Page 4401 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 November 2005

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

MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (11.55): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 20 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I move amendments Nos 1 to 20 circulated in my name and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the amendments [see schedule 3 at page 4467].

There is a range of government amendments proposed. Many of them are technical in nature. The Crimes (Sentence Administration) Bill 2005 consolidates existing sentencing laws set out in a number of different statutes. The bill also sets out the administration of the new sentencing options provided by the Crime Sentencing Bill, which we have just been debating.

The bill creates a standard model for administering each sentencing option. It sets out the obligations upon offenders for each type of sentence: full-time detention, periodic detention and good behaviour orders. Apart from full-time imprisonment, the bill also sets out the consequences of any offender failing to meet their obligations.

It includes simplified procedures for dealing with breaches of good behaviour orders, periodic detention, parole and release on licence. It also requires the Sentence Administration Board to supervise critical aspects of periodic detention, parole and release on licence, such as breaches and amendment of the conditions consistent with these changes. The bill includes modern provisions for the board’s proceedings and inquiries.

The government amendments address matters raised as a result of the Sentence Administration Board and the Supreme Court having considered the detail of the bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to go through each of those in detail today. Suffice it to say that amendment No 1 corrects a mistake. The majority of the other amendments are technical in nature. Some of them respond quite specifically to comments that were received by the government from the courts and, most specifically, from the Sentence Administration Board in relation to the operations of the board.

MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (11.57): The opposition will be supporting these amendments. They clarify a number of issues, most of which, of course, come from the Sentence Administration Board.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.57): The Greens support all the amendments, with the exception of amendment No 17 to clause 209 (3) (a). In opposing the amendment, I do understand that there are logistical reasons why this amendment is being proposed. But I think, on principle, it is important that I register my opposition. This amendment would allow remandees to be held for up to seven days, rather than two days, for each adjournment of the Sentence Administration Board hearing into their cases.

There would need to be a good explanation as to why the offender should be held on remand for a longer period, especially since the ACT government has been talking about how it is changing the Sentence Administration Board so that it can deal with cases

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