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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 5218 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

For forgery, the Crimes Act requirement that the forger must intend to cause the victim to act or omit to act to his or her prejudice will be replaced with a dishonesty requirement. This will eliminate some unnecessary confusion and bring forgery back into line with the theft and fraud regime.

The bill also does away with complex rules for determining when an act or omission is to a person's prejudice. Other improvements include simplifying the forgery rules for copies of documents and this in turn eliminates the need for duplicate offences relating to copies.

Parts 3.7 and 3.8 of chapter 3 include modern codified offences on bribery, other corrupt benefits, payola, abuse of public office, impersonating and obstructing ACT government officials and police officers. Traditionally, bribery is a public sector corruption offence and only applies where a person gives a bribe to a public official or a public official takes a bribe. However, the offences in the bill will apply to both public sector officials and private sector agents. This will ensure that the same rules apply for what is essentially the same kind of criminal behaviour.

Confining bribery to the public sector incorrectly assumes that private sector corruption does less harm to the community. The public needs to have confidence in the integrity of all our institutions, public and private, and commercial bribery is just as likely to undermine that confidence as any other. Also, in recent years the distinction between the public and private sector has become increasingly blurred as the private sector performs more of the functions traditionally performed by the public sector. The rationale for separate bribery and corrupt benefit offences is therefore no longer appropriate.

The offences in part 3.7 of payola and abuse of public office will be new to the ACT but will fill some gaps in this area of the law. Payola addresses cases where people hold themselves out to the public as offering independent advice or making independent selections or assessments of goods and services but in fact receive kickbacks for their selections. For example, radio and television presenters, financial advisers and others who recommend goods or services to the public could conceivably be caught by this offence, assuming the other elements are made out.

The offence of abuse of public office concerns cases where a public official improperly uses his or her office to obtain a personal benefit or cause a detriment to someone else-for example, a public official who passes information to undisclosed business associates who put in a winning tender for a government contract. Given the similarities with bribery and other corrupt benefits, it is appropriate to include these offences.

The bill offences of impersonating and obstructing territory public officials will be essentially a codified version of similar offences in the Crimes (Offences against the Government) Act 1989. They are related to the other offences in chapter 3 because they protect government and the public from being disadvantaged by persons who pretend to be public officials and exercise powers that they are not empowered to exercise.

Mr Stefaniak: Oh!

MR STANHOPE: Cut that out, Bill. This is a vital piece of legislation.

Mr Stefaniak: And generally very good, Jon.

MR STANHOPE: I won't have you yawning.

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