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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3061 ..

MR STEFANIAK: I seek to continue with my remaining 10 minutes, Mr Speaker. There is no way they could be sure that what they wrote on the judgment would actually occur interstate. I can recall, when appearing in the Supreme Court, that orders about the treatment a prisoner should receive in New South Wales and recommendations about what prison they should be sent to were simply not carried out. It often did not occur. Indeed, there was no way the New South Wales authorities could have been forced to do it. That is something we can avoid in our own prison. If orders for recommended treatments are made, at least we can be sure they occur. In our own prison, of course, we can do our own programs for the rehabilitation of prisoners.

I have made no bones about my disappointment about people who should go to jail not going to jail, and I am criticising the system for that. If you do the crime you should do the time, but it is crucial that we attempt to properly rehabilitate prisoners once they are incarcerated, and that is something that our own jail would do. That is the benefit of having a jail in the territory-apart from the fact that it employs people, and there will obviously be employment during the construction phase as well.

Just doing the remand centre is probably the worst of all worlds, and I urge the government to get on and do the job fully. I do not often watch the ABC at 7 o'clock at night; I am usually not home. But I managed to watch it the other night, and I thought Mr Liebman made quite a pointed argument about the police: to just get on with it. That is something that all of us on this side would wish to see. A lot of work has gone into where it should be, and it is now time to get on with the job. Justice in the territory would be served in all its aspects if that occurred.

I will leave it there, Mr Speaker. My colleagues will elaborate on corrections and on police and emergency services.

MS DUNDAS (4.19): There are a few new projects in this department, such as the bill of rights investigation and a consumer law centre, that are worthy causes and get support without question from the Democrats in this speech.

However, the Department of Justice and Community Safety did quite well in this year's budget. There were increases for the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Government Solicitor and the Sentence Administration Board. None of this was for new projects; it was just recognition of increased workload. The bill for this increased workload was just over $1 million.

Thankfully, this money for increased legal fees was met within the department from underspends, and it is interesting that the underspending occurred in victim services and crime prevention-totalling just under $1 million. I find the symmetry amazing: underspending on crime prevention and victim services and overspending on the DPP, the Government Solicitor and sentencing. It could either be a simple case of cause and effect or, as I believe, an indication of government priorities.

MRS DUNNE (4.20): Mr Speaker, the Justice and Community Safety/police and emergency services budget has some glaring omissions in it and some pretty poor servicing of the people of Canberra.

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