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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5115 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

a submission to the review outlining the things that I thought should be in a government bill. I remind members that before the last election Labor's Action Plan for ACT Corrections stated, "Labor believes that work must be concluded on prison programs before we decide on the prison design and we must decide on design before we decide on site."The Labor government is talking about a site but we haven't heard anything about the other two preconditions, the programs and the design.

I remind members that the Chief Minister's reaction to the announcement of the tabling of this bill in June was, "Well, I'm going to build a prison". That prison hadn't been before cabinet, and when questioned by the press his staff didn't seem to know a great deal about it either. It would seem that we caught the government out-and that wasn't the intention, it's an unintended consequence-because it has not done the work. So, I am grateful to the crossbenchers in this instance for their support in taking this through to the in-principle stage today.

The chief objection from the government seems to be that it is going to do it bigger and better next year and we have to wait for that, and that this bill is going to cost a lot of money. Yes, it will have cost implications. On the day I tabled the bill I said:

To get the full benefit of this law, there would need to be more support for the Sentence Administration Board and significantly more support for rehabilitation programs and case management. The bill does not require these resources; they, of course, are a matter for the government of the day to provide.

The Chief Minister is right, it will cost more money, but how much money does the criminal justice system cost us? We spend more than $10 million a year sending ACT residents interstate to serve in someone else's prison system. Even more importantly, how much does it cost our society, Canberra, in ordinary innocent individuals who are victims of burglary, assault, robbery, and numerous other crimes? We all pay that price. So why not reap a dividend instead of paying a price? Why not try to break the cycle of crime, the revolving door of the prison system, and make a difference? Unlike every other jurisdiction in this country, we have the ideal opportunity in the next couple of years to show people around this country and around the world how to run a model prison system. That's a lofty aim, and whether we achieve it or not we should be trying for it.

As Ms Tucker suggested, it won't start until we get the objectives of this bill right. I'm happy for the input of members. I'd be happy to see amendments to this bill when we debate it some time next year. I'd be happy to see the government's bill, and I'd be happy to have a cognate debate. Without the unified will of the Assembly we won't be telling the people of the ACT or the criminals-and we won't be sending a message to the judiciary-that we want to break the cycle, that we want to be positive, and we want to make a difference. So, yes, this will cost more money. But hopefully, if we spend it on more prevention and rehabilitation, instead of at the wrong end of the system, it will save human lives, happiness, family time and liberty.

The Chief Minister raised some interesting comments, particularly in relation to restriction orders, and he raised the case of an incest offender who might not be prohibited from going to his or her home. The question of incest was considered. This provision was taken largely from New South Wales, and work needs to be done on the

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