- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 27 August 2002
Young Offenders Amendment Bill 2002
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 22 of 122
| Next Item »
Page: 4227
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 20 June.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES [2.55 p.m.]: The Young Offenders Amendment Bill 2002 provides that a young offender can be cautioned only three times and, after that, a specialist youth officer and the investigating officer will determine whether the offender should be referred to a youth justice conference or whether the matter should proceed to court. The bill requires specialist youth officers, conference administrators and the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] to consult with the investigating officer when deciding whether a young offender should be conferenced. If a conference convener considers it appropriate, he or she may invite a representative of the young offender's school to attend a youth justice conference.
The bill requires that consideration be given to a young offender's participation in a program when an outcome plan is being developed at a youth justice conference. The child and the victim who personally attend the conference have the right to veto any outcome plan proposed at the conference. I contacted the Law Society, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the University of New South Wales about this matter. I have a letter from Nicholas Cowdery, QC, who said:
When the Young Offenders Act 1997 was enacted, it was contemplated my Office would take over from police the prosecution of all summary matters, including those involving children whose offences come within the ambit of the Act. Since that has not happened the gatekeeper role given to me by sections 23 and 40 of the Act has not been exercised. (Under section 23 I could refer a matter back to police for a caution and under section 40 I could refer a matter to a Juvenile Justice conference administrator for a youth justice conference). Were that to change I would extend my present practice of consulting the police informant in such circumstances in relation to the matters I currently prosecute to those involving children in terms of the amendment to section 40 contained in the bill.
The role given to me under section 41(2) of the Act is the only one I currently exercise. Under section 41(2) I make a determination where the specialist youth officer, having referred a matter to a conference administrator for a conference, the specialist youth officer and conference administrator after further discussion disagree about whether the matter should be dealt with by way of a conference. I have no problem with the amendment to section 41(2) requiring the conference administrator to consult with both the specialist youth officer and the investigating official.
In relation to section 41(9), if a child has previously received three or more cautions a further caution is generally not appropriate. Where leniency is extended and abused, not once but three times or more, dealing with the matter by a further caution creates a very real risk that the Act is discredited to the detriment of children generally.
The Law Society, which has some concerns about the bill, stated:
However, the mandatory referral to conference proposal does not permit comparison of offence types or consideration of mitigating circumstances.
The imposing of a mandatory limitation on the number of cautions will inhibit the flexibility of the Young Offenders Act and may result in an inappropriate escalation to court of quite minor offences for which a conference is an inappropriate response, for example, offensive language charges or possession of a small quantity of marijuana.
Further, by limiting the ability of the Children's Court to order a caution, costs to police, the court system and the community will be increased.
The number of times that a child has previously been dealt with under the Young Offenders Act for similar offences is a matter that a Specialist Youth Officer, the DPP and/or the court must take into account when determining whether it is appropriate to deal with a matter under the Act.
However, the Children's Legal Issues Committee is not aware that there is a high incidence of children receiving multiple cautions or participating in multiple conferences. The Committee understands that data collated by the NSW Police Service indicates that 96% of children cautioned in the first three years of the operation of the Youth Offenders Act received no more than two cautions. Over the same period, only 1.4% of children participated in more than 2 conferences.
Therefore only 2.6 per cent of children will be affected by that part of the legislation. In April 2002 the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research published the results of its study comparing juvenile reoffending rates in the Crime and Justice Bulletin article "Reducing Juvenile Crime: Conferencing versus Court". This study found that young people who participated in youth justice conferences appear to have a 15 to 20 per cent lower risk of reoffending than those who went to court. So the conferencing system is working extremely well and should be fully supported. I understand what the Director of Public Prosecutions means when he says that when a child receives three or more cautions that may well be abusing the system. But only a very small proportion of young offenders are covered by these provisions. So I have no problem with supporting the legislation. I understand that the Greens will move amendments to remove the mandatory limitations on cautions, in accordance with advice they have received from the Law Society.
The Hon. ELAINE NILE [3.02 p.m.]: As I retire today, after 14 years as a member of this important House of review, I am pleased to indicate the Christian Democratic Party's in-principle support for the Young Offenders Amendment Bill. 2002 I note that today the Deputy Clerk, Ms Lynn Lovelock, sits in the Chamber attired in period dress to note the Centenary of Women's Franchise and gaining the vote for women. It is good to see quite a number of women now sitting in this Chamber and to know that we have come a long way in the past 100 years.
Recently the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research released its report entitled "Reducing Juvenile Crime: Conferencing versus Court". That report shows that conferencing can be considerably more effective than the court process in reducing reoffending and in increasing the crime-free period for juveniles who do reoffend. The report found that the risk of reoffending was almost 20 per cent lower for juveniles who were conferenced than for those who went to court. Another report released by the bureau in 2000 found that young offenders and victims who participated in the conferencing process experienced very high levels of satisfaction. More than 80 per cent of victims surveyed as part of the study said they were satisfied with the outcome of the conference and with the way their case was handled by the justice system.
First, the bill limits to three the number of times a young offender can be cautioned under the Act. The second reform contained in the bill is a requirement for specialist youth officers, conference administrators and the Director of Public Prosecutions to consult with the investigating officer when deciding whether a young offender should be conferenced. The third reform contained in the bill provides that if a conference convenor considers it appropriate, he or she may invite a representative of the young offender's school to attend a youth justice conference. The Christian Democratic Party has always put the family first, and especially the welfare of children and young people.
As I have said, I have been a member of this Chamber for the past 14 years. On this my day of retirement I wish to thank you, Madam President, for your very kind wishes for me on my leaving this place. We have a mutual good friend in Ann Cooper—a good osteopath in Newtown for those who may need those services. She really straightens you out. She is a very straightforward person. I thank the Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr John Evans. We met his parents in a country town. I know he comes from good stock and good parents. I remarked to John, when he removed his robe and wig today, "John, you look like one of us now." Perhaps that is not good, as the media often describe members in less than glowing terms.
I thank also the Deputy Clerk, Lynn Lovelock, and the Clerk Assistant-Procedure, Mike Wilkinson. We met Mike Wilkinson and his lovely wife when we were going into a club one night with a group of Aboriginals. Thank you, Michael, for all the help you have given me over the years. My thanks also to the Usher of the Black Rod, Warren Cahill. I have been trying to get a photograph from him since 1988. I wanted a photo of the Chamber. Warren says I can have a photo of him anytime. Thank you, Warren, for your friendship. All of the officers of the House, including Stuart Lowe, have been most able, willing and friendly in helping me over the years. My thanks to Legislative Council attendants Ian, George, Lucy, Charles, Mike and Maurice—whom I have referred to as "my bagman". The attendants know what I am talking about there. Michael Santiago helped me a number of times with what I might call first-aid type matters.
I congratulate David Draper, Manager, Food and Beverages, on the way in which he has served members of this House. Over my 14 years, and Fred's 21 years, David has become a friend. To his Assistant Manager, Joseph Rokoqo, and his Function Supervisor, Maureen Morgan, I express our thanks. My special thanks to the room service staff, including Carlos, who always answers the phone, John Da Silva, and Jorge Ramos. A number of years ago Jorge, who was serving in the bar, played Premier Bob Carr in a skit at a media Christmas function. He has done a very good job. Sometimes when he came to my room we talked about a common problem that we have with our heels.
My thanks to the Parliamentary Library Manager, Greig Tillotson, and the Deputy Manager, Margaret Horton, and to media monitoring staff member Jan Duncan, who often anticipates my requests. My appreciation to the Hansard staff for the transformation into good English of the less eloquent speeches that I made at times. My thanks also to the Serjeant-at-Arms in the Legislative Assembly, Mr Merv Sheather, who has helped me in the organisation of my meetings of Women for the Family. Many thanks to press gallery members Steve Chase, who has always been a gentleman and has never thrust a microphone in front of us and demanded answers to his questions, and Paul Mullins, who treats all members with the courtesies usually reserved for the ordinary people. Over the years I have appreciated their attitude. To my office staff—Judy, Jeff, Kylie, Kate and David—thank you very much. I guess it is a bit different to work for a Christian party. Thank you very much for the work you have done for us. It is very much appreciated.
But foremost I thank Almighty God and the people of New South Wales for my election in 1988. It is a privilege to be elected to serve as a member of this House. That privilege is accompanied by a responsibility to observe the traditions and history of the Chamber with respect. I had not intended to become a member of Parliament. Of course, I had heard all about it. I watched its operation when Paul Landa was a Minister of the Labor Government of 1981 and when there were experiences within our party similar to "the troubles" that are much spoken about in Ireland. Longer-serving members will know what our "troubles" were in those days.
In 1988 our party was looking for a candidate who could be trusted and would be loyal to the leader. The Hon. Richard Jones, who is amused at that, may not have been here at the time. The party was looking for someone who would be loyal to the leader. Well, I do sleep with my leader! Members of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party know all about the need for loyalty in the party. The point I am making is that in 1988 party co-ordinators were praying for someone suitable. Fred woke one morning and said, "God has given me the answer to my prayer." I said, "Great!" I felt relieved. We had been going through hell at that stage because someone was trying to have Fred thrown out of Parliament. They were difficult times. It is uncomfortable for a wife to watch her husband being attacked. I asked, "Who is it?" He said, "The person is closer than my brother." I knew it was not his brother Jim, who I think was manager of the Bankstown Trotting Club at the time. I love my brother-in-law Jim. Fred then said, "It's you." I said, "No way! I wouldn't go into that place if you paid me." Well, I did get paid eventually. As a Christian gentleman and a Christian pastor he said to me, "You know, Elaine, I really do need you." He almost got down on his knees. The Bible says the husband is the head of the wife, and I believe scripture, so I became a member of this House. Now, after 14 years I feel I am to be freed.
I have appreciated my time here. I have received an education. When I first came to this place the Hon. Duncan Gay was in the chair. Sometimes when I say things I know what I mean but others do not. On one occasion in my early days here I asked Duncan, "What are they laughing at?" He said, "The trouble is you are not double minded." One gets through one's maiden speech without any problem, because no-one interjects. In my first speech on the budget I was speaking about the family and the roles of men and women. I am proud to say that I am not a feminist. I am a woman and I love all men—and I love my husband; we have roles.
During my speech on the budget Johno Johnson was in the chair. Suddenly the Hon. Franca Arena came running into the Chamber huffing and puffing, saying, "Mr President, point of order, stop her, she is talking rubbish." Everybody was saying, "Sit down, Elaine," so I sat down. Johno pondered for a moment and then said, "No point of order. Members are allowed to speak rubbish in this place. There is nothing against it." So I got away with that. And still they talk rubbish—but not everybody! Franca became a friend, mainly because she changed her mind and attitude.
From 1983 I worked with the IDSIA group—Immune Deficiency Syndrome Innocently Acquired. This was a group of people who were dying because they had been given contaminated blood transfusions. There were more than 500 of those people, and we have now lost them all. I worked mainly with Lorraine Cibilic, Lyndal Johns and George Cliff, whose wife, Noelene, was given contaminated semen when they were trying to have a child. That child, Lesleyann, is alive today and is 17 years old. Doug Johnson lost his wife, Dannalee. Before giving birth to Holly, Dannalee was given a blood transfusion, and we lost both Dannalee and Holly. At times over the years that man could not express himself; he could not speak.
Two sets of parents had sons, both haemophiliacs, who were given contaminated blood products. I learnt a lot about politicians in those days. I learnt about the heartlessness of both sides of this Chamber, because nobody wanted to give them compensation. Both sides said they would not help them unless they changed their names, that they were not innocent victims of the disease. They felt as if they were throw-away people, that nobody cared about them. At that stage no Premier or Minister would see them, and I said that we would roam the halls of Parliament House—and we did. One man said to Lorraine Cibilic, "You know it is a privilege to suffer for God." He said that to the wrong person—a person dying from AIDS, the person who was keeping these other people together. She wrote to that man and said, "I don't blame God for this." I have copies of all the letters she received from government and from others.
When the bill to close abortion clinics was being debated I prayed that God would help me get through it because I knew what the response would be from pro-abortion members. When I finished speaking I noticed that all the women had gone. They had all walked out on me—and I had not even noticed, which was marvellous. At a media meeting somebody said that they had heard the material over and over, but they had not. That was the first time for many years that a pro-life bill was presented in this Parliament. It was a good speech. If honourable members do not remember it they should read it.
We were very pleased when the Tobacco Prohibition Advertising Bill was passed. The Opposition of the day, the Australian Labor Party, supported the bill but the Coalition did not. I remember the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti going hot tongs against us, but he must have changed his mind overnight because in the morning he said he agreed with the bill. The passing of that bill, to stop the advertising of those products, was one of the greatest moves ever made in this Chamber. We then had the homosexual vilification bill, and the previous day we had the Letona bill, our own private member's bill to help the fruit growers. When I rang Fred to tell him there was going to be a vote he hurried, fell down the stairs and broke three ribs. He was admitted to hospital, but when the bill was being debated he came out in his wheelchair.
The Hon. John Ryan: We remember it well.
The Hon. ELAINE NILE: So does he, because his painkillers wore off at midnight and he was here until 5.00 a.m., still debating the bill. We each spoke for 3½ hours that night. I pay tribute to some members of this Chamber whom I consider nice—maybe it will be the kiss of death for me to do so. The Hon. Ron Dyer is a thorough gentleman. Many years ago we travelled overseas with the Hon. Richard Bull on a police promotions committee. Just about every hotel room that Ron was given had something wrong with it. At one hotel he could not get in his room, at another the taps did not work. But I think he was given the penthouse at one hotel. We visited the Guggenheim Museum together. Not every man in this Chamber is a gentleman, but Ron has proved to be just that.
I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang for his friendship. He does not tell us any secrets, but I classify Henry as a friend—and he brings us chocolate biscuits at times. I come now to our Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan. Michael lightens this place immensely. I remember him changing colour several years ago, when the Hon. Lis Kirkby was a member of this Chamber. He said, "You promised me three minutes ago that you would support this bill," and the Hon. Lis Kirkby got up and walked out. Michael went purple. I thought: Michael, you are not going to last. As he told me, it is an act that is performed in this Chamber. He should have been on the stage. I thank him for his friendship. He is always very helpful and considerate, and always asks about my health. I appreciate that.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: Is he a gentleman?
The Hon. ELAINE NILE: Yes, he is. The next person I would like to mention is the Hon. Charlie Lynn. I thank him for what he has done as a representative of this place at Isurava, on the Kokoda Track, and for what he has done today. He has reminded the younger generation of the sacrifice of our Australian men on the Kokoda Track in New Guinea. Yesterday the Prime Minister honoured the men who fought at Milne Bay. I thank Charlie because he has done it not only for this Chamber but for all Australians, especially the younger generation.
Some of us remember Sir Adrian Solomon—he was a great man who had the wisdom of Solomon—Jack Doohan, Judy Jakins, who always said it as it was, Richard Killen and Bryan Vaughan of the ALP. I remember standing here one day and talking about the smutty, dirty programs on ABC television. Bryan was sitting behind me, goading me; he was saying, "That's not right, that's not right." However, when I finished speaking he said, "I agree with you." That was Bryan. I said to Duncan Gay, "You are my favourite National Party man." He said to me, "Elaine, if I am gone, you know I had to go." To me, Duncan represents the country. I hope he will always remain country at heart. Today many people move to the country and become very trendy. They move away from family values and so on.
I will miss this place, which has been part of my life for 14 years. I will not miss the campaign meetings in the city, which we have attended for 17 years. Country people are different to city people. They are the salt of the earth, and they say things as they are. They know right from wrong, and they do not try to cover things up. Maybe I am talking about an older generation—I am not sure any longer. I shall also miss my leader. This is the part where I should weep.
The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Are you leaving him?
The Hon. ELAINE NILE: No, but we have sat on the same bench for 14 years. I know that I have embarrassed him at times, but he is a very patient and dedicated man. We have been involved in many different ministries. We worked at Wesley Central Mission, where we dealt with drug addicts and alcoholics. We have worked with young pregnant girls and unmarried mothers, including 13-year-old girls. Indeed, I have babysat for them. We know what life is all about. When we came in here I think many people thought, "He is a minister. And here comes his wife." They know nothing. My great-grandparents owned seven pubs in Sydney, including the Hero of Waterloo. My great-grandfather died an alcoholic at 42 years of age. His 11 children were told, "You are never to drink." So they gambled!
Fred has eaten and slept whatever he has been involved in. He has dedicated himself fully to whatever he has put his hand to. This year we will have been married 44 years. We have been keeping company since we were 16 and 17 years of age. I will miss him when I go home to Gerroa and he is in Sydney. However, as he says, I can come up here and go shopping with the credit card. I have taken him at his word! I remember one time when the Coalition was in government—I think the Hon. John Jobling was there—I embarrassed Fred when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh were visiting. We all gathered around the fountain outside to have a photograph taken. After that Mrs Greiner accompanied the Duke of Edinburgh; she explained that Fred and I were the only married couple sitting together in the same Chamber. The Duke said to me, "Do you obey him?" I said, "We are loyal to each other and we vote the same way."
I do not know where I got it from but I then said, "You know, we are the only two people who eat together and travel to work together. We sit together on the same bench and as far as I know we are the only two who sleep together." I saw Fred's face going purple, and the Duke threw back his head and laughed. I apologise, Fred. Most members who have families, husbands and wives, make sacrifices when they come here, but their families make a greater sacrifice because of the late nights. However, we do not have the same late night and early morning sittings as previously. I remember one occasion around Christmas time when the House sat until 7.00 a.m.—I think it might have been the fault of the Hon. Ian Cohen—and we had breakfast together in the dining room.
The Hon. Ian Cohen: One year was the planning legislation.
The Hon. ELAINE NILE: Yes, and we had breakfast in the dining room.
The Hon. Ian Cohen: It was the Government's fault.
The Hon. ELAINE NILE: Was it? We all had breakfast together. Since then, we have not had many late night sittings. I thank my family, my children and my grandchildren. I now have seven little Australians. I will be glad to be there for them on school days and grandparents' days and for other things I have missed in the past. Three of my grandchildren no longer have grandparents on the other side of the family. Their other grandmother and grandfather died within two years of each other—he died of asbestosis and she died of a brain tumour—so we are the only grandparents they have. Over the years during all of our work and when Fred was up to his neck in the ministry, our children suffered financially in the sense that they were unable to go on school camps and so on. We were always the church mice, so to speak; we never had paid work as normal people do. I now hope to make it up to my children by being there for them.
In the Chamber, as Christians we have always tried to represent Almighty God and his biblical values. I believe that those values sustained our nation in the past. We are told by God how to chastise our children, how to love each other, how husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church, and how husbands should love their wives as they love their own bodies. God's teachings have been very important to us through the years. We have been pro-life in all areas, whether it has been euthanasia or abortion. We have never lied in this Chamber, and we have never done deals with the Government. Premiers have known where we stood on issues and they have said, "We respect you for telling us."
We have always said when we were not in favour of a bill. At times we have been like shags on a rock, when we have been the only two on this side and everybody else has been on the other side. However, that has not worried us because as members of the Christian Democratic Party we have the opportunity to vote according to our conscience, and our conscience comes from the word of God in the Holy Bible. I do not have any qualms that I have voted to legalise brothels or anything like that. As I used to say, I can sleep at night with my own conscience. I have been glad to have that as a member of the Christian Democratic Party. I thank you all for being part of my family. In a sense we are a family and, like a family, we squabble and we disagree. And some of those disagreements have been very lively at times.
We spend much of our time in this place and we get to know each other's faults and virtues, and that is a good thing. Recently we have heard of the murders of two 10-year-old girls in Soham. In New South Wales we have had the murders of Ebony Simpson—I saw what happened to her parents' marriage, what happened to the boys and so on—and Samantha Knight. Many children and young people have disappeared. I believe that part of our ministry in this place is to ensure that we legislate to protect young people and keep them safe on the streets, and to ensure that adults are not frightened. On the news coming from Soham one woman said, "We teach our children not to speak to strangers, but what happens when they are well known to our children? Where do we go from here?"
It is part of the job of parliamentarians in this State to make good laws for parents, families and marriages so that young people will grow up knowing what is right and what is wrong and have respect—something that is lacking in a lot of children today. I ask God to bless you and keep you, to make his face shine upon you, and—something that every person, especially every member of Parliament, needs—to give you peace of mind, that you know what you have done is right according to your conscience and according to Almighty God. I thank you for allowing me to speak to you.
I would like to tell you a little about the man who is taking my seat, Reverend Gordon Moyes. I am sure that some of you will love him and some of you will hate him. I know that Bob Carr has spoken to him on the telephone. Reverend Gordon Moyes is the director of the Wesley Mission, Australia's largest Christian welfare service. It employs 3,500 paid staff, conducts 55 services of worship every week, cares for people in 480 caring centres and has an operational budget of $150 million. The new Wesley Centre at 220 Pitt Street, Sydney, was opened at a cost of $300 million, debt free. Reverend Gordon Moyes has preached in almost every city and large public building in Australia. He has lectured in management at universities, colleges and seminaries in 20 countries.
I do not worry about academia and similar things; they do not have any impact on me. But Reverend Gordon Moyes has a caring heart, a heart after God. He loves people. Those who have been involved in mission work would know that some mighty strange people need to be dealt with. As Mother Teresa said, missionaries deal with people from the gutter and sometimes their clothing is filled with lice. But they are the people that God loves and wants to rescue. Reverend Gordon Moyes will be filling the casual vacancy created by my leaving and he will stand for the 2003 election. I am sure that you will welcome him. Once again, thank you very much for your friendship and for being part of the family of the New South Wales Parliament.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.32 p.m.]: I support the bill. I take this opportunity on my behalf and I am sure on behalf of all members of this House to wish the Hon. Elaine Nile well in her retirement from this place. In the 14 years that she has been a member of Parliament she has always been very hard working and diligent. She has been loyal not only to her leader but also to her convictions. Whilst she might not always have won our support and vote on matters before the House, no-one would doubt that right from the start she won our affections. I wish her well in her retirement.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.33 p.m.]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I farewell the Hon. Elaine Nile. Today is the one-hundredth anniversary of women in Parliament. Although she can claim to be not liberated she still has had many good years in Parliament—
The Hon. Elaine Nile: I am definitely liberated.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I take that back—the Hon. Elaine Nile is liberated. She has been a member of Parliament for 14 years and she is retiring today. The Australian Democrats appreciate the work that she did with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile with respect to the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Bill and the stand the Christian Democratic Party has taken on gambling and alcohol matters. We have not agreed with her on a number of issues, but we admire the work that she has done. I am sure that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby would join me in wishing her well and hoping that her health improves in her retirement. The Young Offenders Act went through this Parliament in 1997 under the guidance of the Hon. Jeff Shaw. It is interesting to reminisce about those times, when this Government had some compassion and was not ruled and dominated by the misguided rhetoric of talkback radio. At the introduction of the Young Offenders Bill in 1997 the then Attorney General said:
It is recognised that emphasis on prevention rather than punishment is appropriate when dealing with most offences committed by young people.
Back in the old days the Government actually got things right. The Australian Democrats supported the 1997 bill without hesitation because it introduced a system of cautions and diversionary conferencing to keep young offenders out of the courts and the rest of the criminal justice system. My predecessor, Lis Kirkby, said that the same pressure from the media was present at that time. She said:
Anyone listening to popular radio commentators or reading some of the popular press would believe that New South Wales was in the grip of a most violent juvenile crime wave, but that belief is not borne out by statistics.
So why does this Government, the same Government that resisted the baying media hounds, now bow to them? The present Attorney General admits that. He said:
I am aware that there is a perception amongst some members of the public that juveniles who repeatedly offend are being treated too leniently under the Act. While the Government does not believe there is strong evidence to support this perception, limiting the number of cautions a young offender can receive should address some community concerns in this regard.
The Attorney General said that although there is no evidence to support that perception the Government is still bending to the pressure of a noisy, ill-informed minority articulated to a mass market by talkback radio. The Law Society has expressed its concern about three areas of the bill. First, the bill will limit to three the number of times that a young offender can be cautioned. After the third caution the young offender will be either referred to a youth justice conference or the matter will proceed to court. It is rightly argued that a young offender may be cautioned on three minor and different matters, such as possession of a small amount of marijuana, offensive language or a minor shoplifting offence. It is possible that a young person may use up all three cautions in one bad day's activities. For example, a boy or a girl who steals a pen from a newsagent and is apprehended by police, speaks bad language to the police and is found to be in possession of one joint of marijuana has committed three offences and received three cautions on one bad day. The next time, say six months down the track, that person is caught committing minor damage to property—say spray painting an old tin fence—will result in three strikes and he or she is in.
That provision smacks of mandatory sentencing. It takes discretion away from the police to caution and it forces them to take the matter to the next level. It is a waste of police time, and it would be better if the matter could stay at the caution level. Police have to be given some credit for deciding whether giving another caution is the right approach. I understand that the Greens have taken the advice of the Law Society on this part of the bill and will move an appropriate amendment, which we are happy to support. The second area that the Law Society is concerned about is that schedule 1 item [11] to the bill provides that a conference convener may decide to invite a representative of the young offender's school to attend the youth justice conference. That could be quite damaging to a child's reputation at school. If the offence had nothing to do with the school and did not occur at the school it is inappropriate for the school to be involved. It is unfair that a child should be tarnished in the eyes of the police and then the school. Honourable members are probably aware from personal experience or by observation that once a child's reputation, be it good or bad, is established at a school it is rare that it changes. The Greens have produced an amendment, on advice of the Law Society, that will make the attendance of a school official at a caution not only at the discretion of the conference convener but also with the consent of the alleged offender.
The third concern is that amendments to section 38 of the Act require specialist youth officers, conference administrators and the Director of Public Prosecutions to consult with the investigating officer when deciding whether a young offender should be conferenced. The Law Society argues that there is concern about that approach, and that some investigating officers may form adverse views about some young offenders and may be selective in their application of the Young Offenders Act. The bill allows consideration to be given in certain circumstances to requiring young offenders to participate in a range of programs, including counselling programs, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, educational and other programs that can assist young offenders to stay out of trouble. The bill will also make it explicit that a victim who attends a youth justice conference can veto any outcome plan proposed at that conference.
In conclusion, it is disappointing that the Government is going backwards rather than forwards to a more enlightened law and order approach. It is also predictable that the Opposition's response to this bill is to go even further backwards—to say that a young offender has one chance at a caution. How would it be if members of the Opposition were given only one chance at a preselection, one chance to win a seat, one chance to be a Minister? It is a ridiculous proposition! I will support the Law Society's amendments to the bill. I will not support the Opposition's amendments as I believe they are basically a return to the days of stocks and public executions.
The Hon. RON DYER [3.40 p.m.]: I support the Young Offenders Amendment Bill 2002. I intend in my contribution to the debate, firstly, to deal with the basis of my support for the bill and, secondly, to respond to the kind remarks of the Hon. Elaine Nile. Perhaps I ought also set the record straight regarding another matter to which she referred. In recent years I have had a constant interest in juvenile conferencing and the Young Offenders Act. Prior to the 1995 election when the Labor Government came to office I travelled to New Zealand as shadow Minister to speak to relevant people there regarding means of dealing with young offenders as an alternative to dealing with them in the criminal justice system. During that visit I spoke to police in Auckland and Wellington and to Judge Mick Brown of the Youth Court in New Zealand, an acknowledged expert in this area. I also spoke to the Children's Commissioner in Wellington.
As a result of that visit I formed the view that it would be worthwhile legislating along the general lines of providing, in appropriate cases, that young offenders ought to be dealt with according to a juvenile conferencing model as an alternative to being penalised in the criminal justice system and attracting a criminal record from day one, as it were. The Labor Government subsequently wrote into its policy that there should be provision for such measures. I also readily acknowledge that this policy issue has been dealt with on a relatively bipartisan basis. For example, a former member of this House and holder of the office of Attorney General, the Hon. John Hannaford, was very definitely committed to a juvenile conferencing model. There can be no doubt of that. I am happy to say that the legislation has, by and large, worked well to date. I suppose one could say that this bill is targeted at finetuning and balancing the legislation as between the interests of the child and the interests of society. It is not my intention to go into a detailed appraisal of this bill. However, the first three objects of the bill contain the essence of what it seeks to do.
First, the bill seeks to limit to three the number of occasions on which a child can be dealt with for an offence by caution. I believe that is a reasonable step to take. It is legitimate and proper for a young person to be cautioned where the offence involved is such that it is believed that the young person is unlikely to reoffend and where the offence is of such character that a caution is appropriate—that is, the offence is not unduly serious. However, I do not believe it can be said that cautions should be infinitely available or available for an undue number of occasions. The legislation sets a limit of three, and I believe that is appropriate. Young persons ought to have learned their lesson once they have been apprehended and cautioned on three successive occasions for three different offences.
Second, the bill seeks to ensure that the police officer or other investigating official who initially deals with the child in relation to the commission or alleged commission of an offence is consulted whenever practicable on any decision as to the action to be taken under the legislation in relation to that offence. That equally is an appropriate provision. The police are, after all, at the front line of law enforcement and it is appropriate that the police officer be consulted in regard to a decision under the legislation about an offence for which the child is apprehended. In my experience many police officers have been very supportive of the legislation. For example, I refer to a former member of the Police Service, as it was then known, Senior Sergeant Terry O'Connell, formerly of Wagga Wagga police. His patrol commander, Chief Inspector Kevin Wales—now the Mayor of Wagga Wagga following his retirement from the police—strongly supported Terry O'Connell in his efforts to develop an alternative cautioning model within the Police Service in Wagga Wagga.
In due course that cautioning model matured into the model that we now have. It is appropriate that the police should be involved in the decision about referral of the child to juvenile conferencing. However, I have a concern that the picture appears to be mixed regarding the extent to which juvenile conferencing is utilised in different parts of the State. That could be a product of differing attitudes held by the police in different areas of the State. I cannot prove what I say in that regard. I am not sure that research is currently available to establish what I am saying. However, anecdotally, the apprehension I have in that regard could be the fact. Encouraging police to participate in the decision about referral to juvenile conferencing may remove suspicion and increase their support for conferencing. Third, an important objective of the bill is to provide that a youth justice conference can be attended by a representative from the school of the child involved. Given the circumstances, that obviously is appropriate. I support the legislation and the particular objects that I have referred to.
The Hon. Elaine Nile has left the Chamber as she has had to go to see the Governor in regard to her resignation. Had I been aware that she had to leave the Chamber I would perhaps have trespassed on the forms of the House and said what I wished to say regarding the Hon. Elaine Nile first rather than second. It has been my pleasure to serve with the honourable member since she became a member of the House. Sometimes she might have made judgments and comments with which I would not agree; on other occasions she would have made comments with which I would have been happy to agree. However, clearly, the honourable member has always had a conscientious belief in the correctness of what she has said at any given time, and she has sought to articulate her views and to present them to the House in all good conscience.
I did indeed travel overseas with a former member of the House, the Hon. Richard Bull, and the Hon. Elaine Nile—it was in 1991 if I remember correctly—as a member of the Select Committee upon Means of Improving the Police Positional Promotional System. In the course of that inquiry we visited San Francisco, Chicago, Toronto, New York, Amsterdam and London. We met with members of the police force in each of those large cities with a view to gaining information to furnish our report to the House regarding the police promotional system, which was at that time a matter of some controversy. At that time a Coalition Government was in office and, if my memory serves me correctly, the Hon. Ted Pickering was the Minister for Police. I enjoyed that overseas trip and the company of the Hon. Richard Bull and the Hon. Elaine Nile.
The Hon. Elaine Nile made reference to my having problems with various hotels. I only remember a problem with one hotel, the Mayflower Hotel in New York, which is adjacent to Central Park. It is true that I ended up in the penthouse of that hotel. Lest anyone in the House think I was having a tryst with a Hollywood actress or anything of the sort, I should state that that was not the case. The lock on the door to my room failed and the door could not be opened. Security staff broke through the door, thus allowing access to the room. However, it was considered unwise to stay overnight in an unlocked hotel room in New York, so I found myself in the penthouse of the Mayflower Hotel, with rooms, mirrors and furniture everywhere. I hope I do not appear too defensive, but those were the circumstances in which I found myself in the penthouse.
The Hon. Elaine Nile also referred to a period of her parliamentary career as the time of "the troubles", harking back to a term that is often used regarding Ireland. I am not sure that "the troubles" achieved the heights of the troubles in Ireland, but there were certainly heightened differences at that time, particularly involving the Hon. Marie Bignold. Long-serving members of the House, including the Hon. John Jobling, would remember with some amusement the events that occurred during that time, events that were eventually resolved to the satisfaction of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. However, I should like to place on record my respect for the Hon. Elaine Nile for her conscientious representation of her views during her term of service in the House and thank her for her kind words concerning me.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [4.53 p.m.]: I also wish to express my good wishes to the Hon. Elaine Nile and wish her all the best in her retirement. May the good Lord bless her with good health and peace in future years. The Young Offenders Amendment Bill 2002 seeks to limit the number of occasions on which a young person may be cautioned under the Young Offenders Act. It also seeks to ensure that a police officer or other investigating officer who initially deals with a child is consulted on decisions to be taken under the Act. The third object of the bill is to provide that a teacher or representative from the child's school may attend a youth justice conference. The fourth object of the bill is to provide that particular consideration be given by the participants in a youth justice conference to the desirability of the child's participation in appropriate counselling, rehabilitation, educational or other programs. The fifth object of the bill is to ensure that the victim of an offence has a right of veto as to any outcome plan proposed at a youth justice conference.
In many respects these provisions seem reasonable. Indeed, the fourth object of the bill— which provides that particular consideration be given by the participants in a youth justice conference to the desirability of the child's participation in appropriate counselling, rehabilitation, educational or other programs—is a fine initiative that brings the Act into line with New Zealand practices on which the New South Wales program is based. In New Zealand it is thought that the interest in assisting children and young people in continuing education and counselling, and engaging in sporting clubs and the like, is one of the major reasons for the success of the program..
However, the reason for the success of the program—and it has been successful, as the Hon. Richard Jones has already pointed out—may not be an aspect of the program per se. As Michael Cain's revolutionary research on juvenile recidivists, which was undertaken while he was working with the Department of Juvenile Justice, clearly shows, most children only ever make one appearance before the juvenile court system. It should come as little surprise that the conferencing program, which places itself as a diversionary tool between the young person and the judicial system, has continued this marvellous outcome. However, the problem is with those young people who do not become involved in the cautioning and conferencing systems. I am particularly concerned about young people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, Aboriginal children and young people, and children who are in the care system, under care and protection orders, or who are wards of the State. It appears that those individuals may not be participating in the diversionary programs at anywhere near the rates of "normal" young people.
A number of years ago during a budget estimates hearing Mr Buttrum, the former Director-General of the Department of Juvenile Justice, referred to the poor level of participation by Aboriginal children and young people in the system. Children in care are also less likely to be given this option. Indeed, it has come to my attention that the former Chief Magistrate of the Children's Court, like many others in similar positions, has complained about Department of Community Services officers not attending court hearings relating to children in care. The fact that this occurs in a properly functioning justice institution suggests, and indeed confirms, that those children are less likely to take part in conferencing. Also, many children from non-English-speaking backgrounds, Aboriginal children and children in care—may of whom get into trouble—do not receive assistance at this level because they do not have homes, working families or operating social structures.
For those children it is highly unlikely that schoolteachers would be even aware of who they are, let alone be willing to appear on their behalf to look after their interests. I should like the Government to take note of that. Too many children who really need the benefit of the provisions of the bill, especially the provision referred to in the fourth object of the bill, do not have the opportunity to participate. That is important to our society. Too many of the children in the juvenile justice system are, or have been, in the care of the State. A study has shown that of all the children under 16 at Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre approximately 20 per cent are presently under State wardship, care and protection orders, and as they represent only 0.1 per cent of the children in the State of New South Wales they are at least 200 times overrepresented. Many more of the children at Reiby had previously been in care and, indeed, 80 per cent had been the subject of three or more child-at-risk notifications to the Department of Community Services before they had committed their first offences.
With that in mind, and bearing in mind that Aboriginal children, young people and individuals from non-English speaking backgrounds have difficulty appearing before conferences in the first instance, I am concerned about the provisions allowing for the veto of outcomes from the conferencing process. As Mr Buttrum stated at the budget estimates hearing mentioned earlier, entry into the juvenile justice system is the first time that many children in the care of the State have access to psychological services. Remedial education and other primary health care services can presumably be added to that. That the power of veto would exist over such children is of grave concern to me, especially when something good may be able to happen for them—perhaps for the first time. I ask honourable members to keep these issues in mind when they vote on this matter. I suggest that, regardless of the outcomes of this bill, the Government should do much more work for these vulnerable children and young people.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.00 p.m.]: I support the Young Offenders Amendment Bill 2002. I note the resignation today of the Hon. Elaine Nile. She is an honest and genuine member of this Chamber upon whose word one can rely. In the short time that I have known her I have come to appreciate her values as being those of a truly Christian woman. It is a little unfortunate that on the anniversary of women receiving the vote in New South Wales the Christian Democratic Party, whose membership is a reasonable size, has not been able to find another good, Christian woman to replace the Hon. Elaine Nile. I wish her well in her retirement. I am sure that she will now be able to spend more time with her family, which is a desire that she often expressed to me.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:39:19 : Update this page