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