Page 3440 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is impossible not to say that they are doing both. I think, therefore, that to leave both these provisions in - paragraph (i) of 429A(1) and paragraph (e) of 429B - is going to generate confusion.
Mr Connolly made a comment about perceived crime waves and made a point about armed robbery, saying that there was a belief that it had gone up and, fortunately, there had been a slight decrease. If he has in mind the particular case that I do - I think it was at this time a year ago - he was certainly able to come into this place and announce that there had been a slight decrease in armed robbery, but subsequently he had to come back into the Assembly and announce that he had made a mistake in advising the Assembly that that was the case. In fact, using the same calculation, there had been an increase in armed robbery. So sometimes the perception can be very close to reality. Perhaps he has another occasion in mind, but that is the one that springs to my mind.
Madam Speaker, I press this amendment. I suggest that although we cannot allow courts to want to make an example of an individual - that is certainly not the intention of the amendment, and it should not be the policy of the courts - they ought to be able to consider the question of the level of crime in the community in determining what level of penalty is appropriate. I think it is probably fanciful to imagine that we could divorce this question from the minds of our judiciary. It is impossible to expect members of our judiciary not to take those matters into account, and they therefore should have that reflected in the legislation that governs the sentencing policy.
MS SZUTY (3.54): Madam Speaker, I have had the benefit of receiving a copy of the submission that the Law Society wrote to the Attorney-General on this Bill. I noted their comments about this clause. There was considerable controversy about it and the committee did not come to a united view. I further note that in the Attorney-General's response to the Law Society he did background the work that the Australian Law Reform Commission has done in this area. I have to agree with that view that has been put forward and I will not be supporting Mr Humphries's amendment on this occasion.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.54): Madam Speaker, the Government's position essentially was outlined. We are supporting the ALRC position, although it is a fine point. If a court is confused it obviously will look at this debate, and what we are saying refers them to the Law Reform Commission report. That report says that general deterrence is something you should be looking at, but not prevalence, in order to avoid the injustice of the person being made an example of. Mr Humphries himself indicated that it would be unfair if a particular person became a scapegoat for a real or perceived increase in the prevalence of a particular type of offence.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .