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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5108 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

or sentenced to the rising of the court. It is the view of the government that that wide and far-reaching provision is unnecessary.

In addition, proposed sections 28A to 28H of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Interim) Act 2001 which deal with non-association and place restriction orders require much more thought, and the types of orders proposed by the bill are being considered in the context of a sentencing review proposal to introduce new sentencing options. The purpose of the bill does not appear to have been thought through and certainly these options haven't been properly explored. For example, the exclusion of the family from a non-association order will be inconsistent with good practice. If the offender were convicted of incest it might well be more than appropriate for a non-association order to be made in respect of the victim. The same may be true of offenders convicted of other sexual or violent offences.

The Sentence Administration Board's present functions are principally with respect to the administration of people sentenced to periods of imprisonment in the territory. The bill extends this to all sentences if the sentencing court thinks this is appropriate and will allow the board to vary, revoke or impose additional penalties as directed. It's the view of the government that this is an inappropriate function for the board. This capacity is already available to the sentencing court as well as a number of more appropriate methods such as structuring sentences in such a way as to allow corrective services to terminate supervision earlier than mandated, remanding matters part-heard for sentence and deferring sentence on all charges to some later date to allow rehabilitation opportunities.

The government won't be supporting the bill. The government's view is that the extensive process that it has engaged in for over a year will lead to ultimately far better sentencing outcomes for the territory. As I indicated, we will be introducing legislation in a few months time that seeks to consolidate the 12 existing pieces of legislation into two. That will provide a much more rigorous approach to sentencing, will streamline and simplify the legislation, make it much more readily accessible and more easily understood by the community, make it easier for the courts to utilise and for the Sentence Administration Board to carry out its functions and responsibilities.

We acknowledge that some of the issues Mr Smyth raises are commonsense proposals, and will be reflected in the legislative package the government will bring down in a few months time. I am not saying that all of the proposals that Mr Smyth deals with here should be dismissed. Indeed, the government is supportive of some of the ideas and some of the positions being put. Our essential contention is that there are issues with which we don't agree and there are issues that can't be sustained. The government is involved in a rigorous sentencing review process. We propose to repeal all of the legislation Mr Smyth today seeks to amend, and we propose a far more rigorous and modern approach to sentencing in the ACT. It's the view of the government that if Mr Smyth wishes to pursue some of the initiatives or ideas that he's pursuing through this bill, it would be much better done when the government introduces its major, modern new sentencing legislation. As I say, this will be done in a couple of months time following over a year of detailed consultation by our sentencing review committee with all stakeholders and with the community on these very important issues.

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