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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5112 ..

MRS CROSS (3.59): I commend Mr Smyth on such a positive attempt to reform our sentencing and corrections systems. This legislation is relatively innovative and is a genuine attempt to reform criminals into people who can cope adequately within the bounds and rules of society. It is my understanding that this bill is not seeking to reform violent criminals or criminals considered to have no chance of rehabilitation. Rather, this bill is seeking to reform middle-range criminals, such as those who involve themselves in crime in order to feed an addiction. It seeks to break the criminal cycle and provide the tools to the criminal to operate and cope within the bounds of society. The key element of this bill in my eyes is the increased scope of sentencing judges. This bill inserts new divisions 15.1A and 15.3 into the Crimes Act 1900, one, to simplify and streamline the capacity of the courts to craft innovative sentences using all available options, and, two, to allow for changes to the penalties being served during the term of the sentence. These are genuine attempts at sentencing reform and should be applauded.

How this would work is that a judge can mix and match sentences, so to speak, in order to achieve the best outcome for the criminal whilst still ensuring the criminal pays his debt to society. The burden then falls on the criminal as to how he approaches the sentence. For example, Joe Citizen may be charged with theft and sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years based on the prisoner's involvement in a number of programs. At the moment criminals need only behave well in prison to achieve parole. This bill will ensure that the prisoner has the option to hasten his release. It must be remembered though that it is the prisoner's choice. No-one can force the prisoner, or these reforms won't work.

If Joe Citizen decides to partake in, say, a drug treatment program and his or her case manager is satisfied with the progress he or she has made, Joe Citizen may be eligible for early release. The order might then be that he has to serve the rest of his sentence in community service or through home detention. Giving the option to the prisoner ensures they must genuinely seek reform. You can't reform someone if they don't want to be reformed. This is the key point. Someone can only be reformed if they want to be reformed. Drug treatment and anger management programs don't work if the prisoner doesn't want to partake in them. This bill seeks to help only those who want to help themselves.

Another positive aspect of this bill is the creation of a case manager. This is important as it allows for one person to monitor the progress of a prisoner. This should ensure prisoners don't just feel like a number. When prisoners feel like a number they are discouraged from reforming because they feel they won't be rewarded. This bill changes that. Finally, the creation of two new penalties-place restriction orders and non-association orders-is yet another step in the right direction. The more sentencing options available to a judge the better crafted the sentence can be and the more individually focused it can be. This bill is a positive start to sentencing reform in the ACT and thus has my support.

It's also my understanding that these reforms cannot be fully or properly implemented until the ACT has its own prison. I'm not sure when this will be. Perhaps the Treasurer or the Attorney-General can tell the Assembly at some point. It is also my understanding that it is the government's intention to release its sentencing package in early 2004. I hope the government will build upon this legislation and if this bill is defeated takes the

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