Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL 2006

Bill presented and read a first time.

Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This is a reasonably straightforward bill. It is about removing the possibility of people being charged with serious offences from walking out of the front door of a court house. Obviously, this is not the first time the issue of sentencing has been considered in this parliament and it certainly will not be the last. The community has high expectations in relation to the punishment of offenders. They have even higher expectations in relation to people convicted of particular types of crimes that are regarded as heinous and with a measure of abhorrence by most decent-thinking people in the Northern Territory and this country. Those types of crimes include rape; sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children; as well as aggravated assaults, that is, male on female violence, which is so prevalent, I am sad to say, in the Northern Territory.

In the past, there have been numerous examples of offenders receiving a sentence of imprisonment, however the courts, on occasion, suspend those sentences. In line with the community’s expectation, the Country Liberal Party is of the view that there is an imperative to respond to the outrage that results from such cases. In other words, people do not want to see those convicted of very serious offences walk out the front door of courts after their sentences have been fully or wholly suspended.

There are many cases which illustrate the point, but a recent one in Alice Springs is particularly germane. A father beat a five-year-old boy within an inch of his life - his injuries have received a deal of media attention. The father who beat this five-year-old child was given a three year gaol sentence. On the face of it, it sounds very reasonable. However, the twist is that his sentence was fully suspended. That, of course, led to understandable community outrage.

In modern politics, both parties, in the Northern Territory and in Australia, vie for the position of who is toughest on crime. At times we see in this country a competition between political parties about who can come up with the toughest law and order policy. Within those media releases and, on occasion, policy frameworks, we see and hear of politicians and governments talking about increasing the sentences. We have seen this government do it; in fact, they have excelled at it. We have seen the media releases which have said: ‘We have increased the sentences for this that and the other, therefore we are tough on crime’.

There is no point in having tough or long sentences on the statute books if various people are not actually going to go to gaol. As a practitioner, I saw, on occasion, the look of glee of offenders after they were, in a sense, given a serve by the magistrate, a dressing down – ‘You have been naughty, haven’t you? Your offence has been abhorrent. Do not do it again. I hereby sentence you to a period of whatever in gaol …’ – pause – ‘… but then I fully suspend your sentence on account of the material which your lawyer has put to me’. The courts should have a level of discretion. No one would argue with that. This proposal ensures that the courts continue to have discretion. It simply requires that wholly suspended sentences be abolished in relation to very specific crimes and, once again, that is in line with community expectation. The community does not want to see gleeful offenders and perpetrators leave the court.

As a lawyer, I well understand the seriousness of a suspended sentence; I know what it means. However, the public at large does not understand the seriousness of a suspended sentence when it means that the offender or perpetrator can walk straight out the front door after getting a dressing down from a judge or magistrate. The time has come, particularly in the Territory, given the type of heinous offences we see, particularly perpetrated against women and children, that we nail our colours to the mast, as it were, and say enough is enough.

The proposal ensures that the courts continue to have discretion in relation to less serious matters. There is also the discretion as to how long offenders will be in gaol. It is time that the notion of wholly suspended sentences for serious offences becomes a thing of the past.

The particular provisions in the bill seek to prevent courts from using suspended sentences in relation to certain specific crimes - they are Division 2 of the Sentencing Act, excluding section 138 and section 140; sections 188(2)(b), (c), (d) and (k); section 192; and section 192(b). They are offences that include certain offences against morality such as possession of child pornography and child sex offences; and certain types of aggravated assaults based on the disparity of power between the victim and offender; and rape. These are matters that we, as parliamentarians, have a duty to advocate for the wider community.

While this government is in its policy vacuum, it falls to the opposition to put forward significant proposals that represent the needs and wishes of the community. While this government is occupying its time squabbling among themselves, it falls to the opposition to come up with policy alternatives in order, as I said earlier, to respond to the needs and wishes of Territorians.

That is the bill in a nutshell; it is not a particularly complicated one. I note the somewhat arrogant comments of the Attorney-General; that they would not support this bill - that is without even looking at it. I am sure that represents to the average person the height of arrogance. This government cannot now say from this day on that they are tough on crime if they do not support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I commend the bill and look forward to the contribution from the Attorney-General in due course - light on though it will be.

Debate adjourned.

 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]