Page 277 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR WALL (Brindabella) (4.00): l would like to start off by saying the Canberra Liberals will be supporting this bill today. However, I would like to place on the record a number of observations and potential concerns that we have identified. This bill will amend the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005, the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 and the Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 and introduce a new sentencing option for courts and broaden access to restorative justice. The new sentence, called an intensive correction order, is formulated by the bill’s provision to be a stand-alone way of serving a sentence of imprisonment, and it effectively replaces periodic detention.
The bill’s explanatory statement tells us:
The intensive correction order is designed to be punitive while still allowing the courts to incorporate elements of rehabilitation. It will allow offenders to remain in employment and maintain their community ties which are important to reduce the risk of future offending.
If one or more of the other conditions of the order are breached then the Sentence Administration Board is authorised to conduct a hearing of the matter and can impose a short period of full-time imprisonment as well as other more traditional consequences, such as the cancellation of the order and reference to a full-time custodial sentence permanently.
Conditions that can form part of an intensive correction order may include orders such as non-association orders, requirements to undertake community service or attend counselling or rehabilitation programs as well as restrictions on going into certain places, curfews and reporting conditions. It is at this point that I choose to raise some of the concerns.
Firstly, the opposition are disappointed that there is no inclusion of electronic monitoring or tracking of individuals on these orders. The decision not to use this kind of technology is a missed opportunity to ensure the integrity of a community-based sentencing option. Secondly, the sentence provides an alternative to full-time prison terms of up to two years but with an option of being extended for up to four years. However, the act allows for non-association orders to apply only for periods of up to two years, leaving a gap for intensive correction orders that extend beyond a two-year generation.
The key to this kind of sentencing option is the enforcement of swift, certain and proportionate consequences for failing to comply with the conditions of the sentence. The opposition holds some concern about the ability and capacity of the Sentence Administration Board to be able to administer and monitor the breaches as opposed to the court of sentencing. In a system where bottlenecks appear often, it is important that there are no impediments in the process and that any breach is treated consistently and firmly.
In relation to restorative justice changes, the opposition welcomes the broadening of access for adult offenders. However some concerns have been raised about the final
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video