Age of criminal responsibility
Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (12:34): (182) My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, coverage of the recent election of the First Peoples’ Assembly has made it clear that raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 is a priority for members, and I take the opportunity to congratulate everybody elected to that important body. The Yoorrook Justice Commission has also been calling for this. In fact, medical, legal and human rights stakeholders are united in calling for the age to be raised to at least 14. Attorney, the government announced that it will raise the age to 12 but is kicking the can down the road and into the next term of government to raise it to the required minimum of 14. Attorney, we understand there does need to be investment in services, diversionary pathways and other supports to enable the age of criminal responsibility to be raised. What we do not understand is why 14 cannot be legislated in this term of government, if necessary with sufficient implementation to allow those elements to be in place. Attorney, can you please tell us why sufficiently robust planning to allow legislation in this term of government seems to be beyond the Andrews Labor government?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:35): I thank the member for her question/commentary. The government has committed to raising the age to 14 by 2027. We are doing this in two stages, by raising it to 12 in the first instance and making the necessary investments in building the system to ensure that we have the wraparound services – the right approach, minus the criminal lens, to make sure that we are intervening appropriately to ensure that these kids are not just revolving through a system that ultimately ends up in the criminal justice system, whether that is later on in their teens or indeed adult custody and contact with the justice system. The commitment is firm, and we have got a lot of work to do to get underway. I am very proud of the announcement. I understand some people would like us to move more quickly, but I want to make sure that we get this right and we do not have any gaps and kids falling through the cracks.
Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (12:36): Thank you, Attorney, for that answer. When looking at the budget, only $13.7 million has been allocated across forward estimates to prevent youth offending through early intervention, whereas youth justice custodial services get more than $250 million a year. Where else in the budget are there allocated resources to allow for those necessary investments in services, diversionary pathways and other supports to ensure that by 2027 the system will have enough capacity to make sure we are not locking up 12- and 13-year-old kids?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:37): At the outset, I do not want to see any 12- or 13-year-olds locked up either. Luckily there are no 12-year-olds and there are a very, very, very small number of 13-year-olds, and we want to ensure that when we do raise the age to 14 it is actually going to make no difference, because none of them have been caught up in the system as well in relation to the diversion and wraparound services.
The question that you ask is difficult to answer because it ranges across a variety of ministers’ responsibilities. I would have thought that with investments in prenatal and in early years – and Best Start, Best Life is an amazing policy which is designed to pick up families and support them early, making sure that people are taking advantage of free kinder – and investments in school, investments in TAFE, investments in free TAFE and investments in ensuring people have got options, this government is committed to supporting all Victorians, but particularly the most vulnerable, so that we avoid people coming into contact with the justice system. Frankly the objective of a lot of the work we do is so that you will not be asking me questions, because these young vulnerable people will not see me and my part of my portfolio, because we would have intervened early, we would have had the diversion processes in place and the services in place where I am not seeing them in the courts. That is the end objective, and we will continue to make those investments, a range, across all the government portfolios.