Page 2328 - Week 06 - Friday, 27 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Magistrates there—in our case, the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court—in having at their fingertips all they need, ranging from what directions to give in various cases through to what sentences to actually apply in all sorts of situations. They also have updates on what laws are before parliament and everything there. God, if New South Wales can do it, surely we can.
Here it is 2008 and we really have not advanced our IT systems, especially in terms of providing much information all. And that is a real problem. (Second speaking period taken.) I think that is something that we really need to do here. I think it is terribly important.
One of my favourite topics—sadly, it is one of my favourite topics; I wish it was not—is the incredibly lenient sentences dished out by, especially, the Supreme Court here in the territory. The poor old Magistrates Court of course just has to tag along because they are the subordinate court. Information on that is a problem. Maybe, even with the attitude our courts seem to take in relation to that, that would be helped if we had better information systems. That, in itself, of course, is amazing.
The government has not really had any inquiry into that, but that does not surprise me either. My colleague Mr Pratt and several others have referred to the attitude of this government on these issues and on dealing with people who thumb their nose at authority and their fellow citizens and treat people with contempt and make the life of victims, be they neighbours or just victims they find on the street, with absolute contempt. And very little seems to be done to discourage that type of antisocial or, indeed, when they come to the courts, criminal, behaviour. Maybe that is indicative of something this government really is not terribly interested in actually doing.
At least in the criminal law, unlike perhaps some of the issues raised by my colleague Mr Pratt in relation to housing, Labor governments have introduced some sensible measures in terms of toughening up the courts in relation to sentencing and making sure the courts, as far as you can do, reflect proper community values on such important things as that. I think I have got a bill before the Assembly for about the fourth time, which you are most welcome to pick up, which adopts the New South Wales system which does seem to work quite well. I would certainly commend that to the attorney. I, again, ask him to go and have a look at the Judicial Commission there. That is particularly edifying and it would work very well for the ACT.
I come now to one item in the budget—and this has been around for a long time as well—and that is the replacement of the Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court building, might I say, has served the ACT very well over the years. It is a heritage status building and certainly there has been funding for works to protect its heritage, which I support.
In terms of the new facility, we needed to look at a number of things. Firstly, is it needed? Can we afford it? I will finish actually with a way in which I think we probably can afford it, but is it really needed? No-one in the public, apart from maybe a few lawyers—and they have got a vested interest—and one or two judicial officers, has ever said to me that they think it is a very important issue and we actually need a new building. No-one in the public is actually crying out for it as such. I think, in terms of competing priorities, that has to be looked at.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .