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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5111 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

consider the details of this bill in that context and after more discussion with community members with experience in this area.

The essence of the bill is to introduce a legislated option for courts to impose a stepwise sentence as an alternative to a straight term of imprisonment. There are several penalty options. The list includes a periodic detention order under the Periodic Detention Act, a home detention order, a community service order, a place restriction order, a non-association order, a conditional release order or a fine. However, paragraph (a) of proposed section 366B also includes an order sentencing the offender to full-time imprisonment, including provisions for parole and any non-parole period. I want to be clear that this provision won't create strict non-release periods.

This bill also establishes an overall statement on the objects of corrections legislation. For years ACTCOSS has called for an overarching corrections framework. The objects listed in the bill, while not complete, are a start. It's difficult to speak about safe imprisonment, and there would be more objects to the corrections system. Judging rehabilitation is another tricky issue. Has it worked? What is it? I am pleased Mr Smyth has brought this matter forward. It is important that measures other than throwing people into prison are discussed in the community and that politicians supportive of this kind of measure are out there explaining how and why rehabilitation and restorative justice are not being soft on crime. This kind of work-supporting marginalised and abused people who have had no other way of life to find their humanity and make changes in their lives, and providing support that people may never have had-is what will reduce crime and make society safer for all of us.

I'm a bit concerned about the possibility for this system to become a second punishment for people who are not doing well in a brutalising prison environment. What will the impact be on indigenous people, who form a disproportionately large and distinct group among people held in prisons? The key to rehabilitation has to be that people get the services and support they need. Statistics on the amount of abuse, alcohol and drug dependence and mental illness suffered by people in prisons are horrendous. This is one of the reasons for looking at how we deal with offenders. It represents damage and a failure of society. We need to look at the workload. Do supreme courts have to see people two or three times? The extra trips and the extra rehabilitation services are not built into the system at the moment. We need to look at quite a few issues. I want to be clear that in any sentencing system we need to look specifically at indigenous prisoners and not further alienate them.

The bill sets up a system that courts make up-front suggestions about staged sentences to be administered by the Sentence Administration Board. This is an interesting suggestion. Much of what is successful in restorative justice-which clearly this is not-is about paying attention to the needs of the person who has committed the offence. Flexibility and review are part of that and could be part of a better prison system. While the government has put a case for voting down this legislation today, I think it's worth holding over and to look at it in detail in the context of the government's revamped system. There may well be useful parts in here that could be incorporated into the new system. I understand Mr Smyth has been working on this for a long time, in consultation with at least some stakeholders. It is not a last-minute attempt to grab territory that the government is working on. It's a genuine attempt to deal with the issues, and I commend him.

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