Page 2494 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
breaches their good behaviour order, the person is brought before the sentencing court, and the Court’s sentencing jurisdiction is re-enlivened.
This is not an explanation of the decision but, instead, a vague attempt at justifying the unjustifiable.
This is a curious human rights outcome, for the previous statutory remission system offered a young offender showing signs of early rehabilitation the prospect of early release, and is beyond the pale because of a mixture of judicial and administrative functions. Rather than that, the human rights conscious Stanhope government would prefer locking them up without the prospect of early release. Yet again, there is a contradiction between the government’s stated agenda and the actual outcome in this case. It does seem scandalous that a young offender can be incarcerated for a defined period without hope of release on licence. Such a move would positively discourage good behaviour whilst in detention and, again, is a very real concern now evidenced by this bill.
I suggest that the bill should enshrine in law current Children’s Court practice. In response to the opposition’s queries on this matter, the minister said that the combination of a custodial sentence and a good behaviour bond has the same effect as the parole system; namely, that remaining at liberty is conditional upon good behaviour and compliance with specified conditions set out in the good behaviour order.
If the minister believes this, I think she fails to grasp the distinction between her policy proposal and the operation of a parole system. In a parole system, the length of sentence is finally determined by the behaviour of the person sentenced. There is flexibility built into the system. In the minister’s proposal, there is no time off prison for good behaviour; there is no flexibility built into the system.
As a result, the opposition has concerns that cover both ends of the relative spectrum, on two very important grounds. First, the system proposed by the Stanhope government offers a detained young offender no incentive to show they are of good behaviour whilst detained. Secondly, there is concern that, because there is no prospect for release on licence, the Children’s Court will impose a minimal detention order. In some circumstances, community protection considerations may not be appropriately served and victims may, in some instances, be rightly outraged with a lenient sentence handed down to an offender as a result of this system. As a result, the minister should explain to the Assembly precisely what the Children’s Court practice is.
In summary: on this point, the opposition will closely monitor how this practice works. If it does become clear that the community is not protected or, alternatively, the prospect of no early release from detention is detrimental to the maintenance of good order in detention facilities, this is certainly something we will look at changing upon coming to government.
There are a range of new definitions in the bill which, I agree, are necessary to be cleared up and defined. I agree with the changes relating to young detainees who have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .