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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 377 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

that were made in October were not more serious than just threats, but they led to a spate of legislation being introduced both federally and in the states.

I think it is important to sent a message that if people are apprehended for them subsequently they can be charged with these substantive offences. That is something that the community would want. That is something that is happening federally and it is certainly something that we said in government we would do. I am a little disappointed with the government for not proceeding down that line and just allowing the act to commence on its day of notification.

I can well recall from my days as a prosecutor and as a defence counsel that quite often a witness would come forward some time after a serious offence had been committed with fresh information which will led to the arrest and charging of an individual. Indeed, sometimes crimes are solved by persons in the process of being interviewed for other crimes actually confessing to having committed crimes for which the trail has gone cold. That occurs quite regularly. If you talk to senior police and criminal lawyers about it, they will tell you that that does occur from time to time. That, I think, is a significant factor in terms of ensuring that the act commences basically when the previous government said that it should, 17 October. Perhaps the current government has overlooked that.

It is important to ensure that the maximum penalties under the bill are significant. Under the government's bill, the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years, which is exactly what we said it would be and exactly what the federal government is imposing in its bill. I assume that that is occurring in the states. It is also important for the courts to have the option of imposing other penalties and punishment provisions. They should have a range of tools available to them.

In matters like this where there is considerable dislocation to the community and considerable expense to the various organs of government that have to investigate them, having the ability to impose a significant fine is very important. I note that the government's legislation brings itself within a provision further on in the Crimes Act. I forget the number of the section, but there is a provision which provides for a maximum fine of, I think, $20,000 for an individual or $100,000 for a corporation for this offence.

When I indicated that we would be introducing such legislation, the then government indicated that it would not impose a maximum fine of $100,000 for an individual. I will speak more about that later, but I think that it is entirely appropriate in terms of serious offences like this one to give the courts a range of options to ensure that the punishment does fit the crime as the facts are different in each case. Again, I think that that is probably more preferable than what the government has put here. But that is for discussion in the detail stage. The opposition supports the government's bill in principle. We think it is important to enact it as soon as possible, given the announcements that were made in October, and we will be supporting this bill in principle.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wood ) adjourned to the next sitting.

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