Page 4626 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
CHILDREN'S SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 8 December 1993, on motion by Mr Cornwell:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR MOORE (12.19): Madam Speaker, at about this time last week, or just a few minutes later, I was well into my speech on the Children's Services (Amendment) Bill. In that part of my speech I pointed out the advantages of what Mr Cornwell is trying to achieve and, on the other hand, the disadvantages. In many of the decisions we make in terms of Bills, in one way or another our conclusions are reached in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, not just in dollar terms but also in terms of social achievements and losses.
With this particular Bill I would like to identify my concerns. I think the biggest worry about forcing parents to pay for their children's vandalism is that it may exacerbate an already difficult situation between parents and youth. If you look at it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, that, in fact, could wind up costing the community a great deal more than the cost of a particular piece of vandalism. It could well put parents in the position where they would be reduced in their ability to support their children in some other way. Creating that area of conflict, or exacerbating that area of conflict, is not the way to resolve problems associated with a difficult relationship. So often things like vandalism are a result of a difficult relationship that children have with their own parents. I accept that that is not the situation in all cases. Mr Cornwell emphasised that he is talking about the hardline repeat offenders.
Mr Cornwell: Wilful and habitual.
MR MOORE: Yes, I was looking for the terms in the Bill - wilful and habitual offenders. It is the wilful and habitual offenders who are most vulnerable and we really need to try to ensure that their relationship with their parents is one that is positive. The particular young person involved does not take on responsibility for his or her own actions and I think that is the most important thing. We as a community cannot really interfere with that relationship, although we can attempt to facilitate a better relationship where possible.
The most important thing is that we now say to young people, "This is your responsibility; you wear it". That is why I gave that example of the magistrate in Warwick, Queensland, and the solution over the trees last week. There is a problem in that the Bill assumes that the parents own their children, instead of youth being held to account by the community as a whole. There certainly is that ownership concept involved with this Bill. One of the difficulties with a Bill like this - it arises whenever we are dealing with children's law - is: At what time does a young person become an individual, responsible for himself or herself entirely, as opposed to an infant who is totally dependent on the parents?
There is no question in my mind about Mr Cornwell's motivation. That is why I have gone carefully through the pluses and minuses. I think there is a positive motivation behind what he is trying to achieve. Unfortunately, the difficulty is that we wind up in a cost-benefit analysis. It will cause more damage than benefit. That, by the way, is in terms of financial damage as well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .