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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2938 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

I just think that is unfair. There is no comparison. Drunk or sober, one is entitled to the protection of the law in a fair and equitable way, and that is what this issue is about. It is really about being fair and equitable.

If a person goes into a lawful licensed premises and gets a belting when they are sober, they should be entitled to the protection of the law, whatever it is. Similarly, if they happen to be in a licensed and lawful premises and happen to be sozzled, as they are invited to be, and get a belting they are entitled to the same sort of protection as somebody who is sober. So there is no real-

Mr Humphries: Unless their intoxication contributed to the incident, which it often does.

MR BERRY: Merely being intoxicated does not contribute to being assaulted.

Mr Humphries: But it often does.

MR BERRY: But the point that you tried to make was that there was some relationship between that and the drunk's defence, which has been removed from the criminal law. I do not think that that is a line that you can draw; and I just think it is an unfair one. This is an issue about fairness and equity.

I think the people who might benefit most are probably being treated quite unfairly as well. I think police might feel a little embarrassed about being left as standout beneficiaries as a result of this law because they would know that they are being treated quite differently to other people in the community. I have made that point in previous debates and I need not go over it. It is unfortunate that we end up with laws that have the effect of making them stand out in this way. Because of their duties they have a difficult enough job in respect of their image anyway and I think for them to be treated preferentially just makes it a little bit more difficult for them.

They might be very happy about being in a position to receive compensation pursuant to the law at some time after a criminal offence, but I do not think being placed in a privileged position is very helpful and it certainly does not present them as being part of the community and on an equal footing with anybody else. That is the second of the two points that I wanted to make. The first was the issue of the drunk's defence and what people do when they happen to be inebriated. As I said, I do not think this is a fair argument in this debate.

MR OSBORNE (4.05): Mr Speaker, I have to disagree with Mr Kaine on one issue, and that is I think this whole debate is about cost. I think what this debate is about-and this is the issue that we have to grapple with-is how best to spend money when dealing with victims of crime. I also think it is about how we as a parliament help victims recover from a crime.

I have to say that I have found this to be a very difficult issue. On the one hand there are people who seem to think that a cash payout is the best way to effect closure for the victims of crime. But there are others who seems to think that the money would be better spent helping people get their lives back on track by way of counselling, rehabilitation, et cetera. I have to admit that I do not have a firm view one way or the other.

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