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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 578 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

When replying to what Ms Dundas said in her speech, the Chief Minister spoke about protestors, and I support his comments. I have been around a fair while and I have been involved in protests. I cannot recall many protests, even from the early 70s, where serious offences were laid against demonstrators. Offences usually involved damage to property, assaults and things like that.

Mr Wood: You were involved in the anti-Springboks tour?

MR STEFANIAK: Yes. I think the women against rape demonstrations in the 1980s were the last ones which resulted in some serious charges being laid and successful prosecutions, although they might have been rolled on appeal. I defy anyone to show me where charges have been laid and cases successfully prosecuted for serious matters in relation to any demonstrations here since that time.

The Chief Minister was quite right in talking about the sifting process these charges go through. To start with, the police have to lay them, and invariably they do not. Then you have the DPP, which has a statutory duty and a statutory right to say whether it will proceed to the prosecution. And then, of course, you have the courts, who have over probably a 30-year period shown themselves in my view to be absolutely fair and very tolerant in terms of these matters in the ACT. So I think the checks and balances are there.

Indeed, I would have to agree with what the Chief Minister said in his letter about it being almost impossible for anyone to construe this legislation being used wrongfully against a demonstrator. Even if a case were to get through the first two stages of the sifting process-if it passed the police and then passed the DPP, who are trained lawyers-it would be thrown out by a court. So I simply cannot see the need.

I suppose I have another concern. I would hope that these amendments do not have any adverse effect. I must admit that in the short time they have been available to me, I have not been able to check that. But I think there might be some potential danger. I think it is important to keep legislation simple, as simple as possible, for the benefit of statutory interpretation by the courts. Given that change is unnecessary, I think by accepting these amendments we might be perhaps unwittingly opening up some other unforeseen problem.

I think the Chief Minister got it right to start with but I do not think we need the amendments. Whilst I hope he is correct in saying they are neither here nor there, that they are not going to matter one way or the other, on balance we do not see the need for them .

I should point out, of course, that there are offences anyway for attempted suicide. Those types of offences are already in the Crimes Act. Again, I just do not see the need for the amendments. I think they are unnecessary. Hopefully, it is not going to matter. I know that Ms Tucker is very keen to see that the amendments are passed. The amendments are going to get through, but I hope that the change will not bite us in some potential way. However, as I said, we do not see the need for the amendments and so the opposition will not be supporting them.

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