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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2051 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I believe that we should accept this simple amendment to overcome the problem of having a retrospective law, particularly as its implementation might impact financially on a person affected by it. It is no great matter; it is not a matter of great order. The principle of retrospectivity is, however, a significant matter. We should take the opportunity to avoid any suggestion of the retrospective application of a law such as this. We should avoid infringing the rules in respect of retrospectivity. I commend to the Assembly the opportunity to avoid the retrospective application of the Attorney's bill, to which the scrutiny of bills committee has drawn attention.

MS TUCKER (6.06): I will speak briefly to the amendment and to the bill in principle. I have some concerns about the bill generally. It is true that in this-

MR SPEAKER: You cannot talk in principle, Ms Tucker, but you can address the amendment.

MS TUCKER: I am addressing Mr Stanhope's amendment. I might seek leave to refer to some of the broader principles because I was not able to get down to the chamber to take part in the in-principle debate. I will address the issues that Mr Stanhope has raised.

Concern has been raised about the injustice that can result from retrospectivity. I think that relates to my more general concerns about this legislation. We have had vigorous debate in this place on the victims of crime issue and we have seen the recommendations of the committee ignored. The government has chosen to increase the victims of crime levy by 67 per cent.

I know that ACTCOSS has expressed some concerns about this bill being regressive. Fifty dollars may hurt the very poorest in our community, while it would mean almost nothing to people on reasonable incomes. We would look more kindly at this bill if it were part of a comprehensive scheme which treated all victims of crime fairly.

Mr Stanhope's amendment addresses one aspect of the unfairness of this piece of legislation. I will listen to Mr Humphries' response, but it is unlikely that I will be persuaded otherwise. So I will be supporting the amendment.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (6.08): I have to indicate that I have a problem with the amendment that Mr Stanhope has moved, and I will explain why. First of all, though, I want to address the issue of the legislation imposing some kind of double jeopardy. Classically, double jeopardy is defined as a person being punished more than once for the same criminal activity. A person who is tried for an offence, convicted, given some sort of penalty and then faces a second trial for the same offence is classically what double jeopardy is all about. That is what the law of Australia, and most other civilised countries, expressly forbids.

Having a double-barrel penalty in the nature of, say, a fine or a term of imprisonment plus an order for reparation cannot in any sense of the word be described as double jeopardy. I think it is extraordinary that the scrutiny of bills committee could suggest that such an arrangement could ever be double jeopardy. It simply is beyond any reasonable description of that term. I say most emphatically that that is the case.

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