Bills

Sentencing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

Clause 7.

Mr PICTON: I will provide some scintillating entertainment for the members of the Lions Club from Golden Grove, I hope. In relation to clause 7, can the Attorney-General confirm that this amendment ensures the internal consistency of the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that is correct because it deals with the purpose of the intensive correction order. There was an anomaly; therefore, we needed to have consistency in the act. The short answer to that question is yes. It is specifically set out to clarify that section 79(1)(a) is amended to read '2 years' to marry up with section 81(1)(a). It is to make that consistent. As the member may recall from the very extensive debate we had on the Sentencing Bill, which became the principal act here, the Sentencing Act, a new option in sentencing was developed. A regime was set out in the act for how an intensive correction order would be available and how it would operate. That was a new regime.

I do not know if any intensive correction orders have even been made. I must say that at the time I was a bit sceptical whether judges would ever use them. I have not heard of any being used, but the act only came into operation earlier this year. I will tell you why. When this initiative was presented to the parliament by the former government, I pointed out at the time—and I think this was well known in the profession—that, although the Victorian parliament had passed similar legislation, judges over there just simply did not make these orders.

If you thought there was a chance to have somebody out of custody, in the community but under intensive supervision in the circumstance of an intensive correction order, why would you not use it? It would surely be a lot cheaper, and I would think that on the face of it, with the appropriate intensive provisions over it, it would be a better model for rehabilitation of the offender. That is at first blush. But what they were saying to me, and I think it was well known, was that we had hardly enough provision for the ordinary orders of people being out, let alone intensive orders.

I think that there was some scepticism on the part of the judiciary in Victoria about the availability and resources to support the offer of this option in sentencing. As a personal satisfaction, I might make some inquiry about whether anything has happened in the last few months since this act came into effect. I might be wrong; it might be that it is often used, but I have not heard of any case so far.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr PICTON: Similarly, can the Attorney-General confirm that this amendment ensures the internal consistency of the act? Can she explain the basis of the error being corrected here and whether 'case manager' appears elsewhere?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Apparently, it does not appear elsewhere. It was just in the drafting that it was referred to as 'case manager'. Obviously, we are replacing it with 'community corrections officer', which is the new description in the current act of the person responsible largely in respect of the imposing of bonds. Section 98, the conditions of bonds under the act, refers to 'community corrections officer' correctly throughout except in one spot. That is why it is being fixed.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (9) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.