Youth Justice Systems Across Australia In Crisis: UN Experts
'The various criminal legal systems operating in Australia appear to be in crisis nationwide,' said Alice Jill Edwards, the Special Rapporteur on torture and Albert K. Barume, Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. 'Children are suffering undue harm to their safety and well-being, as well as to their educational and life prospects as a result of short-sighted approaches to youth criminality and detention.'
In a letter to Australian authorities, the experts expressed considerable concern about a bill proposed in Queensland that is due to be adopted this week.
'Many new or proposed state laws, including Queensland's Making Queensland Safer (Adult Crime, Adult Time) Amendment Bill, are incompatible with basic child rights,' the experts said. 'If passed, the Queensland bill would result in additional adult penalties being applied to children for a wide range of offences. This would have an especially negative impact on the lives of indigenous children, who are already disproportionately represented in the criminal legal system. We urge members of the Queensland Parliament to vote against the bill.'
The experts propose a child-centred approach that reflects international law and best practice. This should involve more comprehensive strategies in tackling young people's anti-social and criminal behaviour.
The age of criminal responsibility in most Australian states and territories is 10. This is younger than in most other industrialised countries. Australia has been widely criticised for not adhering to international recommended standards.
'The first goal should always be keeping children out of prison. We are extremely concerned that present approaches are creating a future under-class of Australians,' the experts said. 'Juvenile facilities should prioritise education and rehabilitation to support childhood development. Criminal justice reform alone does not result in fewer anti-social or criminal behaviours.'
The experts stressed that the allegations constitute violations of Australia's international obligations with regard to children, including the obligation to protect them from torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, treat them humanely and with dignity at all times, and prioritise their best interests in all decisions affecting them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Tāmaki Makaurau's byelection is really about Willie Jackson and John Tamihere
The byelection was called after the sudden death of Te Pāti Māori's Takutai Moana Tarsh Kemp in July after a battle with kidney disease. Labour list MP and grandson of Sir James Henare, Peeni Henare. Henare is a great orator and is considered, along with New Zealand First's Shane Jones and Te Pāti Māori's Rawiri Waititi, the best te reo Māori speakers in Parliament. He comes from distinguished political lineage and won the Tāmaki Makaurau seat in 2014, 2017 and 2020, only to lose it in 2023. His grandfather Sir James Henare stood for the National Party in five elections between 1946 and 1963 and his father Erima Henare was head of the Māori Language Commission. Henare's mum Te Hemo Ata Henare was a master weaver and his uncle, Māori activist Dun Mihaka, bared his buttocks to Queen Elizabeth II at Waitangi in 1986. While Kaipara doesn't have the same political whakapapa, she can hold her own in the te reo world, having been brought up in the Kura Kaupapa and Wharekura movements. Former broadcaster Oriini Kaipara. She was afforded the privilege to go total immersion, unlike many whānau of her parents' age who were punished for speaking the language. This byelection will not be one of full-frontal attacks – much to the disappointment of the Government, who would rather see Labour and Te Pāti Māori going toe-to-toe at each other. The byelection will be won by the party that can tap into the disillusioned among Māori. At the ballot box in 2023, of the 43,755 registered, only 27,038 actually voted. If Labour is to win, it must call on its strong ground game, door-knocking throughout the electorate and hitting the weekend markets in Avondale, Ōtara, Manukau and Manurewa. Tāmaki Makaurau has the biggest concentration of Māori in New Zealand. No doubt, Te Pāti Māori will also be on the ground but the party's edge comes in its multi-platform social media channels, which connect it to the younger cohort. Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke in Parliament during the debate on the Treaty Principles Bill. Photo / RNZ, Samuel Rillstone Waikato-Tainui MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke has more than 60,000 Facebook followers and 225,000 on Instagram – far exceeding anything Labour can match. Depending on how Jackson and Tamihere pull those levers will determine whether Te Pāti Māori keeps six MPs or Labour increases its number from 34 to 35. Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
NZ's infrastructure challenge: From planning to delivery
The suite of policies, legislative reforms and delivery agencies now in place or emerging has laid the groundwork for a more strategic and responsive approach to our infrastructure needs. But policy is only the beginning. The Government – in fact both sides of the House – have heard the cry for a credible infrastructure pipeline and there have been lots of announcements. New Zealand's first Health Infrastructure Plan was released in April. The Draft National Infrastructure Plan, released for consultation last month, provides a long-term roadmap for investment, identifying priority areas and systemic gaps. City and Regional Deal discussions are underway with Auckland, Western Bay of Plenty and Otago Central Lakes, with the first deal to be agreed by the end of this year. The Government has also announced plans for major infrastructure projects, including 17 Roads of National Significance. There is also – rightly – a growing recognition of the need to make the most of what we have got and to invest in asset maintenance and renewal. Government is now talking about the need for asset management plans – and we should all be loudly supporting this. We need to make asset maintenance as sexy – if not sexier – than the big new projects. We must prioritise our infrastructure spend on looking after what we already have so that each of us can drop our kids off to warm, dry classrooms, driving on pothole-free roads (not flooded by water from leaky pipes) and have access to well-maintained hospitals. This is just as important as the big new projects and political announcements on long-term programmes to look after our assets should be celebrated. Sarah Sinclair. Photo / Supplied Government is now talking about the need for asset management plans – and we should all be loudly supporting this. We need to make asset maintenance as sexy – if not sexier – than the big new projects. Sarah Sinclair These developments mark a significant shift toward a more co-ordinated and proactive infrastructure system. But they are not, in themselves, sufficient to guarantee delivery. In June, MinterEllisonRuddWatts hosted Adrian Dwyer, chief executive of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, along with other representatives from the construction and infrastructure sector in Australia. We heard that there is an opportunity right now to capitalise on the outgoing tide of infrastructure investment in the Australian transport sector to redirect skill and delivery capability to New Zealand. We have a window of opportunity to attract the capability and capacity of the Australian market but we need to move fast. So, what's required to move from planning to delivery? The focus must be on translating our project pipeline into execution getting projects off the drawing board and into the ground and on locking in asset maintenance and renewal programmes that make the most of what we already have - and both need to happen quickly. To achieve delivery momentum on infrastructure projects we need to focus on certainty and collaboration: Certainty to give the necessary confidence ... Of pipeline: There is no doubt that the sector needs a stable. long-term reliable pipeline with political consensus. We have heard from Australian sector participants that it is pipeline and political credibility that enables the market to plan and resource. Investors just need to know what is coming in the next five years and that they are 'real' projects. This should include the new capital projects as well as long-term asset maintenance and renewal programmes – so the whole supply chain can confidently invest in people, equipment, technology and other resources. Of funding: the credibility of the pipeline relies heavily on funding certainty - longer-term funding certainty is needed for projects and long-term maintenance programmes so businesses can invest in capability, technology and resources. And if we are serious about encouraging the private sector to bring ideas, then showing the pathway to how market-led proposals (previously known as unsolicited bids) are able to be funded – and how new funding tools will be used - would really show a commitment to encouraging innovative solutions. This requires a frank discussion of how, as a nation, we are prepared to pay. We can't announce projects without being clear as to how we are going to pay for them. There's no particular magic to this: we have to pay for the infrastructure we need, so what is the best and fairest way to do this? Is it through user charges, tolls, land sales, asset sales, targeted rates, levies, normal rates or national taxes? The chances are it will be a mix of these in a way that reflects the value to our communities and the benefits that infrastructure brings both directly and indirectly. Of regulation: For infrastructure delivery, regulatory certainty is essential. Investors and developers need to know what rules apply, how long approvals will take, and what conditions will be imposed. This circles back to bipartisan support as we need to achieve a degree of certainty that legislation will not be overturned every three years. Of risk: Projects can falter because of complex, risk-heavy procurements. One key lesson from Australia is that sustainable contractual frameworks and appropriate risk allocation attracts the market. Similarly, de-risking early has contributed to Canada's success. Collaboration Between political parties: Industry participants have long been calling for a bipartisan approach to infrastructure delivery. There are encouraging green shoots from both sides of the House as politicians appear to recognise this as a roadblock to attracting private investment (with their experience and resources), but more concrete agreement is required in the form of a finalised long-term infrastructure plans and announcements. Between central and local government: We also need better collaboration between central and local government. Regional deals are an opportunity to achieve consensus on infrastructure priorities and funding tools that will provide local benefits. Transparent criteria and public engagement will be key to building trust in these decisions. With the private sector and iwi: Attracting private capital (and most notably the experience and capability it brings) is simply essential to addressing New Zealand's infrastructure deficit. We need a fundamental mind shift towards embracing private capital, whether it be international or local. And let's think about how private capital can play a part in bundled long-term maintenance programmes as well as the big new projects. We need to leverage the capabilities and resources required to fulfil our infrastructure vision. In many cases, those will come from overseas (and that's okay). We must also build on the growing recognition of iwi as sophisticated investment partners who offer a strategic advantage and a quadruple bottom-line approach that has the long-term health and wellbeing of our country and communities at the heart of their investment decisions. With communities: Infrastructure projects do not exist in a vacuum. They are there to serve communities. Public engagement is not just a legal requirement — it's a strategic necessity. Community engagement and education will help accelerate our infrastructure build. We need to get the public on board with infrastructure spend and the need to invest in asset maintenance, moving from a fixation on upfront cost to a focus on long-term gain. Articulating and quantifying the social return of infrastructure will help with this. In procurement: New Zealand needs to be open to more collaborative procurement models. A more interactive and flexible procurement process has been a key enabler in maximising value and delivering outcomes in both Australia and Canada. From vision to reality New Zealand has made impressive strides in reforming its infrastructure system. The policy settings are sound, the institutions are evolving, and the appetite for delivery is strong. But the journey from vision to reality requires more than good intentions. We need to act now, with certainty and collaboration, to enable New Zealanders to live, work, and thrive. If we get the delivery right, the benefits will be felt for generations. MinterEllisonRuddWatts is an advertising sponsor of the Herald's Infrastructure report.
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Rats And Mice To Sort Out: Parliament's Tiny Laws
, Editor: The House The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. Heritage drafting meets modern needs The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. Debating everything and very little This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that."
