David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senator Cox, move:

That the Senate—

(a) commends the Australian Capital Territory Government's commitment to raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14;

(b) notes with concern the ongoing abuse of the rights of children in juvenile detention centres across the country; and

(c) calls on the Federal Attorney-General to coordinate a binding national justice reform strategy that includes raising the age of criminal responsibility across all states and territories to 14, justice reinvestment and diversion.

This motion asks that the Senate, first of all, commend the ACT government's commitment to raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14. But it also seeks that the Senate note with concern the ongoing abuse of the rights of children in juvenile detention centres right across this country and call on the federal Attorney-General to coordinate a binding national justice reform strategy that includes raising the age of criminal responsibility across all states and territories to 14 as well as justice reinvestment and diversion. It's hard to imagine a more serious issue that has gripped this country than the crisis we've seen in juvenile detention centres, with thousands and thousands of children, tragically, so many of them First Nations children, being held in detention centres that are brutal, that are inhumane and that would seem to be designed to abuse their human rights. When jurisdictions like Queensland suspend their human rights act in order to keep First Nations kids in police watch houses, what should the federal government do? It shouldn't do what this government does, which is turn its face away from the issue, simply pretend it's a matter for Queensland to continue to flout international basic standards for the rights of the child and allow Queensland to continue to abuse hundreds and hundreds of kids.

If you want to be genuinely shocked, look at the appalling rise in the number of children kept in Queensland jails over the last decade. Ask yourself: should the federal government—should the federal Attorney-General—just avert their gaze and pretend that that's okay?

Of course he shouldn't, and of course the Commonwealth government should accept an obligation to step in and respect the rights of children not to be systemically abused like that.

If we cast our eyes—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the context of all the discussions that occurred earlier today, I do just draw to your attention standing order 193(3), about offensive words or imputations of improper motives or reflections. That also includes the houses of parliament of states. Some of your comments about the actions of the Queensland parliament in suspending their human rights laws would go to that, so I just ask you to consider that as you continue your remarks.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. In casting our eyes to WA, we've seen repeated judgements from the Supreme Court of Western Australia about the unlawful detention regime in WA, where the WA government feels perfectly fine moving children into adult prisons in conditions we know will abuse their human rights. The WA government has been on notice now for over 12 months that the conditions of detention in Banksia and in prisons where children are held in WA—again, overwhelmingly First Nations children—are an abuse of the human rights of those children. We're talking about children, in some cases, as young as 10 years of age. Twice now the WA Supreme Court has pointed out the unlawfulness of the brutal detention regime for children in WA, and what has the WA government done? Nothing. It has permitted the abusive conditions to continue. In just the last few short weeks, we've seen that end in the ultimate tragedy: the death of a 16-year-old boy in a WA prison.

What will it take for the Attorney-General and the Albanese government to say, 'Enough's enough,' draw a line in the sand and say, 'There must be minimum national standards to protect children'? Who has the international obligation? It's the Commonwealth government that's entered into the international treaties. That's where the obligation lies, and they cannot avert their eyes when state after state—we could have another speech entirely devoted to the abuses in the Northern Territory in notorious institutions like Don Dale. We could look at the recent findings about the brutal, abusive detention in Tasmanian facilities. I know that in my home state of New South Wales—which, thankfully, has seen the number of children detained reduced over the last decade, pushing against the national trend—those institutions such as Reiby are abusing the rights of children as young as 10 years of age. What will it take for the federal Attorney-General and for the Albanese government to say, 'Enough's enough' and that they will implement national minimum standards?

This is a campaign that millions of Australians want to succeed. They want to see the minimum age of criminal responsibility raised to at least 14. I want to commend those brave First Nations grandmothers who have come out and done this work, the lawyer groups, the land councils—the people of goodwill across this country who want it to end. I can't make this contribution without acknowledging the courage of Sophie Trevitt, human rights lawyer, who I know my colleagues in this chamber knew closely and who devoted her life to this cause. In the name of Sophie Trevitt but more so in the name of all those kids who, as we debate this, are in a cell by themselves, facing a spit hood, facing isolation, taken from country, taken from family—in their name, let's raise the age.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would say at the outset that the government won't be supporting the proposition that's been advanced by Senator Shoebridge and Senator Cox, but I do think that it is good that these questions are brought here and that it is elevated to be the subject of discussion here. I do think that senators ought to spend some time on these questions. So, while we may not agree on our voting positions in relation to the proposition that has been advanced—and I want to make some comments about the government's broader approach here—I want there to be more discussion about these questions in this place. We should not be frightened of the debate.

Before I make my other comments, I do want to say that, while I didn't know Ms Trevitt, I was aware of her contribution. There are many people in the community of lawyers and there are many community activists who receive very little reward in terms of what they get paid, but there's an immense reward in terms of what they contribute and the sense of purpose that they bring to these questions. She was a leader amongst them, and her death was a very sad thing for that community of lawyers. You can't imagine the countless young people who that young woman would have supported.

It is true that every child—and somebody who is 10, 11, 12, 13 or 14 is a child—who is imprisoned represents a failure of all of us, not them. Let's leave it to the courts to sort out who's responsible for what and the levels of attributing personal responsibility—that's not what I mean. I mean, in terms of the social outcome here, there are very few good outcomes that flow from people who are imprisoned and particularly from young people who are imprisoned. We know that the outcomes from that are—there are people in the justice system who work very hard to try to get better outcomes. I'm thinking of workers in the technical education system, in TAFE, in New South Wales who work very hard to support young people in those institutions. But there are some pretty ordinary outcomes for young people. Too many of those young people are from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. That is also the case. So the impact on that community and the impact that flows through the generations in that community is, of course, something that we should spend more time talking about in this place.

From the government's perspective, the Attorney-General and others will be engaging and listening and considering the direction of further reform in an area that's going to require a continued focus on reform and cooperation with the Attorney's colleagues at the state and territory level. I can say, on behalf of the government, that the government is committed to achieving targets 10 and 11 of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which do go to these questions: reducing the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in detention by at least 30 per cent by 2031 and reducing the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adult incarceration by 15 per cent by 2031.

The government committed $13½ million dollars in additional funding to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services to increase those important organisations' capacity to provide culturally-appropriate legal assistance in coronial inquiries and to establish real-time reporting of all deaths in custody to ensure accountability and transparency for all Australian governments. And it committed an unprecedented investment of $81½ million to establish a National Justice Reinvestment Program.

I do want to say in terms of the principles around justice reinvestment that the opportunities there are place based, regionally specific and culturally appropriate to deliver those services. I'm very proud of the government's investment in those services. Two pilots have been funded in Australia; they will have an impact and there will be lessons that can be learned from the application of those programs. I know this myself from my experience in watching, with awe, really, the leadership of people like Alistair Ferguson in Bourke with the Maranguka Justice Reinvestment Project there. That has had such a positive impact in the community. Every morning, representatives of the Aboriginal community in Bourke—of the Maranguka Tribal Council, in which Mr Ferguson has played a key role in bringing together; of the police and other emergency services; of housing services; and of the various health groups and schools all come together, voluntarily, in a program where they sort through and work out problems and issues that confront individual families and questions that deal with justice related issues.

And what have they produced? They do it every morning and every day they solve problems—five or six mornings a week. Week after week they do work that nobody ever sees outside that community, but they put the time in. And what do we see? That investment up front is supported, yes, by governments and also by some of the philanthropic organisations which are keen to support ways of improving justice outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in regional Australia. It means that we see reduced reoffending. Putting the resources up-front is not just the right thing to do it's the economically rational thing to do. We get better outcomes in terms of lower spending, because it costs a lot of money to lock people up. We get a better outcome because there's less expense there, but the expenditure is produces a better outcome—a better outcome for the young people, in particular, and for their families. There's a better outcome in terms of domestic violence and all the other things that are associated with criminal offending. And there are better outcomes for the community in that town.

I know that it has been the subject of some controversy. I was disappointed to see that there was some recent criticism of it because, of course, the figures don't always improve. Sometimes they get worse because there's an ebb and flow in the kinds of things that drive criminal offending—all of the impacts that happen in communities. The lesson that I have learnt from watching is that, firstly, it's people like Ms Trevitt and Mr Ferguson, and thousands and thousands of others who put their heart and soul into these things, that make a difference. The second thing is that the approach by government matters—it really matters. Less sloganeering and more effort: really, people out in that community don't have much time for slogans.

The third thing is that we get better outcomes if we work together in those communities, accept responsibility and accept that, sometimes, things won't go perfectly. When you get a bad outcome, rather than point the finger and try and score points, what you do is rally around and try and work out how to get a better outcome. That is the kind of approach that the government will take. The government will work with all of the state and territory governments, and there is some dissonance and difference there. Senator Shoebridge has pointed to some of those issues. There are differences between the state governments. The government will work with the state governments to deliver a better outcome. All of those forums—the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, the Police Ministers Council and the Justice Policy Partnership—working with First Nations groups and representatives from the Coalition of Peaks is what will characterise the approach of the government in this area.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak against Senator Shoebridge's motion endorsing the ACT's recent increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years of age to 12 and then, in 2025, to 14. Care for children starts with love, and part of love is responsibility. It is not being kind to children to not be responsible. The Australian Capital Territory is not the only jurisdiction taking this action. The Northern Territory recently increased the age of criminal responsibility to 12. Tasmania increased the minimum age for detention to 14. For the Greens, age is a problematic concept. They just don't seem to understand that care involves responsibility. In a 'Greens land', a child of 13 cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Yet a child that age can choose their gender, change their gender and read instruction manuals in adult sexual practices years before they are legally old enough to engage in that activity. Indeed, in 'Greens land', a child of any age can do those things. A 10-year-old can. An eight-year-old can.

It's perplexing to see the Greens suggesting a child under the age of 14 is not mature enough to be held accountable for their actions. This issue comes down to a simple legal principle: do they know the distinction between right and wrong, and can apply that distinction to their own actions? As long as there is no factor other than age that impacts on their capacity, they are criminally liable. Those factors could include autism, fetal alcohol syndrome or drugs. There's merit in the idea that a child of that age is better diverted than convicted. I'll say that again: there is merit in the idea that a child of that age is better diverted than convicted. I agree that diversion programs should be the first option for any child coming to the attention of the police or the courts. I have issue with children being held accountable for the sins of the parents, and so many of the children that come to the attention of law enforcement at this age are there because their parents have failed. There must be a point, though, where the person is responsible for their own actions. A young person can use a bad start as an excuse for the rest of their lives, or they can use a bad start as motivation to succeed. I'll say that again: a young person can use a bad start as an excuse for the rest of their lives, or they can use a bad start as motivation to succeed. This legislation allows the excuses. One Nation supports helping a child succeed.

Karly Warner, the CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Centre (NSW/ACT), made the following comment on the legislation:

In the extremely rare instances when a child does something seriously wrong, it's because they've been let down and need our help.

…    …    …

… by failing to raise the age to 14 … the [Australian] Government is failing Aboriginal children.

Aboriginal kids are over-represented at every stage of the system, from police to court to prison. The ACT imprisons Aboriginal children at 12 times the rate of non-Indigenous children.

It's Aboriginal kids—

Debate interrupted.