Sentencing Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 May 2017.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:47): I rise to speak on the Sentencing Bill, a bill which repeals the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act of 1998 and rewrites the criminal sentencing regime in South Australia—something that I believe is sorely needed.

Under the bill, the protection and safety of the community is identified as the primary purpose of sentencing and something that the Australian Conservatives will strongly support. I understand that this is a broad consideration which encompasses protecting the community from violence, as well as other types of harm, including the harm caused by illicit drugs and several other issues outlined in the bill. Other purposes for sentencing, such as deterrents, punishment and rehabilitation, although important, are secondary to the protection and safety of the community, and I reiterate that the Australian Conservatives support this strongly.

Importantly, the bill contains a number of changes to home detention, a feature of criminal sentencing that is subject to much public debate and, in recent times, substantial criticism. Home detention presents advantages and we do not oppose it on all grounds, but it also poses disadvantages. On one hand, home detention provides the courts with flexibility during sentencing and I can see that there are reasonable grounds for that on occasion. However, on the other hand, imposing home detention can potentially diminish public confidence in the sentences that are administered and, indeed, even by association, in the judiciary itself.

In simple terms, home detention under certain conditions can be perceived by the public as some sort of let-off, if you like, using the colloquial term, for serious offenders who should not be allowed to serve a term of imprisonment from home. Again, I stress, I am not saying that is true in all cases, but it certainly is in a number. It is a very difficult balancing act; however, the importance of public confidence in our courts should not be understated. Sentencing outcomes must align—I stress, must align—with community expectations. This must be a very high priority in determining an appropriate sentence for a particular offence.

I outlined one today in question time where a man was sitting at a bus stop minding his own business. He was simply sitting at the bus stop, doing nothing else and waiting for his bus. He was approached by a complete stranger who did not say a word and stabbed him. That individual received a 17-month non-parole period. The individual who was stabbed, I understand, will take in the order of four to five years to heal and probably will never recover psychologically.

Unfortunately, public confidence in our courts, as highlighted by the issue I have just outlined, with respect to sentencing and particularly in relation to home detention sentencing, is at an all-time low in our view. Michael O'Connell, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, recently described home detention as falling short of community expectations. Australian Conservatives agree—again, not in all cases. I do not want to absolutely throw a blanket over all of that but I think in many cases they fall well short of community expectations.

Recently, in one of many cases involving home detention that attracted public condemnation, the District Court allowed an illicit drug trafficker to serve their term of imprisonment from home. However, following an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Full Court of the Supreme Court, the decision was rightly overturned, in our view. Although in this particular case, an appropriate sentence was eventually imposed in a superior court, but this only came after widespread community condemnation and controversy. Sentencing must serve as a deterrent.

Appropriately, this bill seeks to tighten the provisions relating to home detention. This bill requires the court to take into account whether imposing a home detention order would affect public confidence in the administration of justice to which we say: hear, hear! It was an oversight to not have included this consideration in the first place, but nonetheless Australian Conservatives supports its inclusion.

In addition to the public confidence test, the availability of home detention is further restricted and made consistent with the restrictions placed on suspended sentences—again, a good move in our view. Certain offenders will not be eligible to receive home detention, including violent or sexual offenders, terrorists and major drug offenders. Australian Conservatives believes it is sensible that home detention is not available where suspending a sentence is also not an option. To us, this simply makes sense. I note there are filed amendments which place further restrictions on home detention which we will consider in due course.

Overall, the Sentencing Bill broadens the options available to a court which includes the introduction of intensive correction orders and community-based orders. Australian Conservatives will closely monitor the application of these new orders once in place, in addition to monitoring the application of home detention in suspended sentences.

We expect the refined focus on community safety will result in more appropriate custodial sentences being given to violent and sexual offenders, as well as serious drug traffickers and manufacturers, and as I indicated, we will certainly continue to monitor this with some interest. Although not perfect, as evident by the number of filed amendments, we recognise this is a step in the right direction and we look forward to examining it further in committee. This is something long overdue and the community expects better in this regard. We are pleased to see this legislation before this chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (16:52): I thank the honourable member for his contribution and all honourable members who have made contributions on this matter. I am sure if there are questions to be teased out, they will be thoroughly examined during the committee stage. I look forward over the coming weeks to this progressing through its stages.

Bill read a second time.