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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 568 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

sentencing and to "lock them up and throw away the key", this is a time for cool heads, rational debate and leadership.

This bill is a typical case of policy by press release and then months later trying to work out how to put it into a legislative framework. Prime Minister Howard was the first. He issued his press release on 16 October last year, and our local Liberal candidate, the then Attorney, released his response the following day. Today in the Assembly we are debating this government's proposed response.

All of these responses included increased sentencing and some included inventing a new offence. However, the perpetrators of these hoaxes could have been arrested and charged under the public mischief provisions already in the Crimes Act, and to my knowledge, no-one has been arrested in regard to these hoaxes.

As legislators we must not respond solely to the events of today but must think about how the laws will work in the future. Defining an offence as broadly as this bill does is reprehensible. I note the government is proposing to change the offence to take out the action of self-harm, but I remind members that the offence is the causing of public anxiety, not the act itself. The offence is the causation of public anxiety, which could occur through a threat or an act or by a reasonable person suspecting a threat or an act.

In the amended form, this definition would apply to the people causing a large-scale anthrax hoax but would equally apply to a union protest where members act in a threatening way, to the members of the Aboriginal tent embassy carrying spears or even to the tragic case of Shahraz Kayani. Mr Kayani had applied to bring his wife and three children, including one disabled daughter, to Australia from Pakistan. His application was initially rejected because his daughter's disability was deemed too great a burden on taxpayers.

Shahraz, to bring attention to his case, or perhaps "to cause public anxiety", set fire to himself at Parliament House in April of last year. Although he only performed self-harm, a reasonable person could have suspected that the act could have endangered someone else's life. Similarly, a person who threatens to jump from a building or overpass would be committing this offence. Do we think that 10 years in jail or a large monetary penalty would help this person?

Although the intention of this legislation is to stop the hoaxes that surrounded the events of September and October last year, we as legislators must remain calm and examine what the resulting law is. I believe that this legislation, broadly applied, could apply to many unintended situations. This is bad law, and should be seen as such.

If this law is passed today, it could be misused in the future by a less understanding Attorney, DPP or police service. It could be used to arrest union or student protestors or any person deemed to have caused public anxiety. There have been other suggested amendments to this law, such as making the law retrospective. This is only making a bad law worse.

The practical effect of retrospectivity is nil. This change will catch no more criminals; therefore, the only reason for having the legislation backdated is to have it enacted on the day Mr Stefaniak issued a press release on the subject. On October 17 the press release

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