The opportunity to debate these two bills cognately has provided a good opportunity for members in this place to compare and contrast two fundamentally different approaches to juvenile justice in this state.

The first, put forward by the government in amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act, is predicated on the basis that young people who are charged with offences and who may ultimately be convicted of those offences deserve a chance to reform and be rehabilitated.

The alternative approach that the opposition puts forward is that we ought to fast-track young people through the juvenile justice system straight to detention.

We have heard over and over again during the course of this debate the same tired old slogans, the same tired old simplistic solutions being trotted out, that young people get nothing but a slap on the wrist and things of that kind. We have heard it over and over again during the course of this debate. We hear it over and over again in various forums outside of this House.

What those comments reflect is a very fundamental misunderstanding of the way young people think and behave, a fundamental misunderstanding about what are effective measures to correct antisocial or criminal behaviour. If it does not reflect a misunderstanding of those issues, it reflects something much worse, and that is that members of the opposition are using young people who transgress the law or who get charged with criminal offences to make a political point: to erect a platform for themselves to go out into their communities and say, ‘Hey, I'm Mr or Ms Tough-on-Crime'.

Members can bet their bottom dollar that some of the claptrap that we have heard in this debate by members opposite will be trotted out in their speeches and distributed to their constituents to bolster their position that they talk and act tough on crime.

The problem is that the position that those opposite have advocated-the position that they want young people fast-tracked into our detention centres without proper consideration of what the alternative sentences could and ought to be and might be most effective in turning those young people around-ignores all of the evidence.

That is the other fundamental difference between the government and the opposition's approach to these complex issues. The government's approach is based on evidence, objective research and an understanding and an analysis of what works and what does not work; the approach of the members of the opposition is based on what will work for them in their electorates by putting out their speeches saying, ‘I am talking tough on crime.'

A number of pieces of research have been referred to. In fact, in the development of this bill wide community consultation was undertaken and many submissions were received. One of the findings as a result of that community consultation was that there is room for improvement in the community's understanding about the way our juvenile justice system works.

Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm.

Mr WETTENHALL: Prior to the luncheon adjournment, I was referring to the consultation undertaken preceding and during the development of this bill. One of the findings of that consultation was that there was a level of poor understanding in the community about the way that the bill worked.

Unfortunately, that poor level of understanding has been reflected by the contributions made in this debate by members opposite. It is obvious that either they have not read the existing Juvenile Justice Act or, if they have, they have not understood it.

During the course of the debate we have heard criticisms about how the current law does not take sufficient account of the rights and interests of victims, how it is skewed to provide nothing but a slap on the wrist to young offenders and all of their other simplistic slogans.

A cursory examination of the Juvenile Justice Act would have led them to the following conclusions: the matters that they criticise and the matters that they say are gaps in the current juvenile justice system are all covered in the act. Section 150, the sentencing principles, states, ‘In sentencing a child for an offence, a court must have regard to', and it enumerates all of the things that a court must have regard to, among them being the nature and seriousness of the offence and the child's previous offending history.

Importantly, given the emphasis that has been placed on the justification for the opposition's bill today, namely the rights of victims, in sentencing a juvenile offender a court must take into account ‘any impact of the offence on a victim'. We have heard a lot from members opposite about the punishment fitting the crime. In that regard the Juvenile Justice Act states a court must have regard to ‘the fitting proportion between the sentence and the offence'.

Let us look at the existing Charter of Juvenile Justice Principles. Principle No. 1 states, ‘The community should be protected from offences.' There is no doubt that protecting the community would be uppermost in the court's mind in imposing a sentence of detention. The charter also states-
A child who commits an offence should be-
(a) held accountable and encouraged to accept responsibility for the offending behaviour; and
(b) dealt with in a way that will give the child the opportunity to develop in responsible, beneficial and socially acceptable ways; and
(c) dealt with in a way that strengthens the child's family.

Listening to members of the opposition during the course of this debate, one would have thought that the current Juvenile Justice Act mentions nothing about victims. However, the Charter of Juvenile Justice, principle No. 9, states-

A victim of an offence committed by a child should be given the opportunity to participate in the process of dealing with the child for the offence in a way allowed by the law.

Therefore, many of the points made by members of the opposition during the course of this debate really are pointless, because the issues that they raise are already covered by the provisions of the existing legislation.

For years and years, the parliamentary Liberal Party and the parliamentary National Party have tried to beat the law and order drum and we have heard more of it today. All sorts of extreme policy positions have been put forward, including their most favoured one, which is mandatory detention. However, at election after election the people of Queensland have rejected the extreme positions advocated by the far right in Queensland and have rejected the demonising of young people, which has been a consistent theme in past debates and we have heard it again and again during the course of this debate.

The Juvenile Justice (Sentencing Principles) Amendment Bill, introduced by the shadow Attorney-General and shadow minister for juvenile justice, is an attack on one of the most fundamental principles of youth justice, which is that detention should be a penalty of last resort.

Of course detention should be a penalty of last resort. In every case, a court should be bound to consider all of the available and appropriate options in arriving at a just sentence which, in appropriate cases, may be, has been and will continue to be a sentence of detention.

This process is not only just, fair and rational; it is also based on sound principles of correction for young people. As most parents know and understand intuitively, when a child does wrong we try to make the mode of punishment fit the wrongdoing and we graduate our responses, taking into account the age of our child, their past behaviour and the extent to which stated intentions have been matched with actions.

We do this because we know that effective discipline has to be proportionate and because young people take time to learn from their mistakes. A sound justice system does no less.

What is the point of taking away the principle? In the arguments put forward by members of the opposition themselves, we have been told that sentencing young people to youth detention is nothing but a revolving door to the adult criminal justice system.

I would have thought that that was an argument in favour of retaining the principle that a sentence of detention will be a sentence of last resort. All of the other options that are available, as a result of successive Labor governments introducing a modern, flexible and adaptive juvenile justice system-including probation, community service, good behaviour bonds and conferencing-must and ought be tried in appropriate cases before a young person is sent to detention.

Earlier in the debate I think it might have been the member for Cook who commented on the role of family in situations involving young people who have been caught up in the justice system.

I remind members that there are only two youth detention centres in this state, one in Townsville and one in Brisbane. Young people who are sentenced to detention are removed from their families and their communities if they do not happen to live in Townsville or Brisbane.

I remind honourable members that when they are taken into custody they are taken into adult watch-houses. They are removed from those watch-houses as soon as practicable, but nevertheless they are taken into adult watch-houses before they are taken to a youth detention centre and when they are brought back for court.

Most importantly, they are removed from their families and their communities. It is an important principle in our Juvenile Justice Act that we investigate and support sentencing options that allow young people to remain with their families and their communities, because the evidence shows that that is the most effective approach.

I want to mention some of the features of this bill that strengthen some important police powers in a number of key areas.

Most importantly, these amendments, as I have said, are based on evidence and community feedback. They do support victims of crime and, without pandering to the ill-informed commentary; do move the act to meet community expectations.

Although the existing legislation does empower courts to impose curfews, the amendments will give courts specific powers to impose curfews as conditions of orders of the court, such as bail or sentencing orders-all designed to reduce the chances of reoffending and to ensure proper supervision.

Similarly, although the existing legislation enables courts to name juvenile offenders, amendments set out particular matters to which the court may have regard to determine whether it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The bill also amends the act to increase the mandatory detention period for young people convicted of multiple murders from 15 to 20 years imprisonment, aligning the minimum non-parole period for both adult and juvenile offenders convicted of multiple murders.

Police will also be given stronger powers to arrest young people who fail to comply with orders in relation to youth conferencing, or contravene a youth conference agreement or fail to attend a drug assessment session, and bring them before a court.

Another very significant amendment will be to require a court to consider what the likely sentence will be when deciding whether to release a young person on bail. This is an important change, as nearly a third of young people who are remanded in detention spend eight days or less on remand and of these less than 10 per cent are subsequently sentenced to a period of detention.

The likely sentence to be imposed will not be the only factor to be considered. However, it deserves to be given due weight in bail hearings. Many young people who are refused bail before sentencing spend time in adult watch-houses, as I indicated, before being transferred to juvenile detention centres.

Together with those amendments that will clarify that a court cannot remand a young person in custody for welfare reasons, these measures will reduce the number of young people being held in custody on remand, which is a very important objective.

The bill also requires courts to set a date for the transfer of young offenders from youth detention if they are going to turn 18 during the detention period. This will overcome the situation where offenders can remain in youth detention until they are 21 years old.

The final amendment I wish to mention is that which provides protection to child victims of crime by automatically prohibiting the publication of identifying information of a child victim of crime.

This has been an important debate. I think it is a great shame that members opposite have reduced their contribution to slogans-the types of things we read in a tabloid newspaper on any day of the week, the types of things we hear a shock jock decrying any day of the week.

They have failed to tackle the real issues head on and deal with the evidence that supports the government's bill. Instead we have heard the rhetoric that underpins not only what they have said in here today but what they will no doubt go out and say in their electorates.

I have one final comment in relation to the suggested name change of the bill-that is, it is worthwhile remembering that the Juvenile Justice Act, as it is currently, not only provides for the sentencing of young people who have been convicted of offences but provides for a whole juvenile justice system to deal with young people who have come into contact with police, whether or not they are actually charged with an offence or whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.

That betrays yet another fundamental misunderstanding about the whole basis of our criminal justice system-that is, people are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty.