Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (4 March) . . Page.. 444 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
Ms Tucker did not go in her comments on this provision-the issue around artistic product-to the exceptions. She did not mention the exceptions recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission and explicitly spelt out in the act. Once again, I just do not know why we do not trust the court to apply the quite explicit exceptions contained in the legislation. The greatest complaint made about ACT courts is that they are soft on criminals and soft on crime. It is the constant refrain we hear. Yet, in a circumstance such as this the inclination is to throw this out altogether. For heaven's sake, don't think that I accept those criticisms, but it is a criticism that I hear. I don't accept those criticisms. I think the courts are fine. I think their attitude and approach to the criminal law and to justice and sentencing is fine. I support our courts.
The bill contains a definition of the notion of artistic profits derived by an offender from the commission of an offence. For the sake of completion-this comes up again in other amendment-I will read the definition in relation to this issue. Clause 81 states:
(1) In this Act:
artistic profits , derived by an offender from the commission of an offence, means property, or any service or other advantage, derived from the commercial exploitation of-
(a) the notoriety of the offender, or someone else involved in the commission of the offence (another involved person ), that results from the offence; or
(b) the depiction of the offence or the circumstances surrounding the offence; or
(c) an expression of the thoughts, opinions or emotions of the offender, or another involved person, about the offence.
(2) The commercial exploitation may be by any means, including, for example, in-
visual recording, sound recording, et cetera, printed material, radio, television production and live entertainment-
(3) A relevant court must allow artistic profits as benefits for section 80 (b) (Meaning benefits derived by an offender), unless it is satisfied that it would not be in the public interest to do so.
"Would not be in the public interest to do so."This is the significant provision here; it is the provision that would be relied upon by a person such as a person described by Ms Tucker. I have no issue with Ms Tucker's concern about the need for rehabilitation. One of the four tenets of corrections in our criminal justice system is, of course, rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is as equally important as any other, and we are committed to that. But we need to go to this, and we need to have some faith in it. We just should not be proceeding from the automatic assumption that you cannot trust the courts, because you can, despite the fact that sometimes some of us might have thoughts about particular issues and particular instances.
I do not think in developing legislation on a difficult subject such as this you can proceed, as I think Ms Tucker does, from the assumption you cannot trust coppers and you cannot trust courts. At some stage you have got to just let yourself go and trust a little bit.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .