June 28, 2025 • 12 mins
The Government is implementing new sentencing reforms to prevent soft punishments and place victims at the centre of the justice-system.
Will these changes bring back faith in our judicial system? What other work needs to be done
Tim Beveridge is joined by Ruth Money, Chief Victims Advisor to the Government...
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks
EDB Politics Central.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
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.
(00:37):
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
(00:58):
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.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
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?
Speaker 3 (01:20):
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,
(01:43):
we are absolutely hitting in a much better direction actually,
just on.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
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
(02:08):
how forgiving your victim is? How do we have consistency?
Do you think?
Speaker 3 (02:13):
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
(02:34):
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
(02:56):
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
(03:16):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
What was the consultation process, like were you happy with
it and what role did you play in these changes?
Speaker 3 (03:38):
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
(04:00):
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.
(04:25):
People are giving their opinions and the politicians and the
policy brains writing the legislation are getting there.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
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.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
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
(05:12):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Yeah, when you say cross party support as well, are
you confident that these changes won't just be undone by
an election.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
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
(06:04):
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
(06:26):
will be absolutely advising that this needs to stay and
we need to help both offenders. Certainly the victims.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
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.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
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
(07:05):
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
(07:28):
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
(07:51):
to feel as a victim and your community that victims
are being listened to.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
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
(08:16):
by judges?
Speaker 3 (08:18):
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
(08:40):
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
(09:03):
and you.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Toolkit right, So what what's the next challenge for the
justice system? What are you working on?
Speaker 3 (09:08):
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.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Well, what do you think, what's what is top of
the list, What's something that stands out you think?
Speaker 3 (09:21):
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
(09:46):
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.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
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.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
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
(10:43):
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
(11:03):
a jury of our peers, so it is it's something
that's worth looking at for sure.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
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.
(11:28):
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
(11:51):
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.
(12:11):
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.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
For more from the Weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk SEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks
EDB Politics Central.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
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.
(00:37):
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
(00:58):
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.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
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?
Speaker 3 (01:20):
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,
(01:43):
we are absolutely hitting in a much better direction actually,
just on.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
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
(02:08):
how forgiving your victim is? How do we have consistency?
Do you think?
Speaker 3 (02:13):
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
(02:34):
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
(02:56):
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
(03:16):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
What was the consultation process, like were you happy with
it and what role did you play in these changes?
Speaker 3 (03:38):
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
(04:00):
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.
(04:25):
People are giving their opinions and the politicians and the
policy brains writing the legislation are getting there.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
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.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
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
(05:12):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Yeah, when you say cross party support as well, are
you confident that these changes won't just be undone by
an election.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
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
(06:04):
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
(06:26):
will be absolutely advising that this needs to stay and
we need to help both offenders. Certainly the victims.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
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.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
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
(07:05):
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
(07:28):
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
(07:51):
to feel as a victim and your community that victims
are being listened to.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
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
(08:16):
by judges?
Speaker 3 (08:18):
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
(08:40):
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
(09:03):
and you.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Toolkit right, So what what's the next challenge for the
justice system? What are you working on?
Speaker 3 (09:08):
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.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Well, what do you think, what's what is top of
the list, What's something that stands out you think?
Speaker 3 (09:21):
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
(09:46):
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.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
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.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
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
(10:43):
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
(11:03):
a jury of our peers, so it is it's something
that's worth looking at for sure.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
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.
(11:28):
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
(11:51):
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.
(12:11):
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.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
For more from the Weekend collective, listen live to News
Talk SEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com