Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3005 ..
MR MOORE (continuing):
Page 9, lines 14 to 17, clause 10, proposed subsection 35(1), omit Ãby force ofÃ, substitute Ãunderà (twice occurring).
Page 9, line 22, clause 10, proposed subsection 35(2), omit Ãby force ofÃ, substitute ÃunderÃ.
Page 10, line 3, clause 10, proposed section 36, omit Ãby force ofÃ, substitute ÃunderÃ.
Page 10, line 6, clause 10, proposed subsection 37(1), omit Ãby force ofÃ, substitute ÃunderÃ.
Page 10, line 15, clause 10, proposed subsection 37(2), omit Ãby force of, orÃ.
These amendments to this piece of legislation fall into two parts. First of all, I will speak about the five issues or the five overall topics that are dealt with by these two pieces of legislation that we have been debating cognately. The five issues, Mr Speaker, are access to the courts, the notion of automatic sentences, the notion of minimum sentences, non-convictions that ought not count as a repeat offence and, finally, the carrying of drivers licences.
Mr Speaker, I will talk about my amendment No. 1 and then my amendments Nos 2 to 17 briefly. Amendment No. 1 alters the clause of the Bill which inappropriately allows non-convictions under section 556A of the Crimes Act to be counted in defining an accused person as a repeat offender. This provision should be removed because it is offensive in principle to alter the status of a person's conviction history on a later occasion. I think that is where the problem lies. Removal of this provision does not conceal, however, the person's charge history which can easily be known to the magistrate and could be taken into account in deciding appropriate sentences.
With regard to the 16 other amendments, they deal with the notion of minimum sentences. At no stage in my amendments have we moved to reduce the increased penalties that the Government has suggested, although there was a temptation, I must say, to do that. We have not done that. Instead, Mr Speaker, it is a matter of ensuring that the magistrate or the judge has the ability to make a decision and has full discretion.
Mr Speaker, when I say "we" I do so quite deliberately because, although the amendments are in my name, there has been a great deal of input from Mr Whitecross and Ms Horodny in particular. We also had a round table meeting with Mr Kaine. In the end it was seen to be easier to put the amendments that we had agreed to in one group. Therefore, I want to make it very clear to the Assembly that this is a cooperative effort. It is the same with the next piece of legislation, the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 2). Those amendments also are part of a cooperative effort to ensure that we could get to a point of agreement about these pieces of legislation. There was a great deal of toing-and-froing about them and I think the outcome in the end is very positive.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .