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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3860 ..

that this bill should either be adjourned and debated cognately with the government’s sentencing package in the next parliament, or simply deferred.

Mr Smyth: You took too long.

MR STANHOPE: Essentially, this package does nothing. It will not change anything in relation to sentencing or corrections in the ACT. In large measure, it is a restatement of existing law and it is done untidily at that. That is the position of the government. This government has released and placed on the table an exposure draft relating to a detailed, rigorous analysis of sentencing and corrections. It is the benchmark in relation to sentencing and corrections and, as such, it should be supported. As it is an exposure draft it can be debated early in the term of the next Assembly. That is the appropriate position to pursue in relation to this important and serious issue.

So far as the government is concerned, the issue of sentencing and corrections is far too important to be dealt with simply in a throwaway and ad hoc way, as is proposed by this piece of legislation. I indicated all that and I gave a detailed analysis of what was wrong with this legislation in the in-principle stage. Having regard to the effluxion of time since we debated this bill in principle, I repeat the government’s continuing opposition to its passage, particularly in light of the existence of the government’s recently tabled reform package. I indicated at the commencement of this Assembly that the government was working on that package and that is another aspect about which we need to take note.

This government has put in place a rigorous reform process. Law reform is not something that can be achieved overnight. It is a long and, at times, tedious process particularly in relation to major projects such as this. Even with advice and in the knowledge that the government had a detailed process operating through the Department of Justice, the opposition went ahead and introduced a private member’s bill to cut across the rigorous work being undertaken by the government. To that extent it is just political opportunism. That is not the way to make or reform the law. We are dealing with one of the most important aspects of the operation of the criminal justice system relating to sentencing. The government opposes all the clauses in this bill.

MS DUNDAS (3.25): This is a sensible amendment to the legislation as its proposed commencement date of 1 July 2004 has already passed us by. Some of the Chief Minister’s criticisms are caught up in this amendment, which will allow the act to commence on a day fixed by the minister by written notice, otherwise it will commence within 12 months of notification. If the minister does not believe that a date can be fixed for this act to commence, there is time in those 12 months within which work can progress. What might result is a blending of some of the things from this legislation and some of the things from the government’s proposal.

Commencing consultation on a 400-page document just as we are moving into a caretaker period is not the best way to approach corrections or sentencing reform. We can only vote for what is in front of us. What is in front of us today I believe is a sensible piece of legislation to reform sentencing in the ACT. When we had the in-principle debate I was happy to support the bill because, as I said at the time, the bill would dictate what type of jail was built. I stand by those comments. I am happy to continue to support this bill. When I was looking into the in-detail stage of this bill some people in the

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