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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 458 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

communities of Western Australia and the Northern Territory will need a fair amount of convincing to change their laws. That is a matter for people in those communities.

From my own experience in the courts - nine years as a prosecutor and six years as defence counsel - I can well understand community attitudes to sentencing. I can well understand the attitudes of a number of people whom Ms Tucker has pointed out - that is, academics and some members of the Bar Association. However, having dealt with a large number of victims during my criminal law career, I can well understand the very real concerns in the community in terms of how the criminal justice system in this country is administered.

We are dealing with humans; judges and magistrates are human. The fact is that there are many instances of great disparities in sentencing for very similar crimes within the court systems of Australia. There are many victims and many people associated with the system who have great disquiet over the way in which the courts handle some of these matters. There are certainly many victims who feel that criminals have a tendency to be treated like treasured citizens while they are treated like dirt.

A lot has been done in recent years, and I am pleased to have played a small part in a couple of cases in the Territory where the rights of victims were respected. Much has been done, but there is certainly community disquiet in this country and even in this town, as evidenced by letters to the editor about the operation of courts and consistency in sentencing.

Mention has been made of UN treaties. I have had a good look at Mrs Carnell's letter to Senator Jim McKiernan, the chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, and I think a lot of it makes sense. People in Australia have had a number of concerns about certain aspects of UN treaties. One of the biggest concerns is that until now States and Territories have had very little say in what the Commonwealth ratifies. I certainly agree with the comments made by Mr Humphries in terms of how many treaties have been ratified.

Despite some of the tragic aspects of this particular case and other cases in the Northern Territory, it is true to say that Australia generally has an excellent record in human rights and in respecting UN treaties. As a community we should respect UN treaties which have noble aims and which have aspects which are well deserving of support. However, I think it is hypocritical of a number of nations in the UN which have signed these treaties and which quite clearly do not respect the human rights issues involved to be critical of Australia, which is one of the most free and most respectful countries of human rights in the world.

The Soviet Union, China, a number of countries in Africa, the Middle East and South America have all signed certain UN treaties. In many instances those countries have appalling human rights records. That is something that needs to be acknowledged. The real issue here - and I think the Chief Minister has addressed this in her letter to the Senate inquiry - is when should the Commonwealth dictate to States. The Chief Minister has been very forceful in her answers to Ms Tucker's questions last week.

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