Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024.

I present a legislative statement on the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill and I move that the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill now be read for that first time, and I had already nominated the Justice Committee—and I will just reinforce that with them. This bill gives effect to the Government’s coalition and manifesto commitment to bring back the three-strikes sentencing law as a key priority in our work to restore law and order. Reinstating the three-strikes law sends a clear message to offenders that there will be grave consequences for serious repeat offending. It recognises the harm to victims and communities that results from violent crime and makes clear that this will not be tolerated. Keeping offenders off the streets will contribute to this Government’s commitment to ensuring there are 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029.

The main features of this bill mean that we will reinstate a three-stage sentencing regime, with increasingly tougher penalties at each stage. It will have the same overall structure and essential features as the previous regime. In general, offenders will be warned of the consequences of reoffending at their first strike, and they will be denied parole at their second strike. For a third strike, offenders will have to serve the maximum penalty without parole.

There will also be some changes to make the three-strikes regime more workable. For example, the new regime will only apply to sentences of over 24 months’ imprisonment. This will ensure that the toughest sentences are reserved for the most serious offending. There will be limited judicial discretion at each stage, to guard against manifestly unjust sentences. The offence of strangulation or suffocation will also be brought into the regime to ensure consistency with other violent and sexual crimes that have a seven-year maximum penalty.

We are ensuring the new three-strikes regime is not retrospective. Strikes from the previous regime will not be carried across into this new regime. This is important because we are making changes to what was in place before.

There are changes to the way strike penalties will operate. The bill provides escalating consequences for offenders who continue to commit serious offences despite the warnings. To outline in more detail what will happen at each stage of the regime: for all offences, at a first strike, the offender will be warned about the consequences of receiving another qualifying sentence, and offenders will, again, receive a warning at each stage. For offences other than murder: at a second strike, the offender will be required to serve their sentence without parole, unless this is deemed to be manifestly unjust. At a third strike, the offender will receive the maximum penalty for that offence—unless it’s manifestly unjust—which must be served without parole, unless, again, it’s manifestly unjust.

Under the previous regime, it became clear that life imprisonment without parole would virtually never be imposed for murder offences, as such a punitive sentence, because it would be manifestly unjust. To ensure that there is an escalating penalty for such offending, we are introducing minimum periods of imprisonment for murder, as follows: at a second strike, the offender will receive a minimum non-parole period of 17 years; at a third strike, a minimum non-parole period of 20 years. These minimum periods will apply in each case, unless it would be manifestly unjust. For both murder and non-murder offences, there is a limited reduction in the sentence available for a guilty plea. This is to help reduce court delays and avoid victims having to go through unnecessary trials.

We are giving guidance to the judges. The bill includes guidance for judges to help in determining whether a sentence or order would be manifestly unjust. This will ensure that the exception is applied in a way that does not undermine the regime. The bill also requires that even where the manifestly unjust exception does apply, the court must still regard the offending as worthy of a very stern response, and the bill provides that the courts should not shorten sentences to prevent offenders from qualifying for the regime, or compensate those who do qualify for the loss of their parole eligibility.

There are also some other minor and technical clarifications that we’re making. The bill makes a number of these clarifications to technical and procedural matters to improve the efficiency and also the workability of the legislation. For example, it clarifies which post-conviction orders the court can make. Under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, it makes the process for giving warnings to offenders much clearer. After the bill passes, we are providing a six-month period before the new three-strikes regime comes into force, to allow time for everyone to prepare training for those changes.

Additional amendments to the Parole Act are also included. We are including these because there are some changes to the Parole Act 2002 that need to be addressed. These are needed to address some errors that were made back when the previous three-strikes regime was repealed in 2022. The Act unintentionally repealed several Parole Act provisions relating to sentences imposed for murder of life imprisonment without parole. This bill restores those provisions with retrospective effect so that there can be no doubt that this technical error will have no practical consequence. I would like to reassure the public that this bill makes clear that no one subject to a sentence of life imprisonment without parole will be able to claim parole eligibility. I’m also advised that no one serving this sentence is currently eligible for parole because of the error that had been made. These changes will apply straight away, after the bill receives Royal assent.

We are committed to reinstating the three-strikes regime so that there are appropriate consequences for repeat offending. With this bill, we intend to ensure there are tougher consequences for serious repeat offenders, while avoiding those unjust outcomes. This bill, I believe, strikes the right balance, and I commend this bill to the House.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will be suspended until 2 p.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1.03 p.m. to 2 p.m.