Page 3626 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
tough on crime mantra and its impact on the people in the Australian prison system are negative, counterproductive and demonstrably ineffective in actually reducing crime and recidivism. The ACT government is committed to reducing recidivism by 25 per cent by 2025, utilising a justice reinvestment methodology. This is neither tough nor soft on crime; it is a world-recognised, evidence-based response to the drivers of criminal behaviour.
Research by the Australian Institute of Criminology has found that parole supervision reduces the risk of reoffending. While the impacts of parole time credit in the ACT context are hard to predict, evidence from other Australian jurisdictions suggests that introducing parole time credit could likely see a reduction in the number of offenders becoming institutionalised in the AMC, a result of the revolving door, but more importantly see detainees value the privilege of active participation in pro-social rehabilitative programs. And, Madam Assistant Speaker, this bill will continue to see the parole system used as a privilege and marker of good behaviour.
Parole is an important part of our justice system, as it also provides detainees with a structured, supported and supervised transition back into the community after a period of full-time custody. While on parole, the offender remains under sentence and continues to be supported and supervised, to ensure community safety and a positive reintegration back into family life, employment or education and the continuation of programs begun in custody.
Not counting time served in the community in compliance with parole conditions may remove the offender from the community for longer than was intended by the sentencing court, as requiring an offender to serve the period of time spent on parole in custody following a potentially minor or administrative breach has the effect of extending the time served under the sentence.
This operates as a disincentive for offenders to apply for parole, which decreases offender engagement with rehabilitation programs that would have been available to them while on parole and increases the prison population. Further, if offenders do not apply for parole despite being eligible and subsequently complete their whole sentence in custody, when they are eventually released from prison at the conclusion of their sentence they are released without any form of supervision. Important factors that militate against reoffending, such as housing and employment, may be jeopardised by offenders spending lengthier periods in custody and being released without supervision, leading to poorer community safety outcomes.
We have chosen to name the scheme “parole time credit” to reflect the strengths-based nature of the scheme and more accurately describe the benefit to offenders who complete crime-free time in the community. Introducing parole time credit means that most parolees who are returned to custody following cancellation of their parole order will be liable to serve the time remaining on their sentence at the time the parole order was cancelled, not the period that remained to be served when parole was granted. Using the example I referred to earlier, the offender would be liable to serve four months in custody, as the eight months they were in the community living in compliance with their parole conditions would be counted as time served against their sentence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video