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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1646 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Following that, we have periodic detention, which is weekend detention. After that comes a fully-fledged gaol term.

I asked the Attorney, through a question on notice, to supply some figures in relation to community service orders. I was keen to see, initially, if in fact the government had restored funding for them; how much the government had provided in the way of funding; and on how many occasions they had been used as alternative sentencing options by judges and magistrates. There were also questions in relation to breaches of CSOs.

I was pleased that the government responded by saying it has provided ongoing funding for the CSOs-community service obligations-that in the 2001-02 budget it had allocated $359,960 and that, to the end of the first eight months of the current financial year, some $236,761 had been expended.

I was also supplied with information which indicated that, in the 2001-02 financial year, 292 new offenders had registered to serve CSOs-they had been sentenced by the courts to serve CSOs. So far this financial year, at the time the question was answered by the Attorney, between 1 July 2002 and 28 February 2003, there were 138 new registrations.

For the complete financial year 2001-02, there had been 79 instances of breaches, which amounted to about 27 per cent-a worrying figure. It is disturbing that, so far this year-between 1 July last year and 28 February this year-48 breaches occurred out of 138 new registrations, which is some 35 per cent. I am very concerned in relation to that, because it is trending upwards, Mr Speaker.

I asked the Attorney what was occurring and he wrote back to me. When a breach occurs, the decision regarding the consequence of the breach is made by the courts. He listed a number of things that could occur. The original order could be revoked; possible consequences could include no action being taken; the order being extended for a further duration; fines being imposed; a new order being made; a periodic detention order; or some type of recognisance.

I was pleased that the government indicated in its response that it regarded CSOs as a very important alternative sentencing option and that it is committed to providing ongoing funding for them, to encourage the use of this option by the courts. It is a useful option. CSOs are things which people might well see on occasions in court reports, where someone has been sentenced to a community service order-for example, 208 hours.

The type of work these people do includes a large range of things. You might see people being supervised doing beautification work. I am aware that CSO orders have been carried out around some of our APU complexes. The people in the department who run them have a range of areas where these orders can be carried out effectively, for the benefit of the community and, might I say, in many instances to the benefit of the individual concerned.

CSOs are particularly useful for Children's Court matters. They are often used there to show young people the error of their ways-to get them to do something positive

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