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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4750 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

People have talked about rehabilitation, restorative justice and other things. Yes, Mr Corbell, I think there is certainly a place for restorative justice. However, as Mr Smyth has said, ours is a complete package. He has a package, which hopefully we will be debating later this year.

What happens after people are incarcerated if we get our own prison system? I think that that is absolutely essential so that we can have control over what happens to prisoners and we can actually engage in one of the four principles of sentencing, and that is rehabilitation. Hopefully, we might actually be able to train up people to come out better than when they go in.

One of the big problems I think with a lot of members in this place-it seems the majority-is that they only hone in on one of the four principles of sentencing, and that is rehabilitation. There are four principles of sentencing: punishment, retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. They are all equally important. To hone in on any one to the detriment of the other three is wrong and you are in fact bastardising the principles that go back many years and which fundamentally have served us well.

Ms MacDonald is not here at present, but I wrote down an interesting interjection she made earlier on. I think it was in relation to another bill and I think it was something to do with industrial relations. She said if "they", meaning the employers, have not done anything wrong, they have nothing to be afraid of.

Mr Hargreaves: That is right.

MR STEFANIAK: Mr Hargreaves says yes, and that is certainly something that this side will push in terms of industrial manslaughter and bills like that. The same can be said for this package. If people do not do anything wrong they have nothing to be afraid of. But I think it is crucially important that we have a system under which, if people commit serious crimes, there will be consistency, there will be laws in place to reflect that and to reflect what the community actually wants. I will now go through some of the points raised by other members.

Ms Dundas talked about tougher sentencing appeasing the community's fears. Tougher sentences I think are in response to what the community actually wants, Ms Dundas. I say this to all members: this bill has been here since April. A number of people helped me draft it, including members from the Victims of Crime Assistance League, lawyers, members of the Australian Federal Police Force and several other persons who I could not put a tag on.

Might I also say that in terms of our approach to sentencing, there are a number of lawyers who have said, "Well done, keep it going". Indeed, there are certain judicial officers too who have said, "You're on the right track". So do not for one minute assume that there is not a lot of support for this even within the legal profession.

Also might I say that none of you here has had the experience I have had in terms of the court process. I actually bring a lot of my experience in court to this particular bill as well. I do not criticise you for this, but a lot of you who have been speaking certainly do not really know what actually happens and what has happened probably over a 20-year

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