Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1264 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

breached for non-attendance, and that there were in total only 58 detainees or clients in the period mentioned-that is, the 12 months up to 1 April 2000-it raises some questions about the efficacy of the periodic detention program.

One would also have to question the need for the provision contained in this bill. The fact that detainees are being arrested on Friday and held by the police until Monday morning, rather than appearing at the Periodic Detention Centre, is not listed among the reasons given in the Attorney's answer to my question for granting leave on the 117 occasions that offenders did not appear. One hundred and seventeen leaves of absence were granted by the Periodic Detention Centre in circumstances where the detainee presented an accepted reason for not turning up for periodic detention. Most of those reasons are medical.

It is interesting that, on the 117 occasions, leave of absence was granted for an ostensibly acceptable reason or excuse, namely, medical grounds or work commitments. I understand from the advice the Attorney gave that work commitments are no longer a reasonable reason for not turning up to periodic detention. It is an interesting concept that one can ring and say, "I have to go to work over the weekend, so I cannot turn up for periodic detention." Other reasons are "reported late"; "welfare of parent", which of course is reasonable; "welfare of self", whatever that means; "welfare of child"; and to attend a christening or to attend a funeral. They of course are reasonable excuses. But in that list of reasons for non-attendance for which a leave of absence was granted on 117 occasions the notion of being held in detention over the weekend does not appear. I am not entirely sure whether this apparently practical amendment we are facilitating here is, in practice, a particularly grave issue.

I am concerned, however, about the declining use of periodic detention. I am also concerned about the declining use of community service orders. A significant decline is reported in the Attorney's answer to my question. There was a 28 per cent reduction in the use of periodic detention in the last 12 months as compared to the previous 12 months. That perhaps warrants some scrutiny. There is also a much less but a nevertheless significant continuing decline in the use of community service orders. They are two issues that raise some questions about sentencing policy.

It is interesting that in the answer I have been given Mr Humphries suggests that he cannot explain, but no reason is given in the data. The Attorney says that the reason for the decrease in the number of periodic detention orders by the courts and the decrease in the number of community service orders by the courts is simply unknown. I think it is a matter of concern that we do not know why the courts are not using the periodic detention option or the community service option to the extent that they once did.

If periodic detention is in decline and community service orders are in decline, if the Belconnen Remand Centre is simply bursting at the seams, as we know it is, then one wonders what has generated this shift in sentencing practices that it seems, on the basis of the lack of information we have, is occurring in our Magistrates Court. I think there is a major issue for us as a community, particularly in the ongoing debate about the development and construction of a prison in the ACT.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .