Penalties and Sentences (Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council) Amendment Bill 2016

In reply, defended the council's record including two completed terms of reference, specialist research and sentencing fact sheets, and argued the $1.8 million cost was justified for an independent body the public could trust.

“I can guarantee that if it were the Department of Justice and Attorney-General that was putting this information out about sentencing and those on the other side did not like what was being reported, the first thing they would say is that it is biased; it is coming from within a department; it is not independent.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

As committee chair, supported the bill and both committee recommendations, emphasising the importance of broad-based community representation on the council including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members and women.

“When this bill is passed, we will be the fifth state providing the government and the wider community with a valuable and independent resource that has unique and dedicated functions specific to sentencing matters.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Focused primarily on opposing the late amendment deferring criminal organisation licensing provisions, arguing the government was going soft on organised crime and rolling out the red carpet to criminal motorcycle gangs.

“If there was any further evidence that we on this side of the House needed about this Labor government going soft on crime, I cannot think of a better example.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Supported the bill as restoring a valuable resource dissolved by the previous government, arguing the council's community education role would address widespread misunderstanding about the judiciary and sentencing.

“The council's role is not to be a headline-grabbing stunt but to actually do the hard work that is required to reduce crime rates and address the causes of crime in the community.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Opposed the bill as a waste of $1.8 million given the previous council was never used by the Court of Appeal, and strongly opposed the amendment deferring criminal organisation licensing provisions, arguing the government was rolling out the red carpet to organised crime.

“When the model this is based on has been hardly ever used and the previous iteration of this exact same body was not used in a two-year period before its abolition, one really must wonder why we are wasting not only our time but also the $1.8 million, which I think could be used in a much better way.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Supported the bill as restoring a valuable independent body with community engagement functions, highlighting its potential role in tracking changing community attitudes towards domestic violence sentencing.

“One of the key outcomes that I see arising from this council is that we can actually increase community awareness of, a respect for and a faith in not only sentencing but the criminal justice system.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Opposed the bill as another bureaucracy that adds no value, arguing the $1.8 million could be better spent on community legal centres like Robina or additional police for the northern Gold Coast.

“While the LNP supports evidence based policymaking, the creation of another bureaucracy that adds no value and offers no additional research or support outside existing agencies is simply not warranted.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Opposed the bill as creating a bureaucracy that achieved nothing during its previous existence, arguing it was driven by petty political pride and jobs for Labor supporters, and criticised the amendment deferring criminal organisation licensing provisions.

“Between 2010 and 2012 the QSAC did not provide any advice to the Court of Appeal in terms of guideline judgements. That is $1.8 million per annum for no advice for two years.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Opposed the bill as failing to demonstrate value for its $1.8 million annual cost, arguing the council's composition needed broader professional expertise and that the funds would be better applied to front-line services.

“Unfortunately, I believe that the proposed implementation of this body in Queensland will result in wasted public funds which might be better applied elsewhere in front-line services including via Legal Aid or community legal centres.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Opposed the bill as an unnecessary $1.8 million expenditure on a rehashed idea that produced little in its previous existence, arguing sentencing policy should better reflect community expectations rather than educating the public.

“If this Palaszczuk Labor government is serious about stimulating balanced public debate about sentencing issues, it could start by listening to the public about VLAD laws.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Supported the bill, challenging opposition claims the previous council achieved nothing by citing its published report on minimum standard non-parole periods, and arguing the council's educative function was vital to countering public misperceptions about sentencing.

“The role of the Sentencing Advisory Council is not only to feed community feedback into the process of sentencing but also to provide that important educative function—to ensure that our communities are aware of sentencing processes.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Opposed the bill as re-establishing an unnecessary bureaucracy that duplicates existing departmental functions, and opposed the amendment deferring criminal organisation licensing provisions, citing Taskforce Maxima raids in her electorate.

“Let me be clear: this is another Labor government re-establishing another Labor bureaucracy for no good reason.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Opposed the bill as a $1.8 million waste that achieved nothing, calculating the single report found by the member for Morayfield cost $13,845 per page, and opposed the amendment as allowing criminals in licensed occupations.

“Let us keep this simple: this is a waste of $1.8 million and that is why we oppose the bill.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

As a committee member, opposed the bill as achieving nothing, noting the previous council was never asked to perform its primary function and similar bodies in Victoria were used only once in four years.

“When this bill came to the committee, I immediately thought of Jack Thompson. A few years back Jack Thompson appeared in an ad the slogan of which was 'the drink to have when you're not having a drink'. Therefore, I refer to this bill as the Clayton's bill, because it is a bill that will do nothing.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Opposed the bill while acknowledging the concept was not inherently bad, arguing the council's functions could be achieved more efficiently through the Department of Justice and the parliament itself, and questioning the value for money of $1.8 million annually.

“Everything that is sought to be achieved by the Sentencing Advisory Council, with its $1.8 million annual budget, could be achieved by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, with assistance from us, the members of the Queensland parliament.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard

Supported the bill and foreshadowed an amendment for greater Indigenous representation on the council, citing the stark overrepresentation of Indigenous people who make up 3.6 per cent of Queensland's population but almost one-third of the prison population.

“If we are going to be so tragically overrepresented in the prison system then Indigenous people should be equally represented on the Sentencing Advisory Council.”— 2016-05-24View Hansard