LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 30 November 1994 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 9.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. CHILDREN (PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY) BILL SUMMARY OFFENCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION (GRAFFITI) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 November. Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt) [9.01]: I lead for the Opposition. The Opposition supports the general thrust of the Children (Parental Responsibility) Bill and cognate bill, but will move a number of amendments to both bills in Committee. A number of Opposition members want to address several aspects of the bills and amendments to be proposed to them in Committee, so I anticipate lengthy debate on the proposals. The weekend newspapers have picked up what has been a contentious issue within Government ranks. Summary offences, parental responsibility and youth policy are always contentious issues within the Labor Party, and promote healthy debate. That is probably more than has occurred within the coalition parties. If the weekend newspapers are to be believed, there has been virtually no debate whatsoever of those issues by the coalition. Last Thursday, in the closing hours of the sitting week the Premier gave his second reading speech, much to the surprise of members of the Opposition and of the Government - not only Government backbenchers but many Cabinet Ministers. It is obvious that in the lead-up to the next election this proposal is seen as some sort of winner for the Premier and his Government. The electorate has woken up to the fact that, contrary to what the Premier said in his second reading speech, after seven years in office the Government has failed to address the issues of youth policy, law and order, and crime on our streets, particularly the involvement of young people in street crime. That has been highlighted in both the Parramatta and Cabramatta by-elections, but particularly in Cabramatta, where street crime was a major issue, second only to health. These bills will address a number of issues which I and the Opposition support. The Children (Parental Responsibility) Bill - the primary bill - is designed to enable courts to require parents to be present during criminal proceedings against children. Having been a member of the police force for many years, I am aware that many of the provisions summarised in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the explanatory note to the primary bill only formalise common practices of the courts and of police officers. The first object of the bill is: (a) to enable courts to require parents to be present during criminal proceedings against children; Many people from the legal fraternity would be aware that, wherever possible, parents are requested to attend court where persons under the age of 18 are charged with an offence. However, there are occasions when parents will not attend court, perhaps because of shame or lack of responsibility. It is hoped that, by writing into the law a requirement that parents be present during criminal proceedings involving children, the bill will address circumstances where parents feel it is not their responsibility to be involved in legal proceedings involving their children, or would let their child go it alone. The second object of the bill is: (b) to enable courts to require children to give undertakings as to future behaviour (including parental supervision) and to require parents to be present at court in the event of a breach of such an undertaking; In some ways this provision only codifies or writes into legislation what is already common practice, particularly the first part of the provision enabling courts to require children to give undertakings. Undertakings by children in Children's Courts, as well as by adults in general courts, are normal practice, particularly in regard to suspended sentences and bail matters, and are an alternative to custodial and other serious penalties. The requirement for parents to be present at court in the event of a breach of an undertaking may be a bit hard for some parents to swallow. However, if parents are to be made responsible for their children's crimes, the provision placing an onus on parents to appear in court regarding an alleged breach of an undertaking should be given a fair trial. The fair trial period will be the subject of an amendment to be moved at the Committee stage. The Opposition will seek that the bills be reviewed after 12 months. The third object of the bill is: (c) to enable courts to require parents to give undertakings concerning the future behaviour of children and other matters; This matter has previously been dealt with in courts. Where offenders of 16 or 17 years of age give undertakings to a court, this bill will require the parents to give an undertaking that they will do everything in their power to ensure that the undertakings are upheld and that the behaviour of the child improves, which is the desire of the courts when dealing with an offender in a non-custodial way. The fourth object is: (d) to enable courts to require family counselling when a child is found guilty of an offence; That is a common practice in Children's Courts. Whilst many social workers are opposed to many, if not all, the provisions in the bill, it is fair to say that those involved with social work have done a great job Page 5971 in family counselling and child welfare. This bill expands their role and provides legislative backing for the role they play. The family counselling option may be restricted by the fact that courts will be given stronger powers under the legislation to require a family or a child to undergo this form of counselling. The fifth object of the bill is controversial. It is: (e) to make it an offence for a parent, by wilful default or by neglect to exercise proper care and guardianship, to contribute to the commission of an offence by a child; This will be a pig's breakfast for the lawyers. It sets a principle or guideline which tells parents that they have a responsibility to care for their children, particularly in the wake of a court case where undertakings have been made. Parents who, by wilful neglect, contribute to the commission of an offence, could be prosecuted. In many cases this will be hard to prove. How does one prove that a parent has been neglectful, for example, where the child involved is known to be uncontrollable? There is a grey area between the issue of parents having the ability to control an uncontrollable child and parents who, by their neglect or actions or inactions, contribute to the commission of an offence. While this provision could be held out as a big stick on some occasions, I would be surprised if it results in a high incidence of convictions. Another object of the main bill is: (f) to provide for the safe escort of children from public places to their homes or certain other places, where police officers consider this action may reduce the likelihood of crime or the exposure of children to risk. This has been an issue of contention not only within social worker groups but also within the Labor Party. Some people are concerned about giving police the power to determine the age of young persons, whether they are about to commit an offence, and detaining them in custody without laying a charge against them for an offence but merely on suspicion. I have more trust in the system than some detractors from this provision outlined in that part of the explanatory note. I recall the provisions of legislation - repealed during the Wran-Unsworth years - enabling police to pick up a child they believed was exposed to moral danger. As a former police officer working in the Parramatta area I had to deal with a case where a girl of about 13 years of age was in the company of a group of about six or seven male youths, obviously between the ages of 16 and 19, during the early hours of the morning. Under the provisions of legislation dealing with exposure to moral danger, police had power vested in them - and it was common practice - to take such a child into custody, deeming that person to be exposed to moral danger or in some form of danger. In those days the young person was taken to a police station, there being no other refuges or safe places to take a child found in those circumstances. The normal practice was to telephone the parents. In certain circumstances, the child could be charged with being exposed to moral danger. In most cases it was a matter of contacting the parents and having the child returned to the home. In the case I instanced, the parents were not aware that the child was out of the home; the child had skipped out the back window after the family had gone to sleep. It is not always the case that young people are on the streets because of parental neglect. I have received letters from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. The council considers this legislation to be somewhat radical. In the past the law provided the option of removing a child from a public place and taking it home or to another place if it was felt there was a likelihood of an offence being committed or of the young person being exposed to moral danger. This provision is not altogether new. Some of the provisions outlined in paragraph (f) of the explanatory note are new and were not contained in the legislation to which I referred.