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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 329 ..

I thank the minister for circulating an exposure draft of the explosives regulations to allow members to preview the intentions of the government in the regulation of fireworks under this bill. I believe the general direction of this legislation is commendable. I think that the whole Assembly agrees with that sentiment. I know that the opposition have some disagreement about the regulation of fireworks in particular but, apart from that, I think they encourage this type of comprehensive reform. Whilst I know the opposition will disagree, I reiterate the Democrats’ support for the approach taken by the government in relation to fireworks.

We had this debate last year in relation to Mr Pratt’s bill on the same subject, so I will not again go over the Democrats’ position. This bill is very much in line with our preferred approach, which is not to resort to bans and not to curtail unnecessarily the freedom and enjoyment of the people of Canberra, if the annoyance and harm that can be caused by fireworks can be reduced to an acceptable level. I think this bill and the associated regulations achieve that, so I commend the effort. I note that a large number of amendments to this bill are being put forward today. I think the number of minor language amendments put forward by the minister shows the speed at which this legislation was developed.

I understand that there was a desire to have this legislation debated as soon as possible this year so that it could be in place for the June long weekend and that, to achieve this end, staff from both the minister’s office and the department have been very helpful in handling inquiries. I think there has been a lot of responsiveness today to try to move this debate forward. Having said that, it would be wise to adjourn at the in-principle stage so that we can really work through the amendments put forward.

I commend the government for the suite of enforcement mechanisms it has introduced to ensure that the act has regulatory powers in relation to dangerous substances. There are wide inspection powers and wide seizure powers. I note also that there are a number of mechanisms for the government to work with the industry to ensure that the laws are complied with, including compliance agreements and enforceable undertakings. These mechanisms allow the government to work with the industry to police these laws.

The Democrats encourage a cooperative approach to such regulation, but I make it clear that I will be moving a number of amendments to address several of the provisions in the bill. Whilst I know that the government wants to promote a strong regulatory system and the ACT Democrats welcome a strong enforcement system, we disagree on what is required to ensure that we have that strong system working. (Quorum formed.)

There are certain important legal principles on which we build our system of justice. One of those common law principles is that people may remain silent, so as not to incriminate themselves. Another is that, in order to successfully prosecute a criminal offence, the prosecution must establish that the defendant possessed a mental element, such as intent or recklessness. I am concerned that the bill put before us today is eroding these legal principles to the detriment of our system of law.

We will be debating a human rights bill in the near future. One of the rights mentioned in that bill is the right to a fair trial; another is the right to remain innocent until proven guilty. I think we need to consider what those rights mean when we legislate the types of

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