Skip navigation

Pages tagged "Attorney General and Democracy"

Question: Premier's Delivery Unit Report

1 November 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of the Premier's Delivery Unit.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Shortly after the March 2022 state election, the Malinauskas government announced the establishment of the Premier's Delivery Unit, with an annual budget of $2 million. The purpose of the unit is to ensure the government is upholding their election commitments. When asked about the purpose of the unit in an estimates hearing on 20 June 2022, the Premier stated:

In terms of public accountability of the government, clearly we stand to be held to account on our election commitments…That is a good thing.

During the election, Labor announced a heritage policy document outlining their election pledge to:

…legislate to require proposed demolition of state heritage sites are subject to full public consultation and a public report from SA Heritage Council.

In February, the then Labor opposition supported my private member's bill to add the Adelaide Parklands to the state heritage list, and they reversed that position last sitting. My question to the Attorney-General therefore is: will the Premier's Delivery Unit provide a report on the status of the government's policy commitments on heritage and Parklands protection and, if so, will that report be tabled in the parliament?

 

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): I thank the honorable member for his important question. As the name suggests, the Premier's Delivery Unit sits in the portfolio area of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, but I am very happy to take that question on notice as it pertains to the particular element of the operations of that unit and bring a reply back to the honorable member.

 

Reply received on 30 November 2022:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): The Premier has advised:

The Premier's Delivery Unit reports to the Premier and to Cabinet. The unit provides updates on the status of election commitments to the Government Performance Cabinet Committee. It is for cabinet to decide whether those updates are tabled in parliament.


Amendments to the Mental Health Act

18 October 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio and Other Justice Measures) Bill, which amends 14 acts within the Attorney-General's portfolio and two acts that are justice-related. As the honourable member has observed, this is a matter that we dealt with almost 12 months ago to the day; I had the opportunity to look at Hansard this morning. A number of the amendments are of a technical nature, as stated in the Attorney-General's second reading speech, but some of them do have broader implications. In particular, I want to highlight some of those that have significant effects.

The amendments to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act provide an important measure in protecting young people. In cases where a young person is involved in communication with a person subject to a direction, this amendment ensures the child is protected from committing an offence. As many in this chamber will be aware, I am committed to ensuring that children are not caught up in the criminal justice system, and this amendment certainly prevents that in some cases.

Part 13 of the bill removes automatic entitlement to legal representation under initial reviews provided for in the Mental Health Act 2009. The Greens have some concerns with this clause, however, as we believe in the fundamental principles of the right to a fair hearing and we believe that this must be upheld. That includes the right to competent representation through our legal processes.

In the Attorney-General's second reading contribution, he referred to initial reviews being undertaken on the basis of written reports and treatment plans and stated that this means legal representation is not necessary for initial reviews. In a submission to the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, the Law Society stated its opposition to the proposal to exempt section 79 reviews because:

…the orders which are reviewable under this section involve orders in respect of the detention of children, the extension of inpatient treatment orders and detention of a person who has been detained following the expiry or revocation of a previous inpatient detention order.

We do not agree that legal representation should be denied in these circumstances and we will be moving an amendment at the committee stage to remove this section. Members may recall (any of those who are listening) that around this time last year, I moved an amendment to the bill to do just that—well, I was going to move an amendment; we did not progress with it on advice that was received from the government. My office has since engaged with the Law Society. Again, it is still their view that they have some concerns around this section and it is on that basis that I will be proceeding with the amendment.


Bill Restricting the Privatisation of State Assets passes the Upper House!

8 September 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I want to thank all members for their contribution to this debate: the Leader of the Government in this place, the Hon. Kyam Maher; the Hon. Heidi Girolamo on behalf of the Liberal Party; and the Hon. Frank Pangallo. As the Hon. Mr Pangallo has noted, we were both part of a select committee to investigate privatisation in South Australia and the effects that it has had on our state. As the member has noted, those effects have been devastating.

Privatisation has had a catastrophic effect on South Australia. It has resulted in higher prices, it has resulted in reduced services, and it has resulted in Public Service cuts. That genie was let out of the bottle many years ago by the Olsen government, and we have not been able to put it back in over many years. What we have seen is a fire sale of our state assets, and that has come at a terrible cost for our community.

What this bill does is prevent governments from being able to privatise public services by stealth. It ensures that there is public oversight, a parliamentary oversight, examination by a committee, and approval of any attempted sale of public assets by the parliament itself. I think that is a really important safeguard.

It is a very important safeguard when one considers the extraordinary statements made by the opposition in this place today that demonstrate that they have not heeded the lessons from their recent election defeat. It seems they still have a privatisation agenda, and should they ever return to the government benches in this state, it is an agenda that they will seek to implement once again.

We know from their form they say one thing during an election campaign—we are not going to privatise public services—but hey presto, when they find themselves on the government benches the fire sale begins. Just look at what they have done to our train network. What this bill does is safeguard those public services that have not been privatised, key public assets from privatisation of any future government, and I think that is a really important step.

Should this bill pass both houses of parliament, and I anticipate it will with the support of the Labor Party in the other place, then this will end the practice of government saying one thing before an election and doing another once they find themselves in office because it will ensure that the parliament plays a key role in scrutinising privatisations and blocking attempts to privatise services when it is considered in the state's interests to do so.

I want to thank the Labor government for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Greens on this bill. In particular, I want to thank the Treasurer, Stephen Mullighan. He and I have had many conversations around this reform, and I have really appreciated the constructive way with which he has worked with me on this, and I really appreciate the government's support of this.

As noted by the Leader of the Government in this place, the Labor Party, like the Greens, campaigned very strongly on opposing further privatisations of public assets in this state, and today this sends a very important message in the parliament that the fire sale of our public assets will end, and I think that is something that will be welcomed by the South Australian community. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Bill read a second time.

 

 

 


Question: Cost of Youth Imprisonment

6th September 2022

 

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of the cost of keeping children in detention.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In the New South Wales budget estimates last month it was revealed that the cost of holding youths in detention has risen to $1,956 per child per day. That is a total of $713,940 per child per year. In South Australia, it has been reported in the media that 43 children aged between 10 and 13 have been incarcerated in 2020-21. My question to the Attorney-General is: how much is it currently costing the South Australian government to hold children under the age of 14 in youth detention?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): I thank the honourable member for his question. I have some statistics here, but if there need to be more I can refer that to the minister for youth detention. I am advised, though, that there were some 50 individual children aged 10 to 13 out of a total of 300 individuals for the 2021-22 year in youth detention at various times during that year. That is the total number over the course of the year.

My rough estimate is that there are approximately 30 to 40 total residents on any given day, and approximately, on average, around 15 to 20 per cent are aged between 10 and 13. I am advised that the average cost of housing a youth in detention is about $3,827 a day.

 

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Supplementary: the $3,080 figure that the Attorney-General has referred to, is that per child?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): The advice I have is $3,827 per child per day. It is not clear to me, with the information I have, if that is all children or those 10 to 13, but I will find that out as quickly as I can. I won't bring back a reply but will let the honourable member know.

 

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Further supplementary: does the minister consider that that more than $3,000 per child per day would be better spent on early intervention programs to reduce the harm of sending children to prison?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): I agree that we need to do more in early intervention and look at ways to reduce the number of not just children but people who come into contact with the justice system. I haven't got the stat, but it is something like 50 per cent of those between 10 and 13 in our youth detention system are Aboriginal children. That is of great concern when Aboriginal people make up around 2 per cent of the South Australian population.

It is certainly something we are looking at. We have a commitment that later this year we will be starting on a commission into Aboriginal incarceration rates, primarily focused on adult incarceration, but certainly we will have a look at youth detention of Aboriginal children. Anything we can do to stop particularly children having contact with the justice system is a good thing.

 


Ministerial Diaries Bill Passes Upper House

7 July 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I want to thank members for their contributions: the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I am very disappointed to hear that the government will not be supporting this reform, given it is a very straightforward reform, but as the honourable leader has noted this was the position of the Labor Party in opposition as well is in government.


Nonetheless, it is a very disappointing position that they have taken, because the Labor government ministers over in the ACT, New South Wales and Queensland are all subject to this level of transparency and scrutiny, and I cannot really comprehend why Labor ministers here in South Australia would not want to subject themselves to the same level of scrutiny.


We have always believed in the Greens that transparency is the best disinfectant—let the light shine—and that the public has a right to know who is meeting with government ministers and for what reason. The Attorney-General has flagged privacy concerns, but the bill deals with those issues. It makes it very clear that personal meetings are not to be disclosed and confidential information is not to be disclosed. It also gives the minister the power to appeal to the tribunal to request that information not be disclosed if they consider it is going to compromise the private information of an individual, so the claims that have been made are not accurate.


I am hopeful that the bill will pass this chamber. If it does, I hope that the government will reconsider its position in the other place. Of course, the Greens look forward to seeing the detail of the other transparency reforms the Labor Party has flagged tonight, and our position on political donations is well known and longstanding. However, this is not an either/or proposition: we can support this reform and also take other action to improve transparency. Certainly, that is what the Greens will be advocating for.


Question: When will SA Government raise the age of criminal responsibility?

14 June 2022


The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Last week, my office received a substantial number of emails, as I believe have other members of this place, calling for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised to 14 years. Just last week, the Tasmanian government committed to raising the age to 14, in line with the recommendations from the United Nations. This follows the ACT, where a similar commitment has been made.


The council of attorneys-general last year postponed the decision to raise the age, meanwhile children between the ages of 10 and 14 continue to be sent to detention. When asked about this issue last month, the Attorney-General told this house that raising the age is an important issue. He also informed us that, and I quote, 'on occasions the entire population of the youth detention centre in South Australia is made up of Aboriginal people'.


Given the Attorney-General sees this as such an important issue, my question to him is: how many children does the Malinauskas government intend to allow to end up in detention before it follows the lead of other states and territories and raises the age of criminal responsibility to 14?


The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): I thank the honourable member for his question. It is an important one, and I note his strong interest in this area. I think since the honourable member last asked that question a number of discussions have taken place, and certainly over the winter break I will be discussing this with colleagues, initially in the ACT but following the announcement the honourable member referred to that I think Tasmania made last week about their intentions, I will also seek advice about what they are doing.


It is not just a case of changing a bit of the legislation to say instead of 10 substitute the number 14. It is also about what alternatives there are, what services might be provided to young people who find themselves in contact with the justice system. Also, I know that jurisdictions that are starting to go down this path are looking at whether there are any things that will stay included in the carve out. It is an important question. There will be further discussions over the winter break that we will be having with other jurisdictions, but we certainly continue, both myself and officers from my office and my department, discussions with different groups around Australia about this issue.


Ministerial Diaries Amendment Bill Reintroduced

01 June 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The bill that I am introducing today seeks to amend the Freedom of Information Act to require the publication of ministerial diaries. This is a really important transparency measure. It happens in Queensland and the ACT, and it is time for it to happen in South Australia. I think the community has a right to know who has the ear of their ministers of government. All that I am proposing is that these official diaries be made publicly available and that they be published periodically online, as occurs in some of those other jurisdictions.


It is well-known in our democracy that sunlight is the best disinfectant. This is a really good way of seeing, with politicians who are performing key decision-making functions, who it is who has their ear, who is seeking to influence them and who is seeking to lobby them. This is information that the public has the right to know.


We know that faith in democracy and democratic institutions is at an all-time low. People are not happy with business as usual and one of the reasons for that, I think, is a lack of faith in our politicians and in our elected representatives. One way we can redress that is to ensure that there is maximum accountability and transparency. This is a simple measure that is being proposed that I think would assist in achieving that.


I hope that all parties will get behind this. I intend to bring it to a vote in coming weeks, and I really do hope that the Labor Party get on board. Now that they are in government this would be a really important reform for them to champion and to demonstrate a real desire to be more accountable and transparent with the South Australian community. Of course, for the opposition, this is an opportunity for them to demonstrate their desire to see government function differently in this state. I hope all parties will get on board and I look forward to further discussions in the weeks ahead.


Question: Youth Detention Numbers in SA

19 May 2022

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General regarding children in detention.


The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In South Australia, young people aged between the ages of 10 and 18 can be remanded in or sentenced to youth detention. In 2021, I spoke in this place about a study from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare that revealed South Australia detains children at a higher rate than the national average. We also know that First Nations children are overly represented in youth detention and usually account for over half of those detained.


Last year, a report issued by the Guardian for Children and Young People found that children are sometimes held in custody at the City Watch House, which is an adult facility. The report stated that being detained in an adult facility was potentially exposing those with significant trauma backgrounds to unnecessary stress and risk. My question to the minister, therefore, is: how many children are currently in detention in South Australia, and are any of those currently being detained in adult facilities such as the City Watch House?


The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): I thank the honourable member for his question. It is an important one. I don't have direct portfolio responsibility for youth detention. That rests with my colleague the Minister for Human Services in another place. It does of course touch quite significantly upon my portfolio areas in the Attorney-General's and justice area and, unfortunately, as the honourable member has outlined, in the Aboriginal affairs area. I will refer those to my colleague in another place and bring back a reply as soon as I can.

 

 

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (6th September 2022)

 

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): The Minister for Human Services has advised:

On 19 May 2022, 28 children were in custody at the Kurlana Tapa Youth Justice Centre.


Question: Age of Criminal Responsibility

4 May 2022

 

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of raising the age of criminal responsibility.


Leave granted.


The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: A national campaign to raise the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14, in line with other jurisdictions around the world, has been backed by a coalition of legal, medical and social justice organisations, including the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Medical Association and Indigenous-led groups. Here in South Australia we still charge children at the age of 10. According to the Law Society of South Australia, and I quote from them:


The majority of children that come face to face with the criminal justice system have a background of disadvantage and trauma.


This is a system that is punishing the most vulnerable. Over 50 per cent of children incarcerated are from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, further adding to the disadvantage that is already faced by these communities. In November 2020, the ACT Labor government committed to raising the criminal age of responsibility to 14. My question to the Attorney-General therefore is: will the Malinauskas Labor government follow the lead of the ACT Labor government and commit to finally raising the age of criminal responsibility in South Australia to 14?


The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): I thank the honourable member for his question. It is an area that I know the Hon. Robert Simms certainly has a passion for and an interest in. I have been at events and had discussions with Robert Simms as part of that. Raising the age of criminal responsibility is an important issue. I will talk in a moment a bit more about how it intersects not just with my Attorney-General portfolio but, really importantly, with my Aboriginal affairs portfolio.


In South Australia under section 5 of the Young Offenders Act 1993, the minimum age of criminal responsibility as identified by the honourable member is 10 years old. Under that age, a child cannot be held to commit an offence, meaning they cannot be held criminally liable for their actions. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is the age at which a child can be held criminally responsible and therefore charged and convicted of criminal offences. As the member said, it is higher in many other places around the world. The United Nations had previously recommended a minimum age of criminal responsibility of 12 years old, which it has now revised to the age of 14.


While the age of criminal responsibility in SA is 10 years, between the age of 10 and 14 the common law rebuttal presumption is that the child does not understand the full consequence of their actions and is incapable of forming the mental element of the offence, but that is a rebuttable presumption. At 14 years and after a child can be held criminally responsible for their actions without that rebuttable presumption, meaning that they are considered capable of committing the crime and of forming the necessary mental element that goes into proving the commission of the crime.


There was a working group set up in 2018 under the auspices of the Council of Attorneys-General to examine this particular issue. The Meeting of Attorneys-General, which replaced the former council, was last held I am advised on 12 November 2021. At that meeting in November last year, state attorneys-general supported the development of a proposal to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12, including with regard to any exceptions, timing and discussion of implementation requirements.


The Northern Territory, as I am aware, has previously committed to raising the age to 12 years and will continue to work on their reforms and what diversion and programs and services may be in place. As the honourable member pointed out, the Australian Capital Territory has said that they are committed to raising the age to 14 years and are starting work on their own reforms outside of that council of attorneys-general.


One part, as I have been advised, that is a consideration of this group is the reforms of individual states and discussions about those threshold levels of 12 or 14 years of age. As I have said, the council of attorneys-general has agreed to look at reforms to 12, but one jurisdiction, the ACT, is moving towards 14.


I know that there has been commentary from the United Nations, other bodies and human rights organisations, some of which the Hon. Robert Simms has outlined today, for not raising this age yet. This is something that I have certainly had a number of discussions about with a wide range of people, led by Cheryl Axelby, who will be known to many as the former head of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and who is now the head of an organisation called Change the Record, which advocates for raising the age. I certainly had discussions before the last election and I will continue those discussions with Cheryl and others in relation to this issue. It is an important issue.


We know that in both adult prisons and in youth detention there is a massive over-representation of Aboriginal people. A couple of years ago, I was told of a statistic that on occasions the entire population of the youth detention centre in South Australia is made up of Aboriginal people. There have been occasions when that is the case. Now that we are in government, I will be keen to test some of the things that I have been told. In any event, I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Aboriginal children, as a percentage, make up far too big a portion of our youth detention.


Raising the age, with appropriate other programs, could go some way to meeting that. Certainly, we see from some of the big national statements, whether it's the Uluru Statement from the Heart or the Closing the Gap targets, that this is an important issue. It is something that we will be turning our mind to and it is discussions I have been involved in and I will be pleased to keep the honourable member up to date with where we go and what we do on this issue.

 

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Supplementary: noting the minister's reply, has the minister had the opportunity to talk to the ACT Attorney-General about the approach taken there and if he hasn't done so, is that something that he will be doing?


The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): I thank the honourable member for his supplementary question. I haven't done so yet, but very keen to do so.


Raising the Age of Criminal Responsibility

01 December 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Young Offenders (Age of Criminal Responsibility) Amendment Bill was introduced by my predecessor, the Hon. Mark Parnell, early last year. The bill raises the age of criminal responsibility to 14 and requires that children in prison under that age be released from custody within a month of the commencement of the legislation. Since that introduction of the bill last year, South Australian children between the ages of 10 and 13 were incarcerated over 133 times in 2020—133 times.


At the Kurlana Tapa youth justice centre at Cavan, 21 per cent of detainees were aged 10 to 14. Those children returned to the centre an average of four times the same year—that is, 21 per cent of the detainees aged 10 to 14. These are children. Most 10 to 13 year olds in that group had disabilities, identified as First Nations people and/or were under the guardianship of the child protection department. An inspection of the facility revealed more than 60 per cent of young people in the facility were First Nations people.


A study from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare revealed that South Australia detains children at a higher rate than the national average. As it is with almost every stage of contact within the criminal justice system, First Nations people are over-represented. These facts clearly demonstrate the conclusions that many legal, medical, scientific and social justice organisations have come to, not only in South Australia but around the world; that is, holding children as young as 10 criminally responsible for their actions not only is medically unsound but is inhumane and a violation of the basic human rights of children.


That it disproportionally affects children from disadvantaged backgrounds, racial and ethnic minorities and those with disabilities is also appalling. And it increases the risk of reoffending into the future, locking children into a cycle of repeated contact with the criminal justice system, which they may struggle their whole lives to break away from.


The Royal Australasian College of Physicians is of the view that children under the age of 14 may not have the required capacity to be criminally responsible for their actions. This is based on a vast body of neurological evidence, which has shown that the brain of a child between the ages of 10 and 14 is not fully developed.


The Australian Medical Association has confirmed the effects of incarceration and isolation at such an early age to be severe. The impacts include worse health, lowered education and employment outcomes, even the likelihood of premature death. These are the consequences that endure far beyond any time a child may spend behind bars. We do lifelong damage to these children by allowing their incarceration. Prison is no place for a child.


The damages that flow from this practice disproportionally affect First Nations children in South Australia, who make up 65 per cent of the young children behind bars nationwide. In SA, youth diversion by police in relation to Indigenous youth is at its lowest rate since records began, with only 23 per cent of First Nations offenders being diverted away from court. This is a travesty.


It is no secret that there is a serious problem with the incarceration rates of First Nations people in Australia, particularly with young people, who we are allowing to fall into the quicksand of our criminal justice system, a criminal justice system that is failing these children. These children do not need incarceration and isolation. Our efforts need to be directed towards keeping them safe and supported within their communities through a focus on rehabilitation, in line with recommendations from First Nations groups, social justice organisations and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth justice principle.


Raising the age is a meaningful step towards stopping the acceleration of First Nations incarceration rates and presents a pathway to reverse the growth in prison populations in our state. This is particularly pressing, given we have reached the 30th anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody this year.


Australia has faced international condemnation for its records on juvenile detention, and rightly so. Thirty-one countries of the United Nations called on Australia to raise the age of criminal responsibility to the global average of 14. This is encouraged by the Convention on the Rights of the Child committee, a convention to which Australia is a party. Sadly, Australia is failing to meet its obligations under this convention—and that is a national shame.


The attorneys-general at a national level recently announced their support of the development of a proposal to raise the age to 12. This is inadequate. It is insufficient. If the age were lifted to 12, as suggested, over 81 per cent of children aged under 14 in detention would still remain there. A national campaign to raise the age of criminal responsibility has been supported by over 90 organisations, including the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Medical Association, and First Nations-led groups have revealed not only the urgency of this issue but the incredible consensus that exists around it. Raising the criminal age to 14 is simply the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do.


We have seen the Greens in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland table bills to raise the age of criminal responsibility. WA, Victoria and Queensland all have successful programs in place which could serve as alternatives to incarceration for children, and they could be a model implemented here in South Australia. These programs have a focus on therapeutic responses to offending behaviour, and many have a strong element of First Nations control and directorship. These programs are suggested as more appropriate solutions for children who need intervention and guidance, and are at risk of involvement with the criminal justice system.


The Greens in the ACT secured a commitment from the government last year to raise the age to 14 and, following the 2020 election, ACT Labor and the Greens have set a reform agenda which places it as a priority. The ACT Attorney-General, Shane Rattenbury, hopes to have legislation before the assembly by early next year. The discussion paper released this year expresses their intention to pursue responses outside the traditional justice system and to develop an alternative model. I quote from the report, which states:


Raising the age provides the opportunity to redesign the approach we take to understanding and responding to the harmful behaviour of children and young people. Decriminalising responses to this behaviour will shift the focus of the response from the deeds of the child to what the child needs to have a safe, stable and supportive environment.


Surely that should be our primary responsibility when we are dealing with children. Surely we should be looking at what we can do to help and support them and ensure that they can reach their full potential, rather than condemning them to a life of interaction with our criminal justice system.


Our age of criminal responsibility is an international disgrace, it is an international shame and it should be one that causes great humiliation for the Australian government and the government of this state. We are out of step on this issue by practically every measure. We are out of step internationally, we are out of step with medical and mental health experts and we are out of step with what is the ethical consensus with what we know to be the right thing to do. We cannot allow ourselves to come out of step with what other jurisdictions are doing in our own country as well.


Next year, when parliament resumes, the Greens will be reintroducing this bill. I am hopeful that we will be able to work with whoever is in government to resolve this urgent issue and to do the right thing by the children of South Australia. I urge the Liberal Party to commit to supporting this reform if they are in government, and I urge the Labor Party to make a similar commitment that, if they are in government, they will take action on this because it is simply an injustice that has been allowed to continue for far too long. It is a national disgrace, it is an international disgrace, and it is incumbent on this parliament and all sides of politics to come to the table to deal with this reform and to stop the cruel treatment of vulnerable children—children who do not belong in our prison system.