Sowry Roger: Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14443] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 It is easy to see why the Minister for Social Development and Employment did not talk with any enthusiasm about the bill. Really he went through his departmental notes on it with a lack of enthusiasm that shed light on the fact that this bill does not deliver the sorts of reforms that need to be made to the children young persons and their families legislation. 
I want to start with a couple of things. It is interesting that a lot of this bill is about youth justice issues and the way that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services works in dealing with young offenders. It is interesting that the Minister of Justice who talks particularly tough on youth justice issues is not in the House today. I can see why when I look at the bill. National believes that this bill in fact waters down victims’ rights. The Minister was very quick to skip over that part of the bill but we believe that it relegates victims’ rights to the periphery of the whole system because what the bill does—and no doubt United Future has had a big part to play in this—by the inclusion of clause 6 is downgrade the principle of the court being required to have “due regard to the interests of any victims” to the court just having to “recognise properly” the interests of victims. Well what does that mean? What is the legal test for “recognise properly”? We have checked it out and have found there is no legal test for “recognise properly”. It is something totally new in the law. The advice we have had is that in fact it waters down the rights of victims. The Minister should stay in the Chamber and listen to this; he gives a pious speech where he says he wants to hear the debate then runs like a scared rabbit! In fact this bill waters down victims’ rights. 
The next point—and I will be really interested to hear what United Future has to say on this—is why this bill says that the youth offender can have as many support people in the room as he or she wants but the victim cannot. Why is that? What is fair about that? The offender some young out-of-control thug can front up with 20 of the gang and the victim is not allowed to bring into the room whomever he or she wants. How fair is that? I tell Judy Turner that it is clause 31 of the bill if she has not read it which going by the way she is looking she clearly has not. Victims’ rights should be fundamental to the system not some afterthought which this Government seems to treat them as. We will be very interested to see whether that provision is toughened up or whether we will have another weak youth justice bill from this Government. 
I also want to talk about the key recommendations of Judge Carruthers of the Ministerial Task Force on Youth Offending. I am sure that members who have read that task force report will look at it and ask how come Judge Carruthers did a whole report on youth offending and none of the recommendations were picked up. Why was that? Why did the Labour Party Government not pick up Judge Carruthers’ recommendations? Were they wrong? Labour members do not want to answer that. Was the judge too weak or too tough? There is no answer to that question. Why is the Government ignoring Judge Carruthers’ report just like it ignored Judge Mick Brown’s report on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services? Why is it doing that? Is it that the Chief Youth Court Judge Judge Carruthers had nothing of value to say on this issue? Is that the reason? 
Why does this bill not take up the recommendation of longer periods of residence with supervision? I tell this House that there are young people out there committing crimes who have a range of issues that are wrong in their lives. They have conduct disorder problems. They have mental health issues. Judge Carruthers went away and studied that. He came back and said that the Government needed to have places where those people can go and be supervised and looked after for long periods of time so that we can wrap some services around them and look after them. Does the bill do that? Not at all! There is not even a mention of it in the bill. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: What a loss this member will be to Parliament. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Mr Benson-Pope has woken up from his deep slumber. Why is that measure not in the bill? Does Mr Benson-Pope think Judge Carruthers’ report had any value? No he does not. He shakes his head. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: What a waste of space. No wonder he is leaving. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He says the report is a waste of space. I think that is a disgrace and I am surprised that United Future would support David Benson-Pope in saying that Judge Carruthers’ report is a waste of space. I am surprised about that. It is vital if we are going to get young people out of a bad environment that this Government does something but it is not doing anything. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member is deliberately misrepresenting my comments. I called the member a waste of space. I did not refer to Judge Carruthers’ report. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will be silent when I am ruling on a point of order. That is not a point of order. When the member interjects he takes his chances. That is not a point of order. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member decides that the judge’s report is a waste of space then thinks he is going to get told off by upstairs so he tries to change what he said. He is the man who shook his head and said the report was hopeless. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is the second time the member has deliberately misrepresented what I said. Is that acceptable in terms of the Standing Orders? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I warn all members that when a point of order is being heard there will be silence. That is not a point of order and I ask Mr Sowry to continue. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member knows there is a remedy if he thinks he has been misinterpreted. He knows that he sat there shook his head and said that report was a waste of space. He knows that the Government is doing nothing to— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The member’s telling lies. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No one is in control here. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise for that interjection. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is good to see that Mr Benson-Pope is keeping up the standard that he has long held in this House. It is a very high standard for other members to aspire to! 
This bill does nothing for youth offending—not a thing. The next time a youth offender mugs maims or hurts somebody and—under this bill—fronts up at the hearing with 20 of his mates whereas the victim is allowed only one people will need to blame the Government. When the youth offender is not given proper supervision is not given a residential sentence with proper programmes wrapped around it which is what Judge Carruthers recommended people need to blame the Government because none of that stuff is in this bill and that is a disgrace. This bill is a lost opportunity for young people who need those services. They just want somewhere to go to be kept safe. They will not be given the chance to turn their lives round. Justice is about locking people up but it is also about putting programmes around them to see them through. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act actually has done a pretty good job of that. This bill does not add to it but makes things worse for the victim and worse for the young person. Is it any wonder that David Benson-Pope has been sent down to the House to hurl some personal abuse across the Chamber to try to distract things and that the Minister gave a lacklustre speech then scurried out of the Chamber so that he would not have to be held accountable for this legislation? 
I say to the United Future party members that I hope they have as much influence over the Government as they claim—it would be nice to think they have as much influence as they claim—and will stand up and say to the Government that they do not support victims being sidelined they do not support Judge Carruthers’ report being sidelined and they do not support the bill.