Speaker 1: You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks
Speaker 1: EDB Politics Central.
Speaker 2: Yes, so, as I just turned the page here for
Speaker 2: another page for a second, I must have misordered bits
Speaker 2: of paper here. That's a bit embarrassing for me, isn't
Speaker 2: it Right? Today the government sentencing reforms will take effect
Speaker 2: and what it says restores real consequences for crime. So
Speaker 2: now judges can only apply a forty percent discount on
Speaker 2: sentences maximum. They're also toughening sentences for youth and reoffenders.
Speaker 2: Judges will crack down a retail crime and offenses against
Speaker 2: smaller businesses. They'll be tougher on offenses committed while on
Speaker 2: bail or parole. But most importantly, courts will be taking
Speaker 2: the victims needs and interests into account when sentencing, putting
Speaker 2: them at the heart of the judicial system. So Justice
Speaker 2: MP Paul Goldsmith said a soft on crime lediency and
Speaker 2: a culture of excuses resulted in a huge loss of
Speaker 2: public trust in our courts and they're hoping that getting
Speaker 2: this is batter is going to get it back on track.
Speaker 2: And Chief's Victims advisor to the government, Ruth Money is
Speaker 2: with me and no Ruth Good afternoon.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon.
Speaker 2: Are you happy with so these changes cacking today? I understand?
Speaker 2: Are you happy with where we are at? What did
Speaker 2: you make of the reforms? A?
Speaker 3: Look, I'm really happy in the direction that we're going.
Speaker 3: You know, typical ruth is never going to be happy
Speaker 3: until victims really are a party to the proceedings in
Speaker 3: our heard fifty fifty in our system. We're not quite
Speaker 3: there yet, but I'd have to say we are seeing
Speaker 3: some really good progress with this, and you know the
Speaker 3: recent movement with the stalking legislation, with the name suppression legislation,
Speaker 3: we are absolutely hitting in a much better direction actually,
Speaker 3: just on.
Speaker 2: The victim having their say. How do we ensure that
Speaker 2: we have a sort of consistency with outcomes? Because there
Speaker 2: will be some victims who are incredibly unhappy with the
Speaker 2: treatment that they've received in what's happened to them, and
Speaker 2: there may may be others who are more forgiving. So
Speaker 2: are we ended up with justice sort of depending on
Speaker 2: how forgiving your victim is? How do we have consistency?
Speaker 2: Do you think?
Speaker 3: Well? I mean there are still guidelines, you know, the
Speaker 3: legislative framework provides guidelines for training around processes, provides guidelines,
Speaker 3: and at the end of the day, it is the
Speaker 3: judge's court, so as much as and we are certainly
Speaker 3: moving to the victims being more heard, because what you're
Speaker 3: saying is correct. What's right for me as a survivor
Speaker 3: of something may not be right for you. So it
Speaker 3: is really important that we are heard in the process.
Speaker 3: And there haven't been that mechanism. Certainly haven't been consistent
Speaker 3: or effective mechanisms through the process for that to happen. Whereas,
Speaker 3: for example, what we're talking about today in terms of
Speaker 3: this amendment bill, it is there in law the sentencing
Speaker 3: must consider the impact on the victim, which it's really
Speaker 3: weird that it never actually used to say that before,
Speaker 3: but it does now. As I say, it is important
Speaker 3: that we are aware of the impact on the victim.
Speaker 3: But there are lots of things in the sentencing that
Speaker 3: just way up right, aggravating factors, mitigating factors, whether the
Speaker 3: offender has had a background that perhaps they need to consider,
Speaker 3: need some different help, or some type of integration, rehabilitation,
Speaker 3: so all of those things are put into the mix.
Speaker 3: But it was incredibly odd that we weren't considering the
Speaker 3: impact on the victims.
Speaker 2: What was the consultation process, like were you happy with
Speaker 2: it and what role did you play in these changes?
Speaker 3: Well, I have been a very active and squeaky wheel
Speaker 3: shall we stay since thirteen years in this space. So
Speaker 3: while I have submitted and encouraged people to submit through
Speaker 3: this process, I think from memory the final reading was
Speaker 3: in March, so it was I had already I started
Speaker 3: in this role in February, so I had been outside
Speaker 3: of the tent so to speak. I wasn't officially advising
Speaker 3: the government at that point. By was unofficially, of course,
Speaker 3: lobbying the government and anybody who would listen. But there
Speaker 3: have been many brave survivors make submissions around sentencing amendment
Speaker 3: and actually name suppression and stalking. So the select Committee
Speaker 3: and the justice process, the democratic process really does work right.
Speaker 3: People are giving their opinions and the politicians and the
Speaker 3: policy brains writing the legislation are getting there.
Speaker 2: This is going to sound like a strange question to
Speaker 2: some people, but is this in a way a win
Speaker 2: win for offenders as well, because we've heard that rehabilitation
Speaker 2: and short sentences do not go together.
Speaker 3: Look, I think it is a win win and that
Speaker 3: there are also some changes in that were cross party well,
Speaker 3: cross party supporting in terms some aggravating factors, Like you know,
Speaker 3: if there's an offender who is helping a young to
Speaker 3: and commitment to commit a crime, then that person needs
Speaker 3: real help, right, So there is an aggravating factor in
Speaker 3: sentencing for that person, so that we can make sure
Speaker 3: that that person does get the rehabilitation and the re
Speaker 3: integration that they need rather than perhaps not being considered.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I think, I mean, I don't think that
Speaker 3: is a strange question at all. You know, the system
Speaker 3: as we know, it's not effective for many of the parties,
Speaker 3: not just the victims.
Speaker 2: Yeah, when you say cross party support as well, are
Speaker 2: you confident that these changes won't just be undone by
Speaker 2: an election.
Speaker 3: No, I'm not confident of that. We haven't heard that
Speaker 3: that is going to help, But I would you know,
Speaker 3: when we read the statements of all the impact statements
Speaker 3: right before any of these things get considered in passed,
Speaker 3: it's really interesting to me that it's all about the
Speaker 3: number of offenders that we're going to imprison, but we
Speaker 3: don't consider the impact on the victims. We don't say
Speaker 3: this will increase the number of victims by thirteen hundred
Speaker 3: who are heard now, who are seeing, who are protected?
Speaker 3: So my role is to advise the government on things
Speaker 3: just like that, Hey, the victims need this because of X,
Speaker 3: Y and Z, So it doesn't actually matter who is
Speaker 3: you know, I'm the advisor to the government that I
Speaker 3: will be absolutely advising that this needs to stay and
Speaker 3: we need to help both offenders. Certainly the victims.
Speaker 2: Are these changes going to bring back some sort of
Speaker 2: confidence in our judicial system or is it going to
Speaker 2: be more of a slow boil.
Speaker 3: Well, it depends, I guess of how they are felt
Speaker 3: and seen. There certainly has been a bit of a
Speaker 3: concern from victims where in cases where I have been
Speaker 3: in the courtroom helping the victims through the system and
Speaker 3: there might be something like a seventy percent discount given
Speaker 3: to some of the offenders with just the most terrible,
Speaker 3: terrible case, and what happens there is. Yes, it's an
Speaker 3: absolutely devastating outcomes for the victims and their families, but
Speaker 3: it is also absolutely undermining the trust and confidence that
Speaker 3: people have in the justice system, not only the victims
Speaker 3: in their community, but the ripple is obviously has a
Speaker 3: much wider effect than that. So yes, I think if
Speaker 3: you look at the caps on sentencing discounts. You look
Speaker 3: at Now we can have cumulative sentences if you do
Speaker 3: choose to offend while you're on bail or parole, we've
Speaker 3: got a discount scale. Now there's an amendment around, you know,
Speaker 3: listening to victims as well as stalking, as well as
Speaker 3: us not cross examining children under the age of twelve
Speaker 3: about consent, as well as name suppression. You now start
Speaker 3: to feel as a victim and your community that victims
Speaker 3: are being listened to.
Speaker 2: Again, what do you know about the reaction to this
Speaker 2: legislation from judges Because a lot of the time people
Speaker 2: like to lay blame it judges, But I know a
Speaker 2: couple of judges personally, and they are also hostage to precedent.
Speaker 2: They say, well, I have to do that because they'll
Speaker 2: just appeal and then such and such a What do
Speaker 2: you know about the way it's going to be received
Speaker 2: by judges?
Speaker 3: That's right. I mean, the judges can only do what
Speaker 3: the judges can do within the legislative framework and within
Speaker 3: that precedent case law. So you know, and this is
Speaker 3: why I've been very vocal when things like that seventy
Speaker 3: three percent discount case went through because now we set
Speaker 3: a precedent. And now even if that judge in the
Speaker 3: next case doesn't want to do that, you're right, If
Speaker 3: they don't act in that way, then there will be
Speaker 3: an appeal. And an appeal is good for anyone. It
Speaker 3: clogs the court and again it delays and revictimizes the victim.
Speaker 3: So you know, judges cannot have only been able to
Speaker 3: work in a framework that you know they have been
Speaker 3: served right, This and other legislation sends a message to
Speaker 3: be able to say, hey, you've now got these tools
Speaker 3: and you.
Speaker 2: Toolkit right, So what what's the next challenge for the
Speaker 2: justice system? What are you working on?
Speaker 3: Oh, I've got lots of things. In fact, when i
Speaker 3: met with the minister last week you said, oh dear,
Speaker 3: you've got a big, long list, and you still have
Speaker 3: and it's not going to stop.
Speaker 2: Well, what do you think, what's what is top of
Speaker 2: the list, What's something that stands out you think?
Speaker 3: Look, the top of the list for me is how
Speaker 3: we at the moment treat sexual violence and family violence
Speaker 3: within a jury and within the kind of consent laws
Speaker 3: that we have. I'm very hot on that. I think
Speaker 3: we can do that a lot better. Other jurisdictions do
Speaker 3: it much differently. To us, it is terrifying to give
Speaker 3: evidence in a room full of a jury of strangers
Speaker 3: about the sexual violence that happens to you. Can we
Speaker 3: do that in a smarter, safer way that still ensures yes,
Speaker 3: you're innocent, will proven guilty, but that there are experts
Speaker 3: making decisions rather than twelve jury members who may or
Speaker 3: may not know anything about miss or courses control.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you still have the role that jury.
Speaker 2: I mean I've extended this interview a little bit more
Speaker 2: than I should on the question side of things, but
Speaker 2: you still have. With the way we engage juries and
Speaker 2: the quality of jury service, I mean, they do an
Speaker 2: important job. And again, the people I speak to in
Speaker 2: the system have got various mixed views on the on
Speaker 2: how well juries work.
Speaker 3: Look, I think juries are a really important part of
Speaker 3: the process for much of the crime. But I do
Speaker 3: believe that sexual violence and family violence is a specialist area.
Speaker 3: And like the people that you're speaking to, you know,
Speaker 3: I've spent many a day in courtrooms watching juries, and
Speaker 3: you know, juries came from being a jury of our peers.
Speaker 3: You know, they were part of our kapu or our clan.
Speaker 3: They knew me, they knew you, and they were able
Speaker 3: to make kind of expert decisions because there was some
Speaker 3: knowledge there as well as the evidence. That's not what
Speaker 3: we get now. You know, our juries are certainly not
Speaker 3: a jury of our peers, so it is it's something
Speaker 3: that's worth looking at for sure.
Speaker 2: Hey, Ruth, well, thanks for all the work you're doing
Speaker 2: and thanks for your time this stuff and really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thanks to all the best that is Ruth Money. She's
Speaker 2: Chief victim's Advisor to the government, so that we were
Speaker 2: happy to do a bit of talkback on this. By
Speaker 2: the way, Oh eight one hundred and eighty ten eighty
Speaker 2: Not quite yet because we've got another interview to go.
Speaker 2: But are you happy with these new laws kicking in
Speaker 2: which restrict the amount of discount the judges can give.
Speaker 2: They're going to toughen sentences for youth and reoffenders. I
Speaker 2: think actually one of the big ones is the potential
Speaker 2: for cumulative sentences where if you commit an offense while
Speaker 2: you're on bail, it just doesn't get thrown in with
Speaker 2: all the others yet six months for eight months for this,
Speaker 2: six months for this, eight months for this, and in
Speaker 2: the end, it's just eight months for everything. The cumulative
Speaker 2: sentence thing always did baffle me a bit as to
Speaker 2: why we never saw it really applied. So your response
Speaker 2: to that interview with Ruth Money. Will be doing some
Speaker 2: talkback after roughly around just after three point thirty, but
Speaker 2: right right now, will be taking a quick moment. It's
Speaker 2: twenty what is it, twenty one past past three, and
Speaker 2: we'll be back having a chat with about tax policy.
Speaker 2: We've got a tax policy leader from PwC. You'll be
Speaker 2: with us in just a moment. This is News Talk
Speaker 2: seed B O eight hundred and eighteen eighty will be
Speaker 2: the number later on twenty one past three.
Speaker 1: For more from the Weekend collective, listen live to News
Speaker 1: Talk SEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
Speaker 1: on iHeartRadio.