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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2004) . . Page.. 4082 ..

legislation we are certainly grasping that issue and that concern and we are genuinely dealing with that concern around whether victims are taken seriously by our courts—by our judicial officers, by our investigating officers and by our prosecutors.

I say that as something of a digression, but it is relevant to this debate. This piece of legislation—the Crimes (Restorative Justice) Bill—is a product of the sentencing review which has been played out over the last two years and which has delivered, I think, the most significant piece of law reform, certainly in terms of weight and in size, perhaps the single largest piece of legal drafting in the last three years, which is something of an effort in itself. As somebody who in another life worked as an instructing officer in departments of state, I understand in fine detail just how much work is required at the policy end of the chain, at the instructing end of the chain, to produce a piece of legislation of the order that we are concerned with in relation to the new sentencing legislation.

It has been a massive task. The development of the instructions for the production of the legislation which has been tabled as an exposure sentencing package is an enormous task, just enormous, and I think that the criticism of it indicates a lack of understanding of what policy officers and instructing officers go through to produce a piece of legislation of the order or of the ilk that has been tabled in this place in relation to sentencing. It is a massive task. To produce a 500-page piece of legislation is an exercise of some enormity, an enormous undertaking, so to suggest that two years is a long time to produce a piece of legislation of that order is to completely misunderstand what is required of instructing officers and policy officers determined to consult in detail and in depth with the community about the content of a piece of legislation of that order.

I commend all officers of the department for the work that went into this bill and I defend on their behalf the suggestions that we were in some way tardy or slack or that it was just a bit of rote work that required that we just come together and consolidate under a single heading a dozen pieces of legislation. It is a massive piece of work and, through its exposure now to the community, I believe that it will be improved. We will get comments and we will get further feedback. It is a great opportunity for further consultation and we will end up with a piece of sentencing legislation that I think will meet all of the needs, requirements and hopes of all of us who are genuinely progressive in our thinking around sentencing and criminal justice. I am. That is my philosophy, and it is this government’s philosophy.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The minister’s time has expired.

MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank members for their support of this bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

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