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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 571 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

In the unlikely event that any of those tests were satisfied and the prosecution were ever brought, a court would have to be satisfied that the elements of the offence had been made out. It is fanciful to suggest that these provisions could possibly be used in some way to silence protestors or to circumvent political activism. I do not see how that could seriously be suggested.

I think the point needs to be made and reiterated that the government has modelled its proposed new provisions on the existing product contamination offences in the Crimes Act 1900, which are in place in every other Australian jurisdiction. These offences are consistent with product contamination laws in every jurisdiction in Australia, and they were developed by the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee and endorsed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The penalties that are applied in this legislation were taken from the standard product contamination provisions which have been agreed by every jurisdiction in Australia and endorsed by every attorney-general from around Australia. Yet the suggestion here is that they are in some way onerous or draconian.

They are nothing but the level of offence that has been developed around Australia. They are completely consistent with penalties that have been developed by the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee; they are consistent with the penalties that are contained within the Crimes Act; they are consistent with the views of the model criminal code officers; and they are consistent with the views of every jurisdiction in Australia in relation to current regimes. They are entirely consistent-that is, at least the government's proposals. The opposition's proposed penalties are far too great, and I do not support them.

We are proposing that the penalty for product contamination offences, including offences relating to threats of contamination, is 10 years imprisonment, which reflects the seriousness of acts that are intended to cause widespread alarm and public disruption.

We have in the law around Australia today penalties for people who, as a prank or hoax, create the same circumstances by ringing up Woolworths and saying, "Guess what, I've stuck some arsenic in the baby powder." That is often used as a hoax. We all know that; it happens all the time. The penalty for ringing up Woolworths and saying, "Guess what, I've stuck some arsenic in the baby food" is 10 years imprisonment or a $20,000 fine.

If that same person rings up the Chief Minister's Department and says, "Guess what, I have scattered some anthrax powder around the place," the penalty is 12 months imprisonment, a $2,000 fine or both. How do you justify that? And if we accept in this place that it is reasonable to impose a penalty of 10 years imprisonment or a $20,000 fine for ringing up Woolies and saying, "I've stuck some arsenic in the baby food," why isn't it reasonable to impose the same penalty if I ring up and say, "I have scattered some anthrax throughout your department"?

That is the standard that has been accepted around Australia; it is a standard that has been accepted in this parliament. Now the suggestion has been made that it is somehow draconian. I do not accept that that is the case at all. The proposed maximum sentences that the government is suggesting are consistent with practice around Australia, and I think they are quite reasonable. This is not some fly-by-night attempt by the

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