Brumby’s false claims confirm Labor is soft on crime

Premier John Brumby’s claim that repeat disqualified driving offenders are just ‘mum and dad motorists’ who should be allowed to walk free from court on suspended sentences is further confirmation that Labor is soft on crime.

“John Brumby’s hysterical reaction to public support for the Coalition’s plan to abolish suspended sentences and home detention show that he just doesn’t get it,” Shadow Attorney-General Robert Clark said today.

“Labor has not virtually eliminated suspended sentences for serious crimes, as claimed by John Brumby.

“John Brumby’s so-called ‘mum and dad motorists’ are in fact repeat offenders who have been convicted on at least two occasions for driving while disqualified or suspended,” Mr Clark said.

“Labor’s own Sentencing Advisory Council has found that four out of five of these repeat offenders are also convicted at the same time of additional offences such as theft, drink-driving, failing to appear on bail, drug possession or giving a false name and address.(Source: Sentencing Advisory Council, “Driving While Disqualified or Suspended: Report”, April 2009, p.32-33, para 2.79 and Table 1)

“These repeat offenders are the people John Brumby calls ‘mum and dad motorists’ and he wants to let them walk out of court with just a slap over the wrist.

“Numerous studies have found that offenders who drive while suspended or disqualified are far more likely to be involved in road accidents, injuries and deaths – for example, a 2003 UK study found their crash risk was 2.9 to 9 times greater while a 2000 US study found they were involved in four times more accidents. (Source: SAC report p.7; Saferoads 2008 presentation by SAC Chair Prof. Arie Freiberg at www.saferoadsconference.com/presentations/Freiberg_A_Wed_0900_BR3.pdf)

“John Brumby’s suggestion that these repeat offenders should be able to walk out of court without any real penalty sends an appalling message about road safety.

“If a court considers in a particular case that a repeat offender should not go to jail, then the court should say so openly and impose a genuine penalty such as an intensive correction order.

“John Brumby’s claim that Labor’s 2006 changes have virtually eliminated suspended sentences for serious crimes is also false.

“Labor included in its legislation an open-ended ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision which has allowed the courts to continue awarding suspended sentences for serious offences, and then rejected an amendment proposed by the Liberal Party and the Nationals to close this loophole.

“Figures for 2007-08 show that 653 offenders – or 30 per cent of all offenders sentenced in the Supreme Court and County Court – received a suspended sentence, including 30 convicted of armed robbery and 27 who intentionally caused serious injury.

“Sentencing Advisory Council chairman Professor Arie Freiberg has confirmed that these figures suggest the law is ‘not operating as Parliament intended’. (Source: Herald-Sun, 16 March 2009)

“To make matters worse, Labor’s 2006 changes don’t even apply to serious crimes such as aggravated burglary, recklessly causing serious injury or drug trafficking.

“It’s appalling that John Brumby is prepared to make false claims and undermine his own government’s road safety messages to try to defend his soft-on-crime approach and allow armed robbers, aggravated burglars and violent thugs to continue to walk free from court on suspended sentences,” Mr Clark said.