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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4751 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

period here. That is through no fault of your own, but when you talk about this side not knowing what it is doing, I make that point to counter what you say.

Ms Dundas also talked about concrete proof. She asked, "Where's all the evidence?"Ms Dundas, I will give you some statistics which JACS actually compiled. I think I probably put them in my introductory speech in 2000. They compare New South Wales and ACT sentences for serious offences by superior courts-their district court, their Supreme Court-with our Supreme Court.

You would be interested-Mrs Cross is still wearing her ribbon-that yesterday most of us wore, for very good reasons, a white ribbon in relation to violence against children and women. I think by knocking out this particular bill you are not doing justice to women and to children, many of whom will be victims needlessly because there is no good legislation like this. Interestingly enough in those statistics, Ms Dundas, I think only about 30 per cent of persons convicted of sexual-type assaults went to prison in the ACT through our Supreme Court compared with 71 per cent in New South Wales.

I will give you those statistics in relation to other matters too. I think I have mentioned this publicly before, but indicative of the problems in our system is the case of three people who came to Canberra to sell drugs; I think it was ecstasy. It was a major police operation. They netted them; well done, police. Only one was jailed and that was for 12 months; the other two got bonds. You would not get that in New South Wales. I think the statistics clearly show that our justice system is softer, is weaker, in sentencing serious criminals for serious offences than its counterpart system interstate. Hence, the need for legislation like this which brings us into line with New South Wales.

This legislation which I have introduced, and which you are now going to knock out, is based on what Bob Carr has done in recent years, including a standard minimum non-parole period which Mr Stanhope completely and wrongfully confuses with mandatory sentencing. Jon, you are a lawyer; we went through law school together. Read the section. Do not make your broad, stupid, generalised statements which are incorrect. Read it! Stop talking nonsense; stop talking fallacies!

Mr Stanhope has introduced a package today. Congratulations, Jon. You have managed to totally confuse WIN television with that. They had us both supporting increased sentencing tonight. So there is some obfuscation there. When you look at the media release-and we are yet to see the bill; I think there's a bit of "me-too-ism"there or trying to get in at the tail end-there is nothing that addresses one of the root causes, and that is the community disquiet about our courts not reflecting community values and not imposing proper sentences for serious offences.

I quote from a Canberra Times survey which was published on Sunday, 28 September 2003 in which 83 per cent of respondents-I repeat, 83 per cent-in answer to a question: "Are courts too lenient on those convicted of violent crime?"said yes. Twelve per cent said "maybe", five per cent said "they're getting it right".

That is unfortunately an indictment of our judicial system. That does mean, along with another survey I cited, that judges are about as popular as used cars salesmen and politicians, that there are serious problems in terms of the public perception and they do expect our system-our courts, our judges, and us as legislators- to lift its game.

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