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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (26 May) . . Page.. 550 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Again, if those people around this place seem to think that judges and magistrates are likely to take into account other, extraneous matters, then obviously they have a very low opinion of the judges and magistrates of this community. Mr Moore made reference in his remarks to what we are doing here. He obviously labours under a very serious misconception.

Mr Moore: Did you say "labours" under a misconception?

MR HUMPHRIES: Perhaps it is the wrong word to use. He said:

The Bill moves away from the ancient principle that each accused should be judged on their own merits in their own circumstances.

Mr Speaker, do you know how old this ancient principle is? It is less than five years old. It was placed in the statute books by the former Government in 1993.

Mr Moore: Rubbish!

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Moore, listen to me. The ancient principle is that prevalence of offences - - -

Mr Berry: It seems a long time ago to me. I have been listening to you since then. It makes it longer.

MR SPEAKER: It just feels that way, I am sure.

Members interjected.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, if I could be allowed to be heard - - -

MR SPEAKER: Yes. Order! Settle down.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, the ancient principle is that the prevalence of offences is taken into account. That is the ancient principle. That is the principle which has operated since white men set foot on this land over 200 years ago and which has continued to be the case in every Australian jurisdiction, except the ACT since 1993. So, the ancient principle is not that we do not take into account other people's circumstances. We do; and we always have, Mr Speaker. In the ACT, in the last five years, the trial of a different concept has not worked. That is not my view. I do not have exposure to these issues. I am not sitting in the courts every day. It is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the judges, magistrates, prosecutors and other lawyers who have come to the Government and said, "This law needs to change". The law needs to change, Mr Speaker, and that is why the Government is acting in this way.

I ask members to imagine what would have happened if the situation had been reversed. Let us suppose that the law said, as we propose that it should say, that the prevalence of offences should be taken into account; and let us suppose that the Chief Justice and two of his brother judges and the Director of Public Prosecutions had all come to the Government and petitioned the Government to change the law to not let the prevalence

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