Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 432 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
This is an issue on which there's divided counsel here. It's not surprising.
The Northern Territory's Opposition Leader, Ms Clare Martin, said that she had to defend the Territory's right to determine its own fate. She said:
That law has to be removed in the Northern Territory, and that's the point that I've argued very strongly with my Labor colleagues this morning.
Western Australia's Opposition Leader, Dr Geoff Gallop, also said he had argued strenuously that it was not appropriate for the Commonwealth to intervene against his State's laws. (Extension of time granted) Incidentally, I understand - Mr Stanhope can correct me if I am wrong about this - that Dr Gallop not only argues for the right of Western Australia to pass such laws but has argued in favour of the laws themselves. The views of Australians are not united on these sorts of issues.
Mr Bracks, the Victorian Premier, had a very ambivalent set of comments to make. Mr Carr declined to respond directly when asked whether the Commonwealth should intervene in the case of juvenile offenders. The most surprising view, however, came from Mr Rann, the Opposition Leader in South Australia. I quote from this report again:
The South Australian Opposition leader, Mr Mike Rann, confirmed that he had supported "three strikes and you're in" legislation at the last election, but on the basis that it would apply to adults, not juveniles.
We have here a very clear indication that there is strong division, even within the ranks of the Australian Labor Party, about whether intervention is appropriate in these circumstances. It is right for people to be concerned about intervention in these cases. You cannot cross the line and expect that magically the line will reappear next time you want somebody else not to cross it. It does not happen that way. The more times you cross the line, the more the line disappears. That is the danger we have in this situation.
Ms Tucker asked why she was not consulted about the submission made by the ACT Government. The reason is that she is not a member of the ACT Government. If she joins the ACT Government, she will have the right - - -
Ms Tucker: I did not ask why. I said that you could have consulted.
MR HUMPHRIES: She made the point that we could have consulted about it. Ms Tucker had the right, and I assume exercised that right, to make a submission of her own to the inquiry. I assume she did make such a submission to the inquiry. The ACT Government put its view about the issues I have raised just now.
I have to say that there are a variety of views within the Government's ranks about the desirability of mandatory sentencing. Many people around the community generally would share concerns about mandatory sentencing of the kind that have been expressed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .