Page 3584 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Title read by Clerk.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (10.33): I move:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Crime is an issue that affects many in our society, and many Canberrans have been victims—many of them victims of very serious crime. All Canberrans have been touched in some way by crime in our society. Sentencing is a difficult and vexed issue but I think it is very important that our laws and our courts reflect proper community expectations in relation to this very important area of criminal law.
Back in September 2003, the Canberra Times had an opinion poll which gave some rather disturbing statistics. It showed that 82 per cent of our population felt that our courts were far too lenient when it came to sentencing people for violent crimes. Twelve per cent said they were somewhat too lenient and five per cent said they had got it about right. I think that is a pretty accurate poll; it is certainly accurate in terms of what I hear in the community from people who express opinions on this important topic. I refer especially to people who are involved in the system—corrections officers and others involved in the system—who talk about the frustration of victims and police if the courts get it wrong.
There are very few people who think the law does not need to be changed. The bill that is before the house, whilst respecting the discretion that the court has, and in no way destroying that discretion, is very similar to a bill I introduced previously which dealt with things like recommended non-parole periods. The discretion is there; it respects the traditional role of the court in regard to sentencing but it does provide very strong guidelines. It provides recommended non-parole periods, which work very well in New South Wales, and it provides criteria that courts need to look at, over and above what we already have, in relation to the most serious offences that are listed.
It is disturbing to see how the ACT rates in terms of the rest of Australia. It is disturbing that police tell me regularly, and people in the system say, that we are, unfortunately, seen as a soft touch. Thankfully, many people stick to their patch when they commit crimes, but in other instances they do not. Crime is more sophisticated, and obviously there is a temptation for criminals to go to a jurisdiction in which, if they are caught, they are less likely to receive serious punishment than would occur in a jurisdiction across the border.
The Bureau of Statistics showed that, for the 2005-06 year, the ACT Supreme Court sent fewer people to jail than any other superior court in the country. It showed that 30 per cent of those convicted of a crime were ordered to spend time in jail, 40 per cent were given a fully suspended sentence, and the remainder got a non-custodial order such as a good behaviour bond. If we compare that information to what occurs in New South Wales, we see that 73 per cent of convictions resulted in a custodial sentence. In Victoria, the figure was 56 per cent and in Queensland it was 54 per cent. So there is a big gap between us and Queensland, which has the next highest figure.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .