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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2437 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

(f) establishing a set of institutional, management and operational arrangements to achieve the objects in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability.

Mr Speaker, this is an important improvement because the objectives provided in the existing law vary considerably, reflecting the different circumstances in which several pieces of the legislation were enacted.

Finally, the sentencing decisions of the courts are assisted by adopting two additional non-custodial penalty options that are currently in force in New South Wales. These are place-restriction orders and non-association orders. These two new orders, which are modelled on existing New South Wales legislation, will give courts more streamlined tools for crafting sentences, other than imprisonment. These outcomes can, to some extent, be achieved under current law, through the court releasing offenders on specified conditions.

A non-association order is when the court makes an order prohibiting the offender from associating with someone else for a stated period. In practical terms, this could be an order for the offender not to associate with undesirable influences or indeed going near their victim.

A place-restriction order, Mr Speaker, is made by a court to prohibit an offender from using or visiting a place or area for a stated time. In practical terms, if an offender has an alcohol problem the court could order that they not go near licensed premises.

Mr Speaker, there will be several beneficiaries of this bill. The courts will find that options available to them are expanded and streamlined. They will find that they can mix and match various penalties to create sentences more specifically tailored to different crimes and different offenders. The courts will have more effective relationship with the Sentence Administration Board, previously known as the Parole Board, but will in fact have stronger control and scrutiny over the work of the board.

Prosecutors and defence lawyers will also have a more sensible system of sentences to work with, and the corrections service will benefit from a more efficient system.

But most importantly, Mr Speaker, offenders and their families will be able to deal with the consequences of a sentence in a more sensible way. Most of all, Mr Speaker, the offenders themselves will be presented with options directly linked to their achievements at rehabilitation, giving them encouragement and reward for a successful performance or penalties if they show weakness or refuse rehabilitation.

Mr Speaker, rehabilitation's outcomes and reductions in future crime will not come for free. This system requires some new resources to succeed. To get the full benefit of this law, there would need to be more support for the Sentence Administration Board and significantly more support for rehabilitation programs and case management. The bill does not require these resources; they, of course, are a matter for the government of the day to provide. But I can indicate that the opposition sees the value in reducing future crime and in reintegrating offenders back into our community. We support more resources going to these important activities.

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