Page 4682 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The ACT Law Society have also supported the proposal, describing it as a very sensible and measured approach. Civil Liberties Australia have written to all three parties urging the need for an evidence-based approach, not an incident-based approach. A Canberra-based criminologist, David Biles, who I observe is actually in the public gallery this afternoon, writing in the Canberra Times recently, supported the proposal for recidivism data to be reported on as part of the review. Prison stakeholder groups have also indicated support for a sentencing review because they are concerned about what an ad hoc approach could mean to people on the receiving end.
Despite all of the excuses that have been put on the table this afternoon, I think there is a clear sense amongst a whole range of stakeholder groups who acknowledge that stopping and actually looking at our sentencing regime in the ACT, and whether it is meeting the expectations and objectives that are contained in the sentencing act, is a sensible, considered and ultimately worthwhile approach.
It seems that the only people in Canberra who do not think this is a good idea are the Attorney-General and his shadow. That seems a shame because, as I have tried to convey in putting this proposal forward, the Greens do believe there is room to review sentencing. I will come back to this later. There may well be places where we do need to increase our penalties, but there may be places where simply increasing the penalties is not the answer, where we actually need to look at alternative approaches if we consider that the objectives of the sentencing act are not being met.
The simplistic approach of thinking that increasing the penalties is somehow going to work does not really do it. Of course, Mrs Dunne particularly has recognised this in the past. In 2009 the justice and community safety committee had a tripartisan recommendation that the government consider a sentencing review. Mrs Dunne was a member of that committee. In fact, she was the chair of that committee. So I do not know why that recommendation in 2009 that seemed like a perfectly good idea is no longer a good idea.
Mrs Dunne: Because the government did not do it and we have done it. We are doing the government’s job, as usual.
MR RATTENBURY: In 2008 the ALP—Mr Corbell touched on this already—had an election commitment to spend $633,000 to create an ACT sentencing advisory council to make evidence-based recommendations to government. I am prepared to accept that times have moved on. Maybe that idea, with the benefit of hindsight, is not such a good one or there are better ways to do things. That is not unreasonable. I do not seek to criticise, but surely we need to look at other options.
The attorney today has suggested that we can do something with the New South Wales sentencing database. That may well provide the evidence but as I understand it a sentencing advisory council would actually look at the evidence and make recommendations. Most databases do not do that. They do not provide the human touch that some sort of sentencing advisory council would. So I do not see how this matches up to the commitment that the ALP made at the 2008 election.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video