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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 794 ..

with dangerous substances to ensure that reasonable diligence and appropriate precautions are taken. It is for that reason that I will be generally supporting an amendment by Mr Pratt, which emphasises the responsibility of the chief executive to ensure that businesses in the Territory are aware of their responsibilities under this act.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 192 agreed to.

Clause 193 to 195, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 196.

MS DUNDAS (5.48): I will be opposing this clause. This is a question of freedom of speech and the ability of a court to compel somebody to do something. Courts could currently sentence someone to jail, compel them to pay a fine or make them attend community service. It is human nature that people will generally do this with the barest amount of cooperation possible, but it is another matter entirely when you start coercing people to say things, with a penalty of being found in contempt of court, which can lead to imprisonment.

In response to this particular issue, which was raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the government likens this provision to court ordered retractions in defamation cases. The government said:

It is difficult to see how publication of a factual statement concerning conviction recorded in open court can be considered as analogous to torture or is more cruel, inhumane or degrading than other criminal sanctions such as imprisonment.

The problem is that there is not a requirement of a factual statement in this legislation as it stands, simply a requirement to publish a statement in accordance with the direction of the court. Again, this is a significant step away from a retraction or an apology in a defamation case. A direction to apologise for saying something is significantly different to being told that you must say X, Y and Z and that you must do it in this manner. While this provision is specific to this act, it sets a dangerous precedent of governments telling citizens what to say and what to think. That is why I am opposing this clause.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.50): I move amendment No 27 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 816].

This amendment allows the court to order publication of the details of an offence where a person has been convicted or found guilty. In some cases, the court may find someone guilty of an offence but do not record a conviction. This amendment brings the court’s powers regarding publication in clause 196 into line with the chief executive’s power regarding publication in clause 197.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 196, as amended, agreed to.

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