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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 376 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Some of the hoaxes here were traumatic but less problematic than others in terms of the investigation of them, but I do recall hearing in October of things such as buildings at the CIT being evacuated because of a hoax, with all the disruption, fear and angst that that caused to students, staff and other workers there, not to mention the inconvenience and cost involved to the emergency services which had to go and attend to that.

There were about 10 incidents which turned out to be hoaxes. It took the police a number of days to investigate them. As yet, I understand, no-one has been caught, but that does not necessarily mean that that will not occur. That is something I will come to in the detail stage in speaking to one of the opposition's amendments.

On 16 October 2001, the federal attorney indicated that the federal government would be introducing legislation to cover these types of situations. We do not have anything similar in the territory. Indeed, that is the case for most states and territories. The federal government is now in the process of introducing legislation. Its legislation will be retrospective, as the federal attorney promised, running from 16 October.

On 17 October I, as the then Attorney, and my colleagues Mr Humphries and Mr Smyth indicated that the ACT would be following suit and would also introduce legislation to counter this problem. There are some provisions in relation to the contamination of food which are similar, but certainly would not cover this type of situation. Clearly, it was important that some steps be taken. I was pleased to see the then opposition indicating that they would support those measures and would do something if they got into government. Whilst the bill they have introduced is by no means perfect, it certainly does substantially address the problem.

Having had a chance to look through the bill, hold discussions with departmental officers and consider the DPP advice, it would seem to me that proposed sections 104A, 104B and 104C would tend to do the job and provide a certain degree of flexibility. Some questions were raised about that in the scrutiny report. No doubt the government will address them, hopefully by Thursday. It was put to me by the departmental officers that there is significant benefit in having such a flexible approach as it enables things that cannot be foreseen to be covered. In framing legislation, especially criminal legislation, it is almost impossible to pick up every conceivable circumstance, so I can appreciate that there is some benefit in having it there. I think the advice from the Attorney-General's Department and the DPP on that is sound.

I am pleased to see the territorial nexus for offences, proposed section 140D, which is exactly what we have put in our bill. The bill I have on the table is more specific than this bill. I intend to leave it there for the time being and seek to amend the government's bill, but the four sections proposed-140A, 140B, 140C and 140D-will do the job. Again, I thank the people who assisted me in looking at that.

I will flag now a number of issues on which I will speak at greater length in the detail stage. The first is about when the bill should commence. Clause 2 of the government's bill states that the act will commence on its day of notification. I note the government's reasons for that. I do not think the police have apprehended anyone. Given other pressing needs, they may not be actively investigating this matter. Thankfully, the copycat threats

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