Sentencing Amendment (Presumptive Sentencing for Assaults on Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 (No 23)

Wednesday 7 August 2024

[5.05 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I thank the member for Murchison. I also have the Anthony Haneveer article to read.

Ms Forrest - He is my editor for my paper, so I am glad I got him first.

Ms ARMITAGE - That is fair. I will read Greg Barns instead.

I care about all workers. How do you come up with a list? It does not matter what sort of list, in what sort of area, you are always going to miss someone. As the member for Murchison said, what about teachers? What about our electorate officers? They are there by themselves while we are down here. There are so many frontline members.

In briefings this morning, the member for McIntyre asked, 'What about the people in the hospital who may not be attendants, nurses, or doctors, or have a degree, or an orderly, but they are there in the wards'. If something happens in the wards, they could get hit. They are not a frontline worker; it does not apply to them. They could be someone taking meals round, someone doing Red Cross work, a volunteer.

Once you start having a list, how on Earth do you make sure you have covered everyone? You have not. The only thing you can say is, let us cover everybody. My husband owned a pub. I have worked behind a bar and luckily you have that bar separating you from someone on the other side who may have had too much to drink. We were very fortunate; I do not remember anything ever happening there, but I am sure it does on many occasions - when people are trying to show someone out, they turn on them.

It has changed from mandatory to presumptive, but I do not see a great deal of difference. One of the things I thought when we brought these things in before, is you are not going to plead guilty. That is the last thing you are going to do. Presumptive, that is a bit like mandatory, - if you plead guilty, you are more likely to get a sentence. Does it then tie up the courts a lot more? You are definitely going to plead innocent and hope you get off.

I agree with pretty much everything the member for Murchison said. We have the judiciary there for a reason. Yet, here we are thinking we know more. They have all the information in front of them that we do not have. They are there to make the decisions.

I will read some of Greg Barns's comments. He does use the word 'mandatory'; I accept that. If the Leader pulls me up and says that it says mandatory and we use presumptive, there is not a lot of difference. This was from the Mercury editorial on 17 June 2024. He says:

Why mandatory sentencing will simply not slash our crime rates.

Take this scenario: an individual who is battling drug use and is unwell jumps on a bus and physically assaults the driver. Or how about a young person with mental-health issues who assaults a retail worker. Both terrible actions and clearly causing harm to the driver and the retail worker. But is it seriously suggested that the perpetrators, before they assaulted their victims, would think through the consequences and be deterred because the Rockliff government has introduced a mandatory six-month jail term -

or presumptive

if they proceed with the assault? Or do we really think that a person who has assaulted a 'frontline' worker previously will be deterred from doing it again if they get a six-month sentence? The answer to both is 'no'. This is because mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime. In fact, it makes the community less safe.

So why is the government and the ALP (a party that once upon a time produced reformist attorneys‑general like Lionel Murphy in the Whitlam government and Rob Hulls in the Victorian governments of Steve Bracks and John Brumby), determined to embark on introducing a law that will be so ineffective? Because, sadly, it is yet another example in the criminal justice field where populism and 'tough‑on‑crime' rubbish trumps evidence‑based policy.

So to frontline workers, let the message be clear - the government and the ALP are taking you for a ride. They are conning you by promising a safer workplace through mandatory jail terms when the reality is that you will be just as much at risk of assaults. They are using you for political advantage.

It is scandalous, and that word is used advisedly, that the Rockliff government and the ALP are ignoring the evidence‑based submission of the Community Legal Centres Tasmania, which noted pertinently that since the introduction of mandatory jail terms for assaults on police officers introduced in 2014, there has been no decline in this crime, and in fact, there has been an increase.

The CLC paper's findings are unambiguous. It analysed Tasmania Police's own data that 'does not substantiate the claim that the introduction of a minimum mandatory sentence had the purported effect of reducing the number of assaults on police officers'.

It continues:

'Over the past decade, the number of police officers in Tasmania has increased by 15 per cent, whilst the number of assaults against police officers has increased by 27 per cent. Since 2020, the data shows that the number of serious assaults against police officers has reduced, which may be explained by the introduction of body-worn cameras in July 2020.

So, in other words, mandatory sentencing has had zero impact. The only possible deterrent is body-worn cameras.

As two 'smart justice' researchers in the US, Jeremy Cady and Maria Goellner, have written recently, 'Mandatory minimum sentences are an old idea, but not a good one. They’re a "one size fits all scheme" that forces judges to operate as glorified clerks, ticking off boxes that add up to certain mandatory minimum prison terms. These types of laws restrict judges from taking into account the full situation of each case. Rather than making "the time fit the crime", mandatory minimums make judicial disasters far more common.'

I will not go into all the parts about the Northern Territory. He closes by saying:

Far better for governments and political parties to develop policies and programs that address the causes of crime. Examine the failure of the education system to support young vulnerable lives, spend more on youth mental health, and resource community outreach programs so magistrates and judges have a smart justice option for offenders.

And above all, don't promise frontline workers something that will not improve their safety in the workplace. Don't use them for measures that are designed to garner votes, but nothing more. Don't impose mandatory sentencing when you know full well it does not work, when you ignore evidence like that produced in the CLC Tasmania submission.

One hopes the crossbenchers don't ignore the evidence. They must, if they are serious about community safety, vote down this particularly cynical populist gesture.

That is from Hobart barrister Greg Barns, human rights lawyer.

I accept that we have presumptive and not mandatory sentencing, which as we have been told in briefings are slightly different. The judiciary probably has a little more ability to make their own decisions. But it is still similar. I really believe, as has been said by the member for Murchison, it is still telling people that as a frontline worker you will be much safer with this. I do not think you will. At the end of the day, if someone is going to attack you for whatever reason, they are not going to think there is legislation. They probably will not even know there is legislation - that they could have a mandatory sentence or presumptive sentence for grievous bodily harm.

Courts are the place that should be making the decisions. I have supported police officers in the past. They are the people who go in when we are all running out. However, to have a list of frontline workers that include some and not others - I find it hard to get my head around how that list came to be and who made that list. We were not told this morning where the list came from. I want to know about all the people who have missed out on the list, or the people who are not included. I am sure there are probably more than teachers when you start looking at it. I am sure there will be many people asking, 'What about me?' My electorate officer said, 'What about me when I am here in Launceston by myself and there's no-one else in the office?'

Ms Forrest - Maybe the electorate offices in Melbourne might have more than one person on staff - some of the pressures they have been under in Victoria recently.

Ms ARMITAGE - The best we have is a little thing they can -

Ms Forrest - Perspex shield.

Ms ARMITAGE - Well, a shield but also a little thing they can push so the police will come. It is okay for the police to come, but they might come a little too late.

I have concerns with this legislation. As was read out by the member for Murchison, I thought Anthony Haneveer got it right. I understand where the government is coming from. Everyone wants to look tough on crime. As I said, I support all workers, not just frontline, the whole lot. It does not matter where you go. If you are a worker and you are out there, no-one should assault you and everybody should face the full force of the law. I believe that by having presumptive or mandatory, whichever you like to call it, that it has probably changed from mandatory to presumptive to make it feel a little bit nicer for us to support.

Ms Webb - Same principle.

Ms ARMITAGE -It is really the same principle, but why would you plead guilty? You are not going to. You are going to try all you can to get out of it because you know if you go before the magistrate for serious bodily harm, and it is a fairly good case, you are going to go away for a stretch.

My understanding would be from the government's perspective surely, we are trying to get through the court cases. I see legislation like this as simply making the court cases even worse because there are going to be more people lining up saying, 'I am not pleading guilty. If I plead guilty, I know where I am going. If I plead innocent, I might have a chance of getting off.'

I will take some convincing, Leader, and at the moment having only heard the second reading speech, but having listened to the member for Murchison, I felt very much along the same lines. I felt compelled to support the member for Murchison's stance because I thought, 'Yes, they are my words as well'. I really do wonder where the government is coming from. I know it is in their 100 days and they are great words to say, 'let us be strong on crime,' but do they really work and does it have the other effect of making the courts so much slower? And not to forget, when it makes a court slower and people are then out on bail, how many crimes are committed when someone is on bail? Is it keeping more people who have committed crimes out in the community while they are waiting to go to court: We know how far behind that is. Sometimes it could have a counter effect to what you are planning.

I am interested in hearing other people's comments.