Page 4232 - Week 13 - Thursday, 27 November 2014

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

---

Members opposite have said that the claim that this should be sent to committee is made because there is no sentencing alternative. That is correct. We are being asked today to pass a bill on the promise that there will be an alternative some time before the middle of 2016. It is on a promise. The detail of what is being considered or is likely to be introduced has not been brought before the Assembly. The options being considered are not available to members of the Assembly. It is a bit presumptuous to bring in a bill that ends what has been an effective sentencing option in the ACT, claiming that we should do it because every other jurisdiction in the country has now done it and we should follow suit.

The justice system in the ACT is vastly different from that of other states. New South Wales was cited as an example. We have got the proximity of distance here. We have got economies of distance. A periodic detention sentence in New South Wales from a rural or remote city would put extreme difficulties and complexities in place for an individual to complete that order. We do not have those sorts of geographical complexities here in the ACT.

Again, it is an instance where we are putting the cart before the horse. We are being asked to sign on to the closure of one of the ACT’s correctional facilities on the promise that at some point in the future we will see an alternative. That is disappointing. On those grounds, the opposition will not be supporting the passage of this bill today.

Question put:

That the motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

---

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