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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 469 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

This motion has good intent - to send a better, stronger message to people in other parts of Australia that what they are doing in terms of human rights is totally unacceptable. It is sending a message to the Carnell Government that its statement to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee is just not good enough and does not reflect our views.

I go back to my earlier comments in relation to the separation of powers and the attempts by political bodies to inflict their will on the judiciary. It is, and has been proven over and over again to be, a dangerous step. Recent events in relation to these laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia are something that we ought to be embarrassed about. If we are not embarrassed about it, then we are insensitive and uncaring about the beneficial aspects of the separation of powers and the obligations of the judiciary in our political system. It is to the peril of society generally if we undermine them.

I will be supporting this motion. This motion does not interfere in states rights; it sends a message to the people who oppose these laws in other States that they have supporters elsewhere in Australia. I think that is important. There are those among us who will stand fast against these sorts of laws and the effect they have on marginalised people in our community - people whom our social structure has failed. This motion also sends a message to the conservative Carnell Government that what they have done in respect of this matter is just not good enough, and more needs to be done.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (4.50): During question time today, the issue of hypocrisy was discussed. It seems to me that there is an element of hypocrisy in a number of people accusing the Government of putting in an inadequate submission when they did not even bother to put in a submission themselves. Having said that, I think the submission of the Government concentrated on the independence of the Australian Capital Territory. For a Senate committee's consideration, that was a perfectly appropriate and rational thing to do. It was reasonable for Ms Tucker to then make a range of points which - surprise, surprise - I agree with about mandatory sentencing having a series of problems.

I am going to oppose the motion - not because I disagree with Ms Tucker's view on mandatory sentencing but because I believe the Government was entirely within its rights to put in a submission on the issue of the States and Territories. In focusing on the independence of the Territories and the view that they should not be controlled by the Commonwealth, the submission deliberately avoided commenting on mandatory sentencing itself. The Government ought not be condemned for not commenting on a particular issue like that.

My view on mandatory sentencing is well known. I believe I was the first person to speak in this chamber on the issue of mandatory sentencing. Indeed, on quite a number of occasions I have said that there is a basic civil liberty involved. There is no place in the administration of justice for mandatory minimum sentencing. As members would know, I have presented that view to the chamber on a number of occasions, and my view has not changed.

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