In August 1991, the Attorney General, the Hon. Peter Collins (who was to later become the leader of the Coalition in Opposition), referred a full inquiry into the juvenile justice system to the NSW Parliament’s Standing Committee on Social Issues (SCSI 1992). The committee membership was established from across party lines in an attempt to develop non-partisan political support for juvenile justice (SCSI 1992, p. ix). The SCSI reviewed the whole of the NSW juvenile justice system and published its report in 1992. It heard evidence from 64 people, consulted with other states and key stakeholders and visited New Zealand to examine Family Group Conferencing (SCSI 1992, p. ix). The Committee’s report findings and recommendations were very similar to those of the KIJ Report and appeared to be grounded in the same kinds of research and evidentiary material. The Committee accepted in its findings that the ‘overwhelming majority of young people come in contact with the juvenile justice system only once’ (SCSI 1992, p.x). It also
6. A tale of two policy streams appeared to be convinced by the argument that diversion should be a guiding principle for reform. It stated:
The Committee found that in recent years there has been some reduction in the use of custody as a sentencing option for young offenders. However the research shows that more young people can be diverted from detention (2002, p. xii).
The SCSI also accepted that diversionary policies reduced stigmatisation and exposure to the criminogenic effects of the system and not only facilitated rehabilitation but were also cost effective (SCSI 1992, p. x & p.64). The SCSI argued that crime prevention needed to be the first response to juvenile crime and that diversion should be the first response to minor offences once committed (SCSI 1992, p. x). The Committee stressed that institutionalisation should only ever be an option of last resort for juveniles and should be reserved only for the small group of serious and violent offenders who were to be provided with services and programs to help their reintegration into society (1992, p. xii). In its discussion of diversionary options the SCSI examined the role of cautions and, despite what they acknowledged as police resistance to the idea, recommended their expansion (see SCSI 1992, p.70). The SCSI called for community based sentences to be used more widely to help rehabilitation and to allow the young offender to become a responsible member of their community ‘without the dislocating and damaging effects of incarceration’ (1992, p. xii). The Committee proposed that victims needed to be considered and respected in all aspects of the juvenile justice system. The SCSI also acknowledged the importance of research and information. They argued that the public tended to be misinformed about juvenile justice and argued that ‘the community needs to accurately and sensitively informed of the facts relating to juvenile justice and the rationale behind the determinations of government’ (1992, p. x). The Committee recognised that the causes of juvenile crime were complex but they were seen to stem mainly from social disadvantage, family breakdown, substance abuse, low morale and self esteem (SCSI 1992, p. xi). The Report also addressed the need to develop a comprehensive and coordinated response to juvenile justice and called for a whole of government response that included health, welfare and education polices (SCSI 1992, p.x). From the committee’s documentation it was clear that costs, and cost efficiencies and effectiveness were beginning to be taken into account in planning policy options and strategies. NSW
YJC and the SCSI based some of the rationale for strategies proposed on the basis that the estimated direct costs of juvenile crime amounted to $250 million per year and indirect costs such as were estimated at about $4150 million per year and in addition they argued that ‘the costs in human suffering are immeasurable’ (SCSI 1992, p. xi).
6. 4. 2 Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee
In 1991 the Attorney General had also established the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (JJAC) to provide policy advice to the government on juvenile justice. The Council was made up of government and non-government experts and was co- chaired by Michael Hogan (from the community legal centre the Public Interest Advocacy Centre) and the Hon Marie Bashir at the time an eminent psychiatrist (and who is at time of writing the NSW Governor General). Michael Hogan had been one of the principal architects of the Kids In Justice Report and, as will be discussed later in this thesis, an influential policy entrepreneur in the early to mid 1990s. Over the years, various representatives from community organisations and service providers and experts on juvenile justice sat as members of the Council. In 1998 the JJAC later changed its purpose from being a general advisory group to become a formal advisory group supporting the introduction of the YOA and became known as the Youth Justice Advisory Committee. Under the imprimatur of the Young Offenders Regulation Act 1997 the YJAC provided the government with advice on regulations, all aspects of conferencing, including the monitoring and review of the implementation of the YOA (see Hennessy 1999). It was disbanded in 2004 (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/yjac).
Despite its formal role, one of the interviewees for this project who had been a member of the JJAC felt it had never been able to fulfil its brief. As P1 said, ‘my
recollection was frustration about the JJAC, it didn’t have any resources’ (P1). This
meant that the Committee had the capacity to identify key issues and problems but the secretariat that supported the JJAC was not able to undertake the policy work and the research and consultation required. As P1 continued ‘It was capable of
being a much better source of advice for the Minister than it was resourced to do’.
6. A tale of two policy streams
to conclude that it was deliberate. It meant it couldn’t provide an adequate independent source’ (P1).
By 1992, although there had been extensive work undertaken by the parliamentary committee, Jenny Bargen a member of the YJC, in a commentary piece, argued that there had been very little movement towards realising the vision outlined in the KIJ report, she observed that:
...pragmatism and personal politics have often taken priority over reasoned debate and principled commitment to the development of a centrally co- ordinated approach aimed at ensuring justice and fairness for all young people (Bargen 1992, p.118).
In short, despite the in depth consideration of the principles and recommendations of the Kids In Justice Report coupled with the introduction of a number of key measures, there was still a shortfall by 1992 in the government’s initial response to the report.