Page 3436 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are some amendments which have been circulated from the government side and which again, to the first observer, may look as though it is all rather complex. I understand that members who have expressed an interest in this legislation have availed themselves of the opportunity of the briefing from my officers that we routinely make available in relation to complex legislation. The Government's amendments are, in fact, quite straightforward. One, in effect, picks up a reference to the wrong section of the Act. The other amendments essentially relate to making it clear how cumulative and concurrent sentences will operate when a person is sentenced on separate days for a series of offences. Also, we pick up a point which Ms Szuty referred to. There had been some quite strong views in the community that we do need to have reference to cultural background in the Act; not to say that people are to be treated differently before the law because of their cultural background, but because a person's cultural background is a factor which needs to be taken into account in arriving at what is the goal of the legislation, and that is a just sentence.
Mr Humphries has circulated some amendments which came out of some community views in relation to this legislation. The Government will be supporting Mr Humphries's amendment to proposed section 450 which expands on the ability to get reasons, very much for the reasons Mr Humphries set out in his remarks, and will be agreeing to the circulated amendment to proposed new paragraph 455(1)(g). We will not be supporting the circulated amendment to proposed new subsection 454(3). The Government would argue that it would be impractical to have that. It is not a problem, although Mr Humphries may see it is as one. I think it is a question that is fairly fine and will not substantially alter the Bill one way or the other. We can address separate remarks to that for the benefit of independent members who may wish to make up their mind on these things.
The issue of perhaps greater substance is Mr Humphries's proposal to omit proposed new paragraph 429B(e), the reference to prevalence of an offence. Since Mr Humphries addressed that in his in-principle remarks, I might do the same in order to give independent members, who may be wishing to make up their mind, a bit more time to think about it before we get into the complex procedures of the detail stage. At the outset I have to say that it is a fairly fine point in that the Australian Law Reform Commission, in its major report on sentencing, from which this Bill draws heavily, acknowledged that it was a difficult issue. In fact, it was one of the few points on which the commission had divided opinion in its report. The majority view of the commission was that prevalence ought not be taken into account, but general deterrence could be.
The argument, in effect, is that it is appropriate to take into account general deterrence; but prevalence can work an injustice in that if a person commits an offence today the process of the criminal law always takes some time and by the time that person presents before court there may have been a media furore about the prevalence of a particular offence. That media furore may be correct or incorrect. We had an example in the ACT about 12 months ago when we had a high level of agitation about armed robberies. In fact, there had been a slight reduction in armed robberies from one year to the other. Media excitement about an offence may be misleading. Of more concern is the fact that a person who commits the offence today, if prevalence of the offence is taken into account, may receive a greater sentence because of events which occur after they commit the offence. They are not, in a sense, being held responsible for their activities, but could be held responsible, could get a greater sentence, because of the activities of others.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .