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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2764 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

People who do not take that position on reform of drug law often quote Sweden, which spends the most of OECD countries on services. There is a very interesting relationship between substance abuse and poor morale in a society and how well people are supported in fundamental things such as housing, employment generation, family services and so on. These are causes which need a thoughtful long-term approach. Of course, there is an election coming up, and such an approach does not make for easy answers, for snappy media or for simple messages.

A comprehensive and thoughtful approach to crime reduction does not deliver immediate political rewards to its proponents. Politics in the ACT revolves around individuals, and a populist approach built on the individualisation of success and failure, irrespective of the long-term consequences, will attract media interest and support from some voters.

I will work briefly through a number of the other amendments to crimes acts in this bill which reflect that same simplistic approach. For example, neither the police nor the department were able to provide us with evidence that the requirement to gain an order from a magistrate before taking identifying material from a young person has interfered in the work of the police. The police keep no record of the exercise of move-on powers and could offer no evidence for the need to extend those powers.

Even on the issue of home invasions, the only figures we were offered related to instances of aggravated burglary. The case is made that a substantial penalty ought to be imposed on people who commit common assault in your home or threaten to commit an assault, whether or not they steal anything. Even in answer to a question on notice the Attorney-General was unable to give the number of such instances that the law failed to cover. It appears to be another instance of the rhetoric outpacing the information.

The fact that a committee of police and prosecutors see an advantage in these changes is not in itself sufficient argument for me, nor should it be sufficient argument for any member of the Legislative Assembly.

The issue of shifting the burden of proof onto someone passing valueless cheques has raised considerable disquiet in the welfare and legal communities. The argument has been put to me that fraud of this nature is growing. In fact, the police advised us that last year, on average, there were three reports of valueless cheques each week and that there were no successful prosecutions in relation to those reports under existing provisions of the Crimes Act. However, the Law Society, in a submission to the Attorney-General, maintain that they are not aware of ongoing difficulties for the prosecution of such offences.

My concern here is the possible consequences of this presumption of guilt on the part of people who are irregular rather than fraudulent in the management of their finances. In his presentation speech, the Attorney-General showed how easily a defendant charged with this offence could show that they had checked their balance before writing a cheque or reasonably expected a salary payment to be deposited. The point is that the very people unfairly charged under this law would be most unlikely to have checked the balance or be expecting a salary deposit.

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