Senator HOGG (9:52 AM) —I rise to support this bill today. In doing so, I am not going to traverse the arguments that have been canvassed at length in this debate so far, but there are a couple of issues that I want to put on the record in this debate. I see the mandatory sentencing law as an unfortunate consequence of the society in which we live today. It is unfortunately the only response that our society can come up with to the problems that confront it. It impinges upon the dignity of the individual who finds themselves incarcerated as a result of mandatory sentencing. As one of my other colleagues has pointed out, some of this occurs because of the inactivity of the people in the judiciary, but that is not the issue that I am going to pursue today.

The fact of life is that there have been many cases cited here of young people who have been the subject of mandatory sentencing who will not find their dignity in any way enhanced by the fact that they have been jailed. The thing that is overlooked in this argument on many occasions is the fact that that is the response given to the crimes committed by some of these young people, yet the real response needs to be to look at what is causing these people to turn to crime in the first place. There are undoubtedly social causes, ethnic and racial causes, economic causes and education causes. Where these people have been denied aspects of their social, economic or educational development, one finds that they have been in a disadvantaged position. The answer to their problems is not to jail them. Jailing them mandatorily is not the answer. The answer is to try to redress their problems by addressing the causes of their problems. We need to remedy the causes.

There is no guarantee that mandatorily throwing people into prison will even start to address the causes of their problems. That is the fundamental problem in this. Mandatory sentencing in no way addresses the causes of the problems that many of these people face. Incarceration invariably reinforces and builds upon the negative behaviour that these people have developed over a period of time. There will be some, though, in our community and our society who will be uncontrollable repeat offenders, and I make no apology for those people. The courts have to deal with them appropriately. Their unfortunate antisocial behaviour must be addressed. Unfortunately for those people and fortunately for society, in many instances the only response to their behaviour is to incarcerate them in jail. However, not addressing the causes, particularly in the case of young people, is purely and simply going to prolong or exacerbate the problem. The `three strikes and you're out' concept is a complete abrogation of our responsibility as a society to our fellow human beings. We must give them a reasonable economic and social environment in which to realise their aspirations and in which they can grow as individuals and grow with dignity. I cannot reconcile myself in any way whatsoever to purely and simply condemning them because the circumstances have not been there for them to advantage themselves. Hence, the mandatory sentencing concept completely in isolation is an anathema to our society. It should not operate under any circumstances.

Incarceration is invariably a quick and somewhat costly response by society to crime. At the end of the day, it really proves nothing. It fails to show true compassion and understanding and to recognise that some of the people who are caught up in the mandatory sentencing laws are obviously crying out for help, crying out for assistance and crying out for the causes of the problems that affect them to be addressed. The dilemma that is faced by our society is really as much a moral issue as it is a law and order issue. This is the unfortunate aspect of the whole argument. Mandatory sentencing in the end becomes a law and order issue invariably around the time of elections. One is not advocating that there should not be law and order, but there should not be mandatory sentencing as a knee-jerk reaction when the causes that drive many people down the path of crime are not being addressed. My plea in this debate is simple. One should not simply look at mandatory sentencing as being a response to a set of circumstances in society. We also need to address actively the causes of crime, the things that drive people to crime out there in our society.

I am not denying that some people are habitual criminals. They have to be dealt with appropriately by the system. But I believe we are all entitled to our dignity. To not address the reasons why some cannot achieve that dignity is no way at all to conduct a civilised society. Justice not only has to be seen to be done but also has to be done. It will not be done so long as the only response that we have to crime is `three strikes and you're out'. Mandatory sentencing does not achieve that at all, in my opinion. Good conscience has a real part and a real role to play.

The second reading speech gets to some of the emotion that surrounds this issue. I am looking at point 4.7 of the second reading speech, which cites an article from the University of New South Wales Law Journal. The article is called `Mandatory sentencing laws and the symbolic politics of law and order' and is by Russell Hogg, and I draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that the author is not related to me. It is interesting to read in the second reading speech comments made by Mr Hogg in that article. The second reading speech states:

Then there is a quote from Mr Hogg's article:

That sums up this debate. It is about political rhetoric, it is about reacting at a time when elections are invariably on the horizon and it is about a perception in the public at large—which I believe is a mistaken perception—that raising the bar, as Mr Hogg describes it in his article, will resolve all the problems of society. In effect, the one thing that mandatory sentencing laws do not address is what is causing people to commit crimes in the first place. So long as we treat the symptom, we will never get to the cause of the problem. As Mr Hogg rightly says in his article, all this does is bring out `a new program of draconian penal measures'. Incarcerating people, particularly young people, is in no way redressing the problems that are out there in the larger society.

I believe the bill currently before the chamber is the appropriate way to deal with the mandatory sentencing laws that exist in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. I do not believe the issue needs to be glibly addressed as it has been in those jurisdictions. One has to look at the causes of the problems that are out there in our society. If one is serious in addressing the issue of the dignity of people in our community in good conscience, one has to look at the social, ethnic, racial, economic and educational considerations in our society. If those are overlooked, we will only continue to build more jails and incarcerate more people in a failed response by our society to address the issues which put those people in that position in the first place. I commend the bill to the Senate.