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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2004) . . Page.. 4077 ..

I do have some concerns about domestic violence and sex-related crimes. The New Zealand government has said in its best practice principles:

The use of restorative justice processes in cases of family violence and sexual violence must be very carefully considered … The particular dynamics of family violence and sexual violence, including the power imbalances inherent to this type of offending, can pose significant risks to the physical and emotional safety of the victim. Family violence offending, in particular, is often cyclical and reflects deeply entrenched attitudes and beliefs. Offenders may be more manipulative and have offended seriously and repeatedly. A one-off intervention may therefore not be effective or safe. Where a restorative justice process does take place, providers must ensure that facilitators possess the specialised skills and experience required to facilitate these cases and that additional safety and support measures are in place. Advice from those knowledgeable in responding to family violence and sexual violence should always be sought.

I know that there are programs in the Northern Hemisphere where professionals with knowledge of the range of community support and intervention programs, such as drug rehabilitation, are brought into the conference to present and workshop options and then leave. This offers a richer engagement with service providers for the offender that in the end is to the benefit of the whole community. It is not directly clear that it is of benefit to the victim, unless they come wanting it themselves.

There is a difference between this form of conference and the broader restorative justice responses and programs, well-researched and evaluated, for sex offenders and for domestic violence—for example, Safecare in Western Australia and the domestic violence perpetrators program which is a sentencing option in the ACT. These programs also attract some controversy. It is difficult for some people to accept the spending of money on perpetrators when services for the victims of these crimes are not well enough resourced.

Evaluations are essential to see whether the programs have a beneficial effect and to compare that with the absence of such a program or a different form of program. In some cases, even though the rate of change is low it is still better. It still means that some offenders will not reoffend, whereas otherwise it is likely that they will do so.

I have been told about a program in Adelaide run by Alan Jenkins and Rob Hall through their practice, Nada. This program, which has links with the equivalent of family services and with the justice department, is a therapeutic process used with perpetrators of violence and sexual abuse in the family towards adults and children. This program, I understand, does use a conferencing step in some cases, but this is set into a therapeutic process and the conferencing is used only after other steps and outcomes have taken place. That is why we will be moving some amendments to that area of the bill.

It is not about a lack of faith in the people who will be in the restorative justice unit; it is just about backing them up, making sure that the resources to develop the knowledge, appropriate regulations, guidelines, training, links to community programs, and therapeutic methods are in place before these particular types of offences, these particular harms, are dealt with in this way. Although the guidelines are disallowable, the

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