I think we're getting the message on deleting clauses being proposed in their entirety, so I think it's probably preferable to withdraw the amendment and debate the clause itself, because the argument is the same.
Our amendment was to delete that clause in its entirety, and the reason is because it changes the objectives of sentencing to denunciation and individual deterrence as principles of sentencing for youth crimes.
We did have expert evidence on this. We heard Professor Bala's comments as an expert on this matter, and we also heard excerpts from the Nunn commission, talking about the issue of how you deal with young people and youth courts.
In this act, even with some of the provisions that are a part of the act itself and the new amendments, for example, in clause 168, “the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults, must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability”—and then it talks about what it emphasizes—it's clear that we do have a different set of rules for young people. Denunciation is a feature of sentencing that is reserved for adults at this point in time, and to include that as a principle of sentencing for young people we feel is inappropriate and contrary to the understanding of what the youth criminal justice system is about.
As I say, some of the proposals will only lead to potentially longer periods of incarceration, less emphasis on rehabilitation, and less ability for young people to be rehabilitated. This is one of the reasons we are opposed to the overly punitive nature of aspects of this legislation in its entirety and the reason we oppose this particular section.
There may be others who have some comments on our side, but I'm not certain of that.