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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2016 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 11 February 2016) . . Page.. 284 ..

apparently told Jack Straw that he had not realised the harm he was causing and had found the experience very challenging and life changing.

That is why we should support this bill to allow the extension of restorative justice to phases 2 and 3. Many more people will have their voices heard; many more will have an opportunity to heal and many more offenders will realise, probably for the first time, the enormity of what they have done and have the option to make restoration. They will have the opportunity to make restoration to those he or she harmed, and also a chance to restore their own lives.

I am proud of this Labor government for introducing this bill. I thank Minister Corbell for his commitment to this process, and particularly the restorative justice aspects contained in this bill. I am happy to support it.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Capital Metro, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Climate Change) (4.24), in reply: I thank members for their support of this bill. These are very important reforms to sentencing options in the territory, through both the establishment of the new intensive correction orders regime, which will replace the current sentencing option of periodic detention when that is phased out shortly, and the establishment and expansion of the restorative justice framework here in the ACT, with the extension of it to adult offenders and serious crimes and, ultimately, to adult offenders for sexual and domestic violence offences.

These are very significant reforms. I note the comments from the opposition about the operation of the Sentence Administration Board. My colleague Minister Rattenbury dealt with that matter very well. The government has chosen the use of the Sentence Administration Board as the body to deal with breaches of ICOs to ensure that there is an appropriately independent, experienced body that is able to deal with these matters in a timely way. Central to the integrity of an intensive correction orders regime is timely decision-making on sanctions for breaches of the ICO. Without that, the ICO regime is fatally compromised because offenders will not treat them seriously. So we need to ensure that there is a timely, as well as objective, impartial and independent, assessment of the circumstances surrounding a breach. The SAB—the Sentence Administration Board—is clearly the most effective choice in that regard.

Turning to the issue of electronic monitoring, I note Mr Wall’s comments on that. All I would say in relation to that matter is that this bill does not rule out the capacity to use electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring remains an option open to the government. As Minister Rattenbury indicated, Corrective Services continue to explore options for the implementation of electronic monitoring when it relates to those offenders who have been sentenced through the intensive correction orders process.

Finally, in relation to restorative justice, this is a very important reform. The international academic assessments of the effectiveness of restorative justice are very clear. The Campbell Collaboration review, which I have mentioned a number of times in this place, found that there is a very high level of satisfaction from victims of crime

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