Page 4679 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the Greens in the explanatory statement that accompanies the bill. Mr Rattenbury’s bill represents a significant cost and obligation on the government, and if the review proceeds outside normal cabinet budget processes it would require my directorate to make significant changes to its otherwise planned activities. When you consider the time line set out in the bill, it is clear that, regardless of who forms government in the Assembly, commitments will have to be reprioritised in order to meet the requirements.
However, the second reason as to why this amendment is not necessary I think is the one that members should have closest regard to. The fact is it would be difficult, if not impossible, without improvements to the collection of sentencing data to capture the historical sentencing information required for such a review. The currently limited data that is available will significantly fetter such a review at this time. A review for the sake of a review is simply not good policy. As I have said, the government is happy to support a review in principle but believes such a review would be better conducted after the establishment of a sentencing database and appropriately supported with the resources that are needed.
I would like to address the reference that Mr Rattenbury made in his bill and in relation to the proposed review that the proposed review would meet the government’s election commitment to create an ACT sentencing council. The government is still considering its options on how best to meet this commitment, including discussions with the New South Wales Judicial Commission on the possibility of adaptation of the New South Wales Judicial Commission’s sentencing database. These matters are subject to further budget consideration, but, from our analysis of the New South Wales Judicial Commission’s sentencing database, this would give us the capacity not currently available in the territory to have clear data and trend analysis of sentencing in the territory to allow such a review to take place.
I would also like to take the opportunity to remind members that the government has already undertaken a review into suspended sentences and their operation in the territory through the Law Reform Advisory Council and that further references relating to sentencing can potentially also be made to the Law Reform Advisory Council. For these reasons, the government does not support the bill proposed by Mr Rattenbury today. We will not be supporting the bill in principle.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (3.42): The Canberra Liberals will not be supporting the Crimes (Sentencing) Amendment Bill 2011. This bill would require the government to collect sentencing data and use the data to report on the effectiveness of the ACT’s sentencing law. The report would provide analysis against legislated purposes of sentencing, including recidivism rates for people who have been sentenced in the ACT.
It would also set up a review of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 to begin on 2 June 2012. This would be six years after the act commenced and would require the minister to report to the Assembly within 12 months of the review starting. The bill sets out what amounts to terms of reference for the review process as well as a range of people with whom the government would consult. It leaves scope for the minister to consider other relevant matters and require the review to include recommendations about ways
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video