Page 1657 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
registrar is not exercising a sentencing power, then the corrections officers would have no authority to report breaches to the registrar. These points go directly to the issue of Dr Foskey’s amendments and indicate that, while the government supports in principle the approach, it is a more complex proposition and requires more time to be worked through. I would also like to note that the proposals put forward by Dr Foskey would allow up to 500 hours of community service over two years. Again, this may be disproportionate to the original offences and raise some human rights considerations.
The ACT’s community service process is defined for offenders who have been liable to serve imprisonment. We do need an alternative, but we also need a viable one. Mr Speaker, this bill was not intended to be in focus for policy debate. The bill simply updates the territory’s statute book in light of the acts we made last year. The bill clears the way for the new sentencing laws to commence on 2 June 2006.
I thank Assembly members for their cooperation in enabling the bill to be considered and debated at short notice. Mr Speaker, I foreshadow that the government will not be supporting Dr Foskey’s amendments, for the reasons I have just outlined. Whilst we welcome the principle behind them, more work needs to be done on making it a workable and viable alternative, and that is work the government is committed to doing.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.02): I seek leave to move together amendments Nos 1 to 6 circulated in my name.
Mr Stefaniak: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be an interesting debate, but I do think that, because of the nature of the government’s bill, moving substantive amendments to such a bill would offend precedent in this Assembly. I recall gaming legislation to which I sought to move some amendments which involved a different clause from the clauses that were being debated in the bill and you, quite rightly, ruled that it was not the subject of the bill as such.
This bill is a consolidation bill; it is a mechanical bill. Dr Foskey’s amendments are highly technical and very specific. Although I appreciate the sentiment in what she is doing, it would be better if she did so as a substantive bill in its own right. I refer to that ruling that you made in, I think, 2004.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stefaniak, the long title of the bill reads:
An Act to amend Acts because of the enactment of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 and Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2000, and for other purposes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .