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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3106 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

intent of the spent convictions legislation. I simply do not understand how it would fit within the scheme of that legislation. It seems to me potentially to allow anybody, whenever convicted of a serious offence, to be subjected to a forensic procedure.

For instance, somebody convicted of a serious offence, an indictable offence, 30 years ago, perhaps for possession of marijuana at university, may be susceptible because of the uncertainty in this clause. I am not sure whether that is the intention. Is it the intention of this legislature that a serious offender is, at any time in their life, to be subject to this potential?

I do not think the legislation is clear. I am not sure what it is saying. Nobody has told me whether it is intended that someone who committed a crime in 1960 or 1970 which is defined as a serious offence should be subject to the retrospective operation of this legislation. Does it apply just to people currently-

Ms Carnell: People currently.

MR STANHOPE: The Chief Minister assures me that it is about people who are currently-

Ms Carnell: We do not have enough money to go back.

MR STANHOPE: I would have thought also that it was inappropriate, Chief Minister. The Chief Minister assures me that it is only about people who are serving a term of imprisonment now or perhaps are on bail. Ms Carnell QC has assured us that that is what it does but, with great respect to Ms Carnell, I would like to put the matter beyond doubt and I commend this amendment.

MS TUCKER (12.04 am): We will be supporting this amendment, especially after what has happened this week. We are all very aware of how the Attorney-General enjoys a good retrospective application. Basically, this amendment is making it explicit in the legislation that sampling and testing procedures are to apply only to offenders still under sentence and offenders convicted after this bill has commenced, and not open the doors for a round up of known criminals. Mrs Carnell said that that would cost too much, but that is not a good enough reason to be assured that it will not occur. This is about creating a law.

Question put:

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