Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10225] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is good to get to Part 2 and to some of the meat of this legislation. This will be a brief debate I am sure and I sense universal support for the provisions in this part but none the less I believe we will have a meaningful exchange. This part of course gives effect to some of the critical parts of—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Finlayson is yet again getting into his usual personal reflections. I suggest the member goes back and reads his own maiden speech. He might find it interesting. 
Part 2 creates three new non-custodial sentences: firstly home detention which becomes a sentence in its own right rather than a way of serving a sentence of imprisonment. I think the member opposite Mr Power is indicating his agreement with that and that is something we have had considerable discussions about. I think it is generally seen by members around the Chamber as a positive move. I acknowledge Ron Mark’s involvement in the development of this particular part of the bill. He put a lot of time and effort into it and has taken a lot of interest in this area. I properly acknowledge his input. The other non-custodial sentences are intensive supervision which is a more comprehensive version of the supervision sentence community detention and electronically monitored curfew provisions. 
The new sentence of home detention will be the second-most restrictive option in the sentencing hierarchy and will certainly be an alternative to what has become increasingly seen as a short sentence of imprisonment. I think it will provide for the courts a meaningful alternative in appropriate cases—we should always emphasis “in appropriate cases”—to a custodial sentence which often has been the default position because of the absence of a more appropriate sentence. 
This part also contains amendments to improve the operation and credibility I think of the current community-based sentence. It is fair to say that the credibility of those sentences does need to be enhanced in order to restore the confidence of the community and of the judiciary. Again if we can restore that confidence then I think we will see an increased use of those sentences. The passing of this legislation will provide the means to achieve that. 
Part 2 also includes provisions around the sentencing guidelines which we have recently debated including a requirement that the courts impose sentences consistent with guidelines unless satisfied that this would be contrary to the interests of justice. That of course provides a necessary safety valve for judicial judgment and it is an important part of this provision. Part 2 also alters the parole eligibility for long-term sentences that are currently more than 2 years from one-third to two-thirds of the court-imposed sentences. Offenders may still be kept in for the entirety of the sentence of course. That is a decision for the Parole Board. But what will be very clear is that firstly two-thirds minimum will be served before eligibility for consideration of parole; and secondly parole will clearly be seen as a consideration not a right. 
Part 2 repeals the existing home detention regime as I have indicated for offenders sentenced to imprisonment. In its place offenders may be sentenced to home detention or may have residential restrictions imposed as a condition of parole; both of which operate similarly to the current home detention regime. Also in Part 2 the police in addition to the Department of Corrections get the power to apply for the recall of an offender on the grounds that the person poses an undue risk to the community. Both the police and the department will also be able to provide the Parole Board with confidential information which will not be disclosed to the offender. The board will have the power to summons witnesses. I think all of these provisions are important additions to the legislative framework and to the tools of the courts to put an appropriate mix of sentencing into play—I think it is fair to say in the absence of an adequate mix of options currently. 
Finally I will mention briefly Supplementary Order Paper 121 in my name that reinserts Subpart 4 of Part 2 which extends the sunset clauses in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. 
Simon Power 
: You had me until then. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I know I can convince Mr Power of the wisdom of this move. Members will recall that the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 had three main features: the monetary compensation as a remedy of last resort the simplified process for victims’ claims and the extended limitation period. 
The Act has two sunset clauses: first the guidelines on when compensation is available expire at the end of this month and second the simplified claims process applies only in respect of any final judgment for compensation or out-of-court settlement made before 1 July 2007. This Supplementary Order Paper contains provisions extending the operation of the guidelines to 30 June 2010 and the simplified claims process to settlements made before 1 July 2010.