Page 4681 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011

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


first instance to the Court of Appeal in the Creighton case, but it is not the Creighton case alone that causes this work to be done by the government and the opposition. The bottom line is that the ACT is out of step and needs to be drawn back into step. Enough information is available both in the territory and across other jurisdictions to inform that process.

I only make a brief comment on the review process, and I make this comment on the back of the current need for reform. The bill provides for a period of 12 months from June next year. This is a very reasonable review period, but its timing means that it will not start for nearly a year. On top of that, there are inevitable bureaucratic processes that naturally have to follow even the minister’s report to the Assembly, for the bill does not require the minister to table reform legislation at any time; it only requires the minister to make recommendations. I cannot imagine that any real substance would emerge by way of legislative reform for another two years after the minister reports to the Assembly. By my reckoning, the people of the ACT could not expect under this regime to see penalty reform until 2015.

I believe and the Canberra Liberals believe that reform is needed now. There is enough information available to do it now. The government recognises that and so does the opposition. It is only the Greens that want to put the brakes on in the ACT. It is only the Greens that want to deny the community the right to expect their courts to deliver penalties that are appropriate to offences and that meet public standards. We will not be supporting the Greens because this is a stalling tactic when what we actually need is reform.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (3.49), in reply: It is clear that this bill will not be successful and that the ACT will not have the benefit of a six-year review of our criminal sentencing regime. I think this is an example of a good idea not being taken up by the two old parties because of politics.

Members interjecting—

MR RATTENBURY: There is a lot of love in the chamber today. They have let political interest trump a practical suggestion that has broad community support. I should dwell on that community support for a moment, because it has been quite extensive, and it has been well reported.

The Australian Lawyers Alliance publicly support an evidence-based approach that holds up to the light the assumption that simply increasing maximum sentences will solve problems of offending and reoffending. The national president of the Lawyers Alliance, Greg Barns, was quoted on the ABC today. He described this bill as striking the balance between the need for deterrence and, on the other hand, the need to look at the causes of crime and rehabilitation. He went on to say:

Unfortunately what governments and oppositions have tended to do in Australia in the past few years is have kneejerk reactions to incidents by simply increasing sentences of various offences when there’s no evidence that increased sentences including jail terms have any real impact.


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