Page 2864 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The medium length of custody in a correctional institution in the ACT is four months. This is also equal fourth right across Australia. We are in the middle of Australian jurisdictions on all three of these metrics that relate to sentencing outcomes. To me, that is not evidence that points to an overly lenient jurisdiction. This does not mean that there are no issues to deal with, but it does mean that the hyperbolic rhetoric is entirely out of proportion, suggesting that the ACT is a lenient sentencing jurisdiction.
An important principle that our system of government is founded on is the principle of the separation of powers—the premise that the executive government cannot instruct the judiciary on a day-to-day basis. If ministers were able to tell the judiciary what decisions to make, the key check on power would be impaired. Within this context of the separation of powers it is essential that there is accountability for members of the judiciary, and there are two clear mechanisms already set out for this—the process of appeal and the judicial commission process—and there is the power of the Assembly to adjust laws if it feels the need to do so.
An independent council to examine and advise on sentencing is an effective way to respect the separation of powers while still having an evidence-based discussion, as is the JACS Committee being another key piece of work addressing these issues. Beyond these two separate methods of inquiry I am sure that Mr Hanson’s model offers further! If he were concerned with the evidence, perhaps Mr Hanson would pay heed to the recent comments of the Bar Association in opposing a wholesale review of the judicial and sentencing system in the ACT, which is what some of the calls would be for. The bar has said:
Tougher laws will not resolve the issues underlying criminal offending which often lie in abject social disadvantage, disengagement and drug addiction. These issues must be addressed in conjunction with the criminal justice system in order for there to be any real progress with respect to criminal offending in the Canberra community. Sentencing innovations such as the Supreme Court Drug and Alcohol Court provide additional sentencing options in the Territory.
That is the kind of evidence-based approach that I am trying to focus on, and the resources are not limitless. There are opportunity costs and, as I have explained carefully this morning, and as I have explained to the media again at lunchtime, what I am trying to do is make our community safer by making sure that the resources that we have go to reducing offending and re-offending in our community by addressing the underlying causes—causes that are often unfortunately implicated in the terrible driving incidents we see in this city as well.
That is what the government is seeking to do. We are seeking to make our community safer. I have circulated an amendment, and it reflects that I am committing to building a better justice system. Programs like the highly successful Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List, the general guiding Circle Sentencing Court, and the Restorative Justice Unit will be cornerstones of this strategy. They have proven to be effective in reducing further offending because they focus on making the offender take real responsibility for their actions and undertake to remedy both the causes and consequences of those actions. That is how you prevent re-offending. That is the kind of work we continue to engage in. The law and sentencing advisory council is a key
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video