Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 12 Hansard (Thursday, 28 October 2010) . . Page.. 5370 ..

(10) The importation of weeds from interstate is prevented through a combination of educating nurseries, annual inspections and the ad hoc checks that occur during the year.

Courts—restorative justice(Question No 1192)

Mr Rattenbury asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 September 2010:

(1) In relation to the potential extension of restorative justice to adult offenders and the Government response to recommendation 16 of Report 4 from the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety entitled Report on Annual and Financial Reports 2008-2009 and given that the Government response stated, in part, that “the Government has considered options to expand the scheme to adults as resources permit”, what options have been considered.

(2) Given that the Government response also stated, in part, that “it is not appropriate to make public deliberations in relation to this matter”, what are the reasons that make it inappropriate for deliberations on the options to be made public.

(3) In relation to answers provide to questions Nos 352 and 353 taken on notice during the Estimates hearings for the 2010-11 Budget which read, in part, that “a full expansion to adult offenders was originally estimated to result in doubling the number of total referrals … there is no reason to believe that this is still not the case” and that “the restorative justice unit’s budget for 2009-10 was $602 664 … in addition, ACT Policing funds one convenor position to conduct conferences for police referrals … the cost to ACT Policing is $103 348”, from the figures provided and using the assumption that an expansion to adult offenders would double the number of referrals, is $706 012 one potential additional annual cost involved in such an expansion, for example, cost of doubling the resourcing of existing restorative justice unit plus cost of an additional convenor position.

(4) Has the Government considered any other expansion models that would result in less than a doubling of referrals; if so, what are those options; if not, why not.

Mr Corbell: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) The Government has considered the following options:

A one-off, full expansion that would allow all offenders, whether adult or juvenile, and all offence types, to be referred to restorative justice (known as “Phase 2”);

An incremental expansion over four years, resulting in all offenders and all offence types becoming eligible to be referred to restorative justice;

Providing skeleton resources to commence Phase Two, which would allow time to clearly identify the resources that would be required to sustain Phase Two;

Engaging a mix of permanent and casual staff to meet the expected peaks and troughs in workload once Phase Two has commenced;

Restricting access to restorative justice by setting eligibility standards that eliminate the referral of low level crimes; and

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video