Sepuloni Carmel: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10902] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I am speaking to clause 3. 
Paul Quinn 
: Are you going to help her out? She needs helping. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Mr Quinn seems to have a problem with women in this House. He constantly interjects whenever a woman on this side of the House gets to her feet. He is not on the side of a rugby field so I would prefer if he was quiet when we start our speeches. I thank Mr Quinn. 
I stand to discuss the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill with regard to clause 3 “Purpose”. Clause 3(a) states the purpose is to “deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders:” and clause 3(b) states it is to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” The overarching concern is that initially this bill in its entirety and this particular clause was pushed by the ACT Party and supported by National because it was deemed in their view to be some sort of deterrent to crime. From the outset I say that it is unfortunate that all of the experts who have come through have said that in no way will this bill work as a deterrent to crime. 
Our concern with the purpose outlined in this bill is in respect of some of the conditions the bill later sets out of what the different offences will be. We think that guilty pleas should be factored into sentencing and that is something we have put forward an amendment on. The amendment would allow the court to take into account a guilty plea and reduce a sentence as a result. The proposed legislation does not provide any incentive to plead guilty and officials have been warned that it will result in a decreased number of guilty pleas. We on this side of the House have that concern because fewer guilty pleas will be expensive for the State as there will be more defended hearings. Cases will be dragged out which will cause victims more pain. 
Along the way we have heard from the other side of the House that these punitive measures are supposed to bring justice to victims but I cannot see how that will happen if they are dragged through the mud in these cases. Obviously the offender will not want to have three strikes against his or her name because there will be harsher penalties at the end. Offenders are less likely to plead guilty; therefore victims will be dragged along as the case is drawn out. Later on we will see more appeals being made and that will result in victims having to relive the crime over and over again. We on this side of the House are very concerned about that. 
We are also concerned about a few other things. Accidental and negligent manslaughter should be excluded from this bill. Everyone in this House would agree that manslaughter is an extremely varied offence. It can range from vicious assaults to tragic accidents. Sentences for manslaughter are extremely diverse and can range from preventive detention at the most serious end of the scale to community service in some cases of accidental manslaughter. I think it is important to talk about some of these aspects of the bill in relation to its purpose which is to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” In talking about this we are discussing what that side of the House determines to be a serious offence. We on this side think we need to take into consideration the varied offence that manslaughter is—it can be accidental and it can be negligent. Some would argue that if it is an offender’s third offence he or she deserves what they get.