Tolley Anne: Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tolley Anne: Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8818. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced in October 2011 received its first reading in May 2012 and was reported back by the Law and Order Committee in October. I would like to thank the Law and Order Committee for its consideration of the bill and for the improvements it has made to it. 
Overall the legislation governing the administration of the corrections system is working well. However some provisions have been identified as barriers to the effectiveness and efficiency of the legislation achieving its statutory purpose. Two bills were introduced to remove such barriers: the Corrections Amendment Bill which relates to prisons and was passed last month and the present bill which aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of sentences and orders in the community. 
The Sentencing Act 2002 the Parole Act 2002 and to a lesser extent the Bail Act 2000 govern the management of offenders serving sentences in the community and of prisoners who have been released from prison. Major reform of the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act was undertaken in 2007. Since then a number of problems have been identified in administering the changes introduced by the reforms particularly in relation to the administration of community sentences and orders. So this bill makes minor drafting amendments to these Acts to clarify operational procedure where an Act is silent or unclear and where its interpretation has led to unintended consequences. The bill also introduces a number of minor policy changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of home detention community-based sentences and the electronic monitoring regime. 
 I will briefly outline some of the more significant changes. Currently a home detention sentence is suspended when an appeal is lodged. The bill provides instead that the sentence will continue to run unless the appellant is granted bail. This then recognises that some home detainees who appeal may pose a risk to public safety if released into the community without restrictions. Sometimes offenders who abscond from community-based sentences are not located until the sentence has ended. The bill provides that time will cease to run on a sentence of supervision intensive supervision or community detention if an application is made to the court to vary or cancel that sentence because the offender is not complying with it. This will help to ensure that offenders who do not comply with their sentences are still held to account. 
Enforcement problems can arise because the boundaries of an offender’s address do not align with the boundaries of electronic monitoring equipment. Under the bill where electronic monitoring is a condition of release or a condition of a community sentence the offender will be required to remain within an area defined by a probation officer. Under current law even a sentence of say 2 weeks’ imprisonment automatically cancels a home detention sentence. Yet in some circumstances the completion of the home detention sentence may be in the interests of the community. This bill will give the court discretion to allow a home detention sentence to resume after such a short sentence of imprisonment. Administration problems can arise if a court imposes a non-custodial sentence that is incompatible with another non-custodial sentence already being served. The bill contains provisions to prevent this. 
As a result of ongoing analysis of issues addressed in the bill the Department of Corrections has identified additional barriers to the effective and efficient management of offenders in the community. I asked the committee to consider some additional amendments that will remove these barriers and the committee has included these amendments in the bill as reported back to the House. Some of these amendments are of a technical nature. However they do include four minor policy changes that I wish to describe briefly. 
Firstly community magistrates currently have authority to impose community-based sentences yet they cannot vary or cancel them. The bill now empowers community magistrates to vary or cancel community-based sentences that have been imposed by a community magistrate. Secondly offenders who are serving sentences of home detention and community detention are required to stay at an address that the court specifies on the advice of a probation officer. Sometimes the address will become unsuitable over the course of the sentence. When this happens a probation officer may approve an alternative address but has to apply to the court to have the sentence varied accordingly. Preparing these applications places an administrative burden on probation officers and court time is not well spent considering them. The bill now recognises this by empowering the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to vary the address for sentences of home detention and community detention in these circumstances. 
Thirdly a similar situation can arise for offenders released from prison who are subject to residential restrictions. If their residence becomes unsuitable a probation officer must apply to the Parole Board to have it changed but the probation officer’s authority to manage the offender is limited until the board determines the application. So an amendment has been included to address this by enabling probation officers to approve an alternative residence while the board considers the application. 
Fourthly when an offender is serving 80 hours or more of community work a probation officer may direct them to spend up to 20 percent of the sentence in training on basic work and living skills. However probation officers can make such a direction only if the court so authorises them at sentencing or on application by the probation officer. Because it is subject to such a cumbersome process enrolment in the training is limited and offenders may miss out on opportunities to reduce their risk of reoffending. To address this the bill has been amended to allow probation officers without reference to the court to direct that up to 20 percent of the sentence be spent in training on basic work and living skills if the probation officer believes that it will reduce the offender’s risk of reoffending. 
The committee has also made some minor adjustments to the bill on the advice of the Department of Corrections. Most of these are technical or consequential to existing amendments. Others develop some of the procedures introduced by the bill in ways that are necessary for their proper application. 
In conclusion the measures in this bill will contribute to public safety and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of offenders in the community. I thank again the select committee for all its hard work and I commend this bill to the House.