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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2767 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

committee. Obviously, we will not have a chance to bring any of that in during this Assembly.

Another group is looking at criminal law is very representative. It comprises four senior people. Tim Keady chairs it. Chris Staniforth of Legal Aid is a member, as are Richard Refshauge and Chief Police Officer John Murray. That group is looking at some longer term issues in relation to the criminal law.

This legislation was put on the table, and it was sent out to all groups who had an interest in it. It was developed by a specific committee. I commend the committee of officers from the department, the AFP, the AFPA and the DPP for their work. I suppose that if we extended membership to every single group we would probably be here three or four years down the track and no-one would necessarily agree. I think it is important for legislation like this to be put down. Groups have made comments on it. I am a little bit disappointed in some of them. I do not think they have been terribly well thought out, and I think in some respects they are quite wrong.

I am a little concerned about the response from the Law Society. When I opened Law Week, I was standing on the periphery of a very interesting conversation between a couple executive members of that society and practitioners. They were saying, "This is a reflection of what the community wants, and we need to be responsive to that. Let us not just go off on a tangent on it. Let us look at what the community wants." That was a very telling comment. I do not know that some of the concerns the Law Society raised really reflect that. The bill is about our duty as legislators to the community. We have to get the balance right. It is pointless having our police go about their job with one hand tied behind their backs because of legislative restrictions.

A lot of this legislation deals with laws that apply over the border. Kerrie Tucker mentioned that other states have similar legislation on valueless cheques. We had it up until 1985, and I am told by my officers that virtually every other state now has similar legislation to what we are proposing here. We used to have such provisions in the police offences ordinance. Maybe it is we who have gone too far the other way.

A lot of things happened in the 1980s. I do not know whether many people were around then, but I was. I was a prosecutor. With a lot of things that happened in the 1980s, we probably went too far. The rights of the criminal were highlighted far too much, and the rights of society perhaps went by the wayside a little too much. I think it is time we addressed the balance and got it right. This is not just about being overly pro-police or anything like that. It is about the rights of society-what is important for society, what is fair for society, what makes a fundamental civilised society work. If you go too afar the other way, you get it wrong.

The other night, at a Chinese prosecutors course, I was talking to some of the organisers. They are still at about 1840 England. I think they have got rid of the death penalty for traffic offences, but it is incredible what they still have it for. They have a long way to go. Hopefully, they will learn something here. That is an example of how completely off beam you can be. We have come a long way, but I think we need to recognise what the community expect.

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