Sentencing Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 May 2017.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:26): The bill repeals the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act and replaces it with a new regime. Matters that the court must consider when it imposes a sentence have been changed so that the paramount purpose is to protect the safety of the community. I understand there are essentially four sentencing options available to the courts. A custodial sentence can be imposed to imprison the offender, home detention can be imposed whereby the offender serves their sentence at home or in another place determined by the courts, intensive correction orders may be made which stipulate that an offender must undertake some sort of intensive correction or rehabilitation, or the court may impose a community-based sentence.

The bill also provides for special sentencing provisions for serious firearm offenders, repeat adult and youth offenders and offenders who are incapable or unwilling to control their sexual instincts. With all the non-imprisonment options, there is the ability for courts to include conditions that a person must abide by. For example, they may be subject to residential orders to live at a certain address or be required to wear electronic monitoring devices.

These conditions are subject to the court's discretion. However, I have been passionate about reducing the impact of drugs in the community and believe that rehabilitation should be required in all situations that the court thinks are appropriate. As such, I will be moving amendments which will require a person to participate in intervention and rehabilitation programs if the court feels it is appropriate. With that, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:28): I rise to speak in support of the Sentencing Bill 2016. As we have previously heard the Attorney point out, this is the first major review of South Australia's sentencing regime in a long time. One of the key features of the bill currently before us is that it expands the number of sentencing options available to the court when sentencing offenders.

Imprisonment is, of course, the most serious form of punishment available in our criminal law system. In such a system punishments may also take various forms. A custodial sentence remains available for offenders who pose a great risk to the safety of the community, but there are a number of alternatives to custody. Such alternatives to custody should be embraced in a modern criminal justice system. These alternatives to custody are home detention, intensive corrections orders, suspended sentences and community corrections orders. The bill clearly sets out the procedures and strict conditions that may apply to these forms of sentencing.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The Hon. Mr Ngo has the call.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Thank you for that, Mr Acting President. Recently, the Attorney-General's Department released some crime and justice data dashboards that provide a real-time insight into the justice system and the prison population. What was evident from these dashboards is that a significant number of our prison population are serving sentences for violence and sexual offending. Approximately three-quarters of those serving a sentence were sentenced for offences such as homicide, sexual assault and robbery. By and large, these are people who pose a significant risk to community safety and are appropriately dealt with by being sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment.

There is now an increased culture in our community around the reporting of serious crimes, especially in terms of domestic violence. This is a good thing. One of the hardest things for victims of domestic violence is to report the crime in the first place. With an increased emphasis on reporting, it seems likely that not only will we continue to see people brought before the courts for violent and sexual offending but that due to the serious and violent nature of these crimes the sentences will increase in length.

What we also want to do is ensure that non-violent and non-sexual offenders can be dealt with by alternative means to custody. In saying this I fully acknowledge that all offenders need to be punished, but the punishment should be tailored to the level of risk that the offender poses to the community. For example, we can readily see why someone convicted of a minor fraud offence should not be dealt with in a prison. They certainly ought to be punished, but that punishment should not necessarily involve imprisonment at great cost to the taxpayer.

There is sometimes criticism of suspended sentencing options. The phrase I often hear is that such sentences do not truly punish offenders, as they are little more than a slap on the wrist. However, I support the view that a suspended sentence can be aptly described as a sword of Damocles hanging over the offender's head. I refer to former Chief Justice Bray's astute comments in response to the criticisms. His Honour said, and I quote:

So far from being no punishment at all, a suspended sentence is a sentence to imprisonment with all the consequence such a sentence involves on the defendant's record and his future, and it is one which can be called automatically into effect on the slightest breach of the terms of the bond during its currency. A liability over a period of years to serve an automatic term of imprisonment as a consequence of any proved misbehaviour in the legal sense, no matter how slight, can hardly be described as no punishment.

I welcome the broad range of sentencing options provided for in this bill. These changes support important initiatives led by the government; namely, to reduce reoffending among the existing prison population and enhance offenders' rehabilitation. This major reform provides offenders with real opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration into the community while serving their sentence in the community.

Before I finish, there is one other aspect of the criminal justice system which I wish to address, where sentencing will play an important role. I welcome the establishment of a special government task force to tackle the growing crystal methamphetamine (or ice) epidemic. Members of the SA Ice Taskforce led by the police minister, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, include the Minister for Substance Abuse, the Hon. Leesa Vlahos, SAPOL Assistant Commissioner Linda Fellows, and senior representatives from Drug and Alcohol Services SA.

This task force links with the overall South Australian Alcohol and Other Drug Strategy 2017-2021, which outlines specific actions to address issues with methamphetamines. These actions include a strong emphasis on early intervention through greater focus on parenting, education, trauma and social networks. Ice poses a great challenge to South Australia from both a community safety and health perspective. Over the years, I have seen and heard about the devastating effects this drug can have on families and communities.

Following an extensive process of community outreach and engagement, the task force will consider and advise on key issues of legislative change, prevention and treatment pathways for those affected, as well as increased community education on the dangers of the drug. The police minister will provide great leadership to this task force and with cross-government representation we can develop a robust strategy for combating this serious issue.

One aspect of dealing with this issue is by arming the courts with appropriate sentencing options to deal with offenders who are either dealing in or affected by this drug. This bill allows the court such flexibility. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S. Lee.