Page 2314 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
addition, given that officers cannot ask for identification in issuing an exclusion order, being able to discern whether a person is a young person or an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is not realistic in all cases.
Systems used by our courts and tribunals to record data on sentencing matters equally do not currently have the capability to capture data about non-association and place restriction orders, or NAPROs. While information is recorded about intensive correction orders and good behaviour orders, which are the precursor sentences to a NAPRO, the ICM system the courts are currently implementing will not become operational until 2018 on the current implementation schedule. However, the government can explore capturing this data once the ICM system is operating.
In terms of whether data can be gathered in relation to a person’s Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, courts are meeting with the Australian Federal Police this week to discuss the possibility of receiving this specific data as part of the initial charge transfer between their systems. However, it is important to note that this specific information is only available if it is volunteered by the offender, and there are those who may not wish to identify at the point of contact with the police.
Based on these factors, the practicalities of this amendment mean that the government cannot support it at this time. However, I have asked the Justice and Community Safety Directorate to continue consultation with police, the courts and tribunal administration to determine how best to capture this data in the future so a reporting requirement can be further considered at a later date.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.15): I have some sympathy for the amendment that has been proposed by Mr Rattenbury but, having had conversations between my office and the Attorney-General’s, I accept the government’s advice that this is impractical at this stage. I certainly concur that these powers should not be used inappropriately and that they have a specific purpose. While I understand the evidence for it, I have been advised that in other jurisdictions there has been some inappropriate use of move-on powers and the like. However, I note that some of those instances are somewhat specific to those jurisdictions and what might be happening elsewhere in Australia is not necessarily relevant to what is happening in the ACT.
More broadly, I again express frustration with the inability of JACS to provide some of the data that would be useful for monitoring what is going on on the ground when it relates to police or the courts. As I said previously it has now been five, six, seven years—I cannot recall quite how long—that we have been asking for up-to-date information in relation to offences committed while people are on bail—another issue that is dealt with in this particular bill—and are told, “We’ll be able to do that when we get our new ICM system.” That has been the answer we have heard for a number of years, and that is frustrating.
Mr Rattenbury wants particular information on this, and that is fair enough, and I want particular information on other measures and we are being told it is not available. I have to accept that advice; I do not want to legislate for something that is just simply impractical and cannot take appropriate effect on the ground. But I acknowledge the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video