Tanczos Nandor: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19280] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will also be opposing this bill. As I read through the member’s bill it seems to me that there is some confusion about what the different parts of the Sentencing Act are intended to achieve. So I would like to go through some of the clauses and highlight what I think are some of the problems with regard to the member’s bill. 
The first one is in clause 4 where sections 46 and 47 of the principal Act are repealed. Section 46 provides guidance on the use of the sentence of supervision and states: “A court may impose a sentence of supervision only if the court is satisfied that the sentence of supervision would reduce the likelihood of further offending by the offender through the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender.” I think that amendment relates to the comment in the explanatory note of the bill about the fact that the purposes of sentencing should include other factors. But if we go to section 56 of the Act which is about community work as opposed to supervision we find it is clear that when imposing a sentence of community work the court must give particular consideration to whether the nature and circumstances of the offending make it appropriate for the offender to make compensation to the community in the form of work in addition to or instead of making reparation and whether the sentence is appropriate having regard to the offender’s character personal history and any other relevant circumstances. I think that shows a confusion about the different purposes of supervision and community work in the Act. 
Clause 6(2) of the member’s bill proposes amending section 52(2) of the principal Act by inserting “(ba) conditions requiring the offender to submit to routine or random testing for the use of illegal drugs:”. 
It seems to me that under section 52(2)(c) of the Act that condition can already be applied. It states: “any other conditions that the court thinks fit to reduce the likelihood of further offending by the offender.” Clearly random testing for drugs would be a condition for someone where drug use is a contributor to his or her offending. I cannot see why given the enormous amount of time and money that would go into drug testing offenders one would use it unless it was for the purpose of reducing further offending. So it seems to me that this is a pointless provision to put in the legislation. 
Then clause 6(3) states: “Section 52 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (3).” which states: “No court may impose a sentence under this section that the offender pay any fine reparation or other sum ordered to be paid on conviction …”. I think again that shows some confusion because other parts of the Act are concerned with achieving that very purpose. It seems to me that the removal of subsection (3) would actually create confusion in the Act and confusion around the different types of sentencing. I do not think that amendment would be helpful. 
Clause 6(4) of the member’s bill proposes adding to section 52(5) of the principal Act which now states: “An offender does not breach his or her conditions for the purposes of section 70 if he or she withdraws consent to taking prescription medication.” The member wishes to add “ but the withdrawal may trigger the application of alternative conditions or an alternative sentence imposed at the time of sentencing or on application … .” Now let us be clear about this. For the purposes of section 70 the section in the principal Act allows a person to be given a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $1000. It does not state that there are no consequences if someone then withdraws his or her consent; it simply states that one cannot stick the person in prison or fine him or her. But clearly there is provision under section 54 of the Act already for a probation officer to apply for a variation or cancellation of a sentence of supervision. That is all laid out in section 54 of the Act. 
Again I think that there is some confusion in the member’s bill whereby she seems to be trying to put in conditions or clauses that are already permitted in the principal legislation. It really makes me wonder about the actual purpose of the bill.