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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2004) . . Page.. 4073 ..

a diversionary one. It goes further. It is a victim-oriented system and the victim will always be there. Indeed, the victim has to consent to this system actually being used.

It is a system where the victim is able largely to call the shots. There are restrictions there in relation to having whatever is decided not being unduly humiliating or anything like that, which I think is sensible, but fundamentally the victim is very much involved, unlike some other systems used in the past. The victims can get from the scheme what they cannot, in many instances, get from a court. Indeed, it is a scheme that has been used to varying degrees elsewhere. It is used in other jurisdictions in Australia. In New South Wales, for example, it is used pre-release, pre-parole. In New Zealand, there is a pilot scheme. It is a scheme that has been utilised in the United Kingdom. I think that there are considerable benefits in relation to this scheme.

The attorney, in his response to some concerns which the scrutiny of bills committee raised, as is its charter as set down by this Assembly, noted in the explanatory statement that, through community consultation, it became quite clear that the interests of victims were of primary importance. That is certainly something that the opposition supports. It was noted that in the context of the prosecution of an offence a victim usually has no opportunity to address his or her needs and that this policy aims to provide victims with a means to better understand the crime and the offender’s behaviour and to enable the victim to express the effects of the crime in a formal setting.

There was an issues paper. There has been quite considerable consultation in relation to this process. Various groups have been consulted, including VOCAL, the DPP and others one would expect to be consulted. The issues paper that was released dealt with whether restorative justice should be victim oriented or offender oriented. The community consultation and the focus groups, after considering the evidence, felt that it should be victim oriented. That is the approach that the government appears to have taken. The bill is also drafted to have a constructive impact upon offenders, but the logic of it flows from the point of view of victims. I think that is of crucial importance.

There are a number of issues here as to whom it is going to relate to. It has to be much bigger than just diversionary conferencing because it is victim oriented. It is complementary to the justice system rather than exclusive of it. The restorative justice process can be utilised and be part of the sentencing process. The way I read this bill, if someone should serve a term of imprisonment the bill does not stop them doing so. The way the courts operate sometimes probably does, but this bill certainly does not; it is complementary to the sentencing process and that is one end of the scale.

A number of other things can flow from this bill. The idea of the bill, as I understand it, is to come up with a conferencing agreement at the end. Again, that may be simply part of the whole sentencing process and other things might flow from it if it is a serious matter. That will be useful to the justice system, but it will not be the only thing that occurs. Things that can come up from a conferencing agreement can range from an apology to a work plan that might benefit the victim, a work plan that might benefit the community, some kind of financial reparation by the defendant and a plan to address the offending behaviour of the defendant.

I can see that being particularly useful in a number of circumstances. It is useful in the most serious of offences as a way of assisting in the rehabilitation process of the

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