Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1964 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: No, Mr Speaker; I can be asked to indicate the Government's views about the concerns raised by the Chief Justice. It does not ask for a legal opinion, it does not ask for - - -

Mr Hird: I am asking about concerns.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, it sounds like a legal opinion to me. If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck.

MR SPEAKER: No, it is not a legal opinion. I will judge that, and Mr Humphries is quite capable of answering. Mr Humphries, continue. Be aware of the pitfalls that we must avoid.

Mr Berry: No; Mr Speaker, with respect, your interpretation of the standing orders is incorrect. It is not whether Mr Humphries gives a legal opinion; it is whether the member is entitled to ask for a legal opinion.

MR SPEAKER: Questions shall not ask Ministers for a legal opinion.

Mr Berry: I would like you to give me an interpretation of whether you thought - - -

MR SPEAKER: I do not believe that Mr Hird has asked for a legal opinion; but I do caution Mr Humphries about giving one or, for that matter, reflecting on the judiciary.

Mr Berry: I would not take any notice of it anyway, Harold. It will probably be a bit, you know - - -

MR SPEAKER: Can we get on with question time? We have a big day ahead - a very late night, in fact, if you are not careful. Proceed, Mr Humphries.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I am glad that everyone, including those opposite, is focused on this very important issue. The Chief Justice made comments, which appeared in the Canberra Times on the 16th of this month, on section 429 of the Crimes Act. He described that section as signposting a radical change in sentencing procedures. Members will recall that that amendment to the Crimes Act was passed by the Assembly in 1993 and it dealt with principles of sentencing. There was debate at that time about issues such as the prevalence of crimes being a factor to take into account when judges and magistrates are sentencing people for particular crimes when appearing before their courts.

The Chief Justice's comments were, in effect, that the way in which section 429 of the Act is worded elevates the issues of rehabilitation and reparation beyond other objectives in the Crimes Act, in the sentencing principles in the Crimes Act. Particularly, issues of deterrence and denunciation are, in a sense, demoted by the way in which that provision of the Crimes Act has been constructed. Mr Speaker, there has also been criticism of the fact that, in sentencing a convicted offender, the court is prevented from taking

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .