only one of my nine lives"—or, in this case, "one of my three lives".
The honourable member for Wyong can tell the people who live on the Central Coast that young hoodlums on the Central Coast are entitled to commit offences and nothing will happen to them unless they have used up three cautions, that is, until they have stolen a car for the third time, vandalised property for the third time, or smashed up council park benches for the third time. Is that what the honourable member for Wyong is saying? Yes, it is, because he is supporting the introduction into this Parliament of legislation which will ensure the continued operation of the cautioning system, but with a maximum of three cautions. The Coalition has moved a series of amendments, Nos 1 to 7 as previously circulated, that are designed to ensure that young offenders will not be given the benefit of the cautioning system when they have been found guilty of some other offence or have been previously dealt with under part 5 for an offence.
The Coalition is simply saying that young offenders will be given one chance only with a caution and thereafter will be brought before the justice system, either through youth conferencing or through some other procedure. The amendments do not necessarily mean that young offenders will be put into detention even after the first offence, but they do mean that after the first offence they will certainly be called to account. The Coalition's proposal is that if a young offender commits a first offence, he or she might get away with a caution, but after that there will be no more chances; the offender will have to face a conference or the Children's Court. The Coalition stands by that, and stands by the private member's bill introduced by the honourable member for Oxley.
But to improve the Government's legislation the Coalition has moved the amendments to which I have referred. If the Government is serious it will support the amendments. If it is not serious and if it wants to allow the hoodlums of this State to continue to operate in a framework that cushions offenders in the legal system and enables them to get away with multiple cautions, then its members will support the bill. The Coalition is happy to contest electorates across New South Wales, including the Wyong electorate, on the basis of who stands up for the community and who stands up for the hoodlums. The title of the leaflet that the Coalition will circulate in the Wyong electorate will be, "How did your member vote when the issue of hoodlums came before the Parliament? Did he vote to give them three free goes, or did he vote to curb the activities of hoodlums?"
The Coalition will have the Hansard record of this debate and among the list of Government names, the name of the honourable member for Wyong, Mr Paul Crittenden, will be highlighted in bold type, sending a message to the electorate: "I, Paul Crittenden, voted for three goes. I voted for every hoodlum in the Wyong electorate and on the Central Coast to have three goes." I am sure that the people of the Wyong electorate will really appreciate that. I am sure they will think, "You young offenders out there can kick anyone you like three times and nothing will happen because Paul Crittenden says you should have three goes." The people of the Wyong electorate will judge, and the Coalition looks forward to their judgment.
As the honourable member for Blacktown stated so eloquently in the Sunday Telegraph just three weeks ago in Nathan Vass' column, "There are five issues facing this electorate: law and order, law and order, law and order, law and order, law and order." There can be no better authority on such matters than the honourable member for Blacktown, and I thank him for his contribution through the Sunday Telegraph. People who live in the Wyong electorate will be informed of the way in which their parliamentary representative voted, and I am sure they will be impressed!
Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.49 a.m.]: That diatribe by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a classic case of what Gareth Evans referred to as relevance deprivation syndrome. He is doing his best to ensconce himself as a Minister, but unfortunately that will not happen during the course of his natural life. He managed to stab the former Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, in the back and took his position. He now has the white car and trots home up the F3 on weekends and runs around feeling important in his new, exalted position as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.
However, it is very sad that he cannot raise himself above minor political squabbling in his gross attempt to ensconce himself on the government benches. I am sure that the people of this State will see through that attempt. Essentially the Government has a consistent and rational approach to this important matter and has complete confidence in the police service and in the police of this State. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Oxley, in speaking to these amendments, have said that they do not have confidence in the New South Wales police service; and that is a real tragedy. The shadow Minister for Police, the honourable member for Epping, is nowhere to be seen; he is not in the Chamber. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the Minister for Police—
Mr Rozzoli: The Minister is not here.
Mr CRITTENDEN: The Minister for Police is in the other Chamber; it would be most inappropriate if he were in this place.
Mr Rozzoli: I was talking about the Attorney General.
Mr CRITTENDEN: The Attorney is in the Chamber and is providing a great oversight role. The essential element in this debate is the Opposition's lack of confidence in the police service. On the one hand the honourable member for Epping and the so-called Leader of the Opposition in the upper House, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, are supposedly supporting police, and on the other hand we have the crass politics of these amendments and the way in which they are proffered by the Opposition. This is petty squabbling on the part of the Opposition, which cannot stick to the essential elements required of an Opposition—policy, policy, policy.
The Opposition cannot develop policies, so it tinkers at the edges with trifling amendments in which it castigates New South Wales police by saying it has no confidence in our police. It is an absolute tragedy that the Opposition would stoop so low and not address the rational approach taken by the Government in this bill, which allows for a sensible approach. The honourable member for Oxley said—in what passed for his contribution to the amendments—that a juvenile who commits three acts of arson must be given three cautions. That is absolute rubbish.
Mr Stoner: I did not say that; I said "could".
Mr CRITTENDEN: He is now saying that the juvenile could be given three cautions; he is clarifying what he said earlier. For a major crime such as arson—especially with the problems experienced from last Christmas well into January, for which I suspect someone will be charged—a caution will be most unlikely, even on the first occasion, let alone the third. The honourable member for Oxley has no confidence in New South Wales police. He said "could" rather than "would", so we have a vague generality creeping in and the Opposition is offering opinions, which are nothing more than flexible prejudices.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about people from the Central Coast and tried to whip up some sort of scare campaign in his usual fashion. He then said that nothing will necessarily happen to the juvenile offenders. The critical word was "necessarily". The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is saying that the bill is a political stunt. He is saying that the Government does not care what it comes up with because it is not genuine or sincere, that all it wants to do is get on the record as saying we have a hairy chest, but that we do not care about police in this State, and we do not believe they are competent to provide a sensible approach to this problem.
That is a real tragedy. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come up to the Tuggerah Lakes command and tell Superintendent Allan Clarke and all the excellent officers in that command that he has no confidence in them. Essentially that is what he has said during his contribution. I have always had a great deal of respect for the honourable member for Hawkesbury. I thought that he—being a person with a social conscience and a great believer in the power of redemption of humanity, especially of young people—would have jumped to his feet and contributed to debate on the amendments. Statistics provided by NSW Police show that less than 3 per cent of juveniles have been cautioned on more than three occasions. The statistics also show that 96 per cent of young offenders whose first intervention is a caution do not go on to reoffend. The Government, the Attorney and I are confident that police in this State will use this bill in a proper and careful manner and will use their discretion. The Opposition will vote on no confidence in our police.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Oxley will cease interjecting. We are in the Committee stage, and he will have an opportunity to make a further contribution.
Mr CRITTENDEN: The honourable member for Oxley and all members of the Opposition are saying that they have no confidence in New South Wales police, and that is the real tragedy in the amendment that it has moved today.
Mr STONER (Oxley) [10.57 a.m.]: The honourable member for Wyong, the Parliamentary Secretary, said some things that need clarification. He attempted to put words into my mouth and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's mouth about policing. I assure the Committee that our consultation with local police has been close, ongoing and thorough. Police have said that the Young Offenders Act was the bane of their lives and they have sought amendments to it for some time. For five years the Government has sat on its hands while the police have tried to deal with a rapidly escalating juvenile crime problem.
Police have sought the support of the Government, and that was not forthcoming until the Opposition acted, on behalf of police, to support them by introducing a private member's bill. Lo and behold, when the story hit the airwaves and newspapers, the Government suddenly introduced its legislation. What the honourable member for Wyong said about the Opposition not having confidence in police is absolute rubbish; nothing could be further from the truth. He tried to put words into my mouth about cautions. I said that cautions could be given up to three times under the Government's bill, and that is an indisputable fact.
The honourable member for Wyong referred to a number of statistics. I will refer also to statistics. A large proportion of crime in this State is committed by recidivist offenders. The group of people that we are attempting to deal with through these amendments are repeat offenders, not those who take heed of a caution the first time. What about the group of people who do not take heed of a caution? What about the group of people who know that they will be given an unlimited number of warnings? Under the Government's bill they can be cautioned up to three times before they are dealt with seriously. Those people are committing the vast number of crimes in this State. I do not have the statistics with me but, from memory, about 80 to 90 per cent of crimes are committed by recidivist offenders—the group of people that the Government has been so strong on in its rhetoric about changes to the bail laws. Why are Government members not consistent? Why do they not support the Opposition's amendments relating to recidivist young offenders?
Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.01 a.m.]: That apology from the honourable member was most enlightening, but all he did was explain the machinations within the Coalition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition started off life in the Left of the Liberal Party and has gradually moved to the extreme Right. The honourable member for Oxley told us that there have been major negotiations with the police service, with individual police officers and so forth. I again make the point that the honourable member for Epping is not in the Chamber. He is the shadow Minister for Police but he is nowhere to be seen. The honourable member for Epping, a well-known supporter of the honourable member for Lane Cove, the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski, must be on the outer. The push by the Hon. Michael Gallacher and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition must be encapsulating the extreme elements in the National Party in some sort of takeover bid.
The honourable member for Oxley referred earlier to the fact that young offenders could be charged. However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that they might not necessarily be charged. An inescapable fact in relation to this issue is that all those relative terms leave discretion in the perfectly competent hands of the New South Wales police. In appropriate cases the police will obviously initially go through the court process without issuing any cautions. In cases where police believe that a young person will benefit from a second caution, they will exercise their discretion in that regard. They will issue a third caution in cases where they believe it is appropriate. The amendments moved by the Coalition will tie the hands of the New South Wales police and ensure that that discretion is taken away from them. That is the tragedy of this whole matter and that is why the honourable member for Oxley is so sensitive about this issue.
Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [11.03 a.m.]: I acknowledge the conduct of this debate by my Parliamentary Secretary during my unavoidable absence from the Chamber. I thoroughly endorse and reinforce the remarks he just made. It is extraordinary that Opposition members should continue with this deliberate confusion. On the one hand they are saying, in effect, that the police will be forced to issue three cautions to an offender, and on the other hand they are claiming that they are here to support the police when, in fact, the police have now—as they have had in the past—an absolute discretion whether to issue a caution or a warning to go to conference or, indeed, to charge a young offender.
It is extraordinary that a continuing attack on New South Wales police is being conducted by members of the Opposition as they continue implicitly to suggest that the police do not have the capacity to make these decisions on the ground. As a matter of fact, the Government's amendments are based precisely on the advice of a wide range of people, including the police, who I am sure will be content that we have been able to make these small changes to refine the effect of a highly successful Act.
Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 33
Mr Armstrong
Mr Collins
Mr Cull
Mr George
Mr Glachan
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Dr Kernohan
Mr Kerr | Mr Maguire
Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Oakeshott
Mr D. L. Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Richardson
Mr Rozzoli
Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith | Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Webb
Tellers,
Mr Fraser
Mr R. H. L. Smith |
Noes, 50
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Aquilina
Mr Ashton
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Crittenden
Mr Debus
Mr Face
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson | Mr Greene
Mrs Grusovin
Ms Harrison
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Mr Knowles
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch
Mr Markham
Mr Martin
Mr McBride
Mr McManus
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Ms Moore
Mr Moss | Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Ms Saliba
Mr Scully
Mr W. D. Smith
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whelan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Anderson
Mr Thompson |
Pair
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendments negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.