Page 3760 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 24 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts, Creative Industries and Cultural Events, Minister for Building Quality Improvement, Minister for Business and Regulatory Services and Minister for Seniors and Veterans) (11.12), by leave: I move amendments 1 to 15 circulated in my name together and table a supplementary explanatory statement [see schedule 1 at page 3805].
The legislation that is before us proposes amendments to create the drug and alcohol court as an alternative sentence. It will be managed by Acting Justice Walker. The bill outlines a range of measures. The government has consulted broadly in preparing the bill. That included consultation through the Supreme Court working group led by Justice Burns which developed the drug and alcohol court model for the territory. Importantly, the government has also worked very closely with Acting Judge Walker, to ensure that the legislation is practical and user-friendly.
The amendments to the bill that I am proposing today will ensure that drug and alcohol treatment orders can be made to operate efficiently and effectively. These amendments address key stakeholder comments about matters arising as a result of the drug and alcohol courts being located within the jurisdiction of the ACT Supreme Court. The majority of the amendments do not alter the substance of the scheme as set out in the bill. They ensure that the provisions of the bill which deal with a unique and novel type of sentence are as clear as possible.
There is one amendment which does substantively add to the scheme that is set out in the bill. That is the amendment to allow the Supreme Court to remit a proceeding back to the Magistrates Court on application if an assessment has been undertaken and a drug and alcohol treatment order is not made. This amendment addresses the key stakeholder concerns that offenders who are before the Magistrates Court may be reluctant to elect to have their matter dealt with in the Supreme Court to enable their assessment for suitability for a drug and alcohol treatment order. That is because offenders who make this election but who are not found to be suitable for an order would then have to be sentenced in the Supreme Court.
Discussions with members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in particular, as well as the legal sector, indicated that this was a widespread concern. So it is appropriate to make provision for an offender to choose to have their matter returned to the Magistrates Court if the Supreme Court declines to make a drug and alcohol treatment order. This will include where an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander offender wishes to appear before the Galambany court.
Other amendments which will support and supplement the policy intent of the provisions of the bill will add drug and alcohol treatment orders to the definition of “community-based sentence” in section 264 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005; allow the modification of treatment program conditions rather than just addition and removal; clarify that cancellation of a drug and alcohol treatment order when the offender has substantially complied with the order, and when the continuation of the order is no longer necessary to achieve the objects of the order, leads to a good behaviour order being made; allow the court to amend a drug and alcohol treatment order in the absence of a breach; add additional offences to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video