Criminal Law (Extended Supervision Orders) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 March 2015.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:09): Family First has always been supportive of measures which we truly believe bring effective and necessary change to the areas of law, and particularly in relation to victim protection and increased accountability for offenders. We see soft sentencing and leniency shown towards offenders to be an insult to the victims and a form of subtle encouragement, if you like, or certainly not something that serves as discouragement to repeat offenders.

The object of this bill is community protection by placing extended supervision conditions on high-risk offenders who have an established history of serious sexual and/or serious violent offences. Family First supports the implementation of these ESOs and welcomes the additional layer of protection we believe these orders will provide to victims as well as to the broader community.

The ESOs impose restrictions on an offender's freedom after penalties imposed by the courts. In a sense, the ESO tries to regulate potential future conduct as well as recognising the past wrongs of the individual offender. As the government noted in the second reading, currently a high-risk offender would be released to live in the community under no supervision whatsoever if they had elected to serve their entire sentence without applying for parole. We do not believe this is appropriate in some circumstances.

It is simply the case that serious offenders are frequently repeat offenders. The system often fails in its attempts to rehabilitate offenders and, as a result, once all legal obligations are complied with, a dangerous offender is let loose once again in the community. We believe there are genuine instances where this unsupervised release is not appropriate and the community deserves better protection. Family First is comfortable with the bill, as it is clearly only intended for very serious offences where the community would benefit from those offenders being further supervised.

There certainly are a wide range of offences that fall within the scope of this bill. To be deemed a serious sexual offence, someone must have been convicted of an act such as rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, acts of gross indecency, to name a few. Similarly, to be deemed a serious sexual offender, the bill sets out numerous high-end offences for which the offender must have been convicted. Offences include acts of gross indecency and furnishing false information.

For an ESO to be ordered due to a serious violent offence, the conduct for the offence must involve serious harm or a risk of serious harm to a person, serious damage to property which also involved the risk of death or harm to the person, or preventing the course of justice in relation to a serious offence of violence. These are high-end crimes and certainly would be appropriate offences to consider the use of an ESO. These offences certainly go some way to providing community assurances that people with serious offending behaviours will not be able to integrate back into the community without oversight, as is appropriate in our view.

It is not without merit to ask how many people are likely to be caught under this bill. Some discussion was had as to the number of offenders who would not qualify for the sex offender provisions and a significant number of offenders due for release who had been imprisoned for an offence against the person. Unfortunately, it was not able to be determined how many of these offenders would meet the necessary qualifications for an ESO. It is therefore my understanding that the exact number of offenders who may get caught under this provision is unknown at this stage, and I would ask the government to clarify in the summing up on those issues if possible.

The bill allows an ESO to be ordered for, as I have said, serious violent or serious sexual offences; however, it is not limited to current acts. The bill allows ESOs to apply to offences against a corresponding previous act. It applies to an attempt to commit the above offences or an assault with intent to commit the above offences. This includes offences against the law of another state or territory.

We also agree that a person who fulfils the ESO criteria, having at any time served a term of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence or serious violent offence, should be, or at least should in theory, be subject to an ESO, even in instances where the person is convicted of lesser offences. The bill creates checks and balances by providing clear instances when the Supreme Court can order an ESO and dictates information they must consider when making such an order. The conditions imposed on the court in determining whether to impose an ESO are sufficient to require a measured approach to their ordering.

I am advised that the budget for these measures is in the order of $300,000 over a two-year period. This limited amount could indicate that the provisions of the ESO are only intended for a small handful of people and, again, I seek the government's clarification during the summing up on this issue. We certainly are interested to see the effect of the ESO on community perception and the effect on the offender. We trust the government will appropriately monitor the implementation of the ESO to turn its effectiveness with a view to possibly expanding its operation where necessary and if appropriate.

We strongly believe that the rights of the community are paramount and they deserve to have the added layer of protection that comes with supervision. We welcome the introduction of the Criminal Law (Extended Supervision Orders) Bill, as we believe it is high time serious violent and sexual offenders are placed under appropriate long-term supervision orders to protect the community from future offences.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. T.T. Ngo.