Page 556 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
their intention. We must never rest on our laurels, claiming that our laws have served us well in the past and will continue to do so. But to change our laws as a knee-jerk reaction, on the basis of political expediency or as an election stunt, as it seems to be the case in this bill, is irresponsible. We, as legislators, must not allow irresponsibility to be the catalyst of change.
In bringing forward this bill, this government’s vehicle is on the road of irresponsibility. It has failed to consult again with the community on the import of this bill. And it is interesting to note that, in a briefing from the department when I actually asked about what consultation had been undertaken with any organisations in relation to this, I was told, with a straight face, “We had an election, Mrs Dunne.”
It is true that in the run-up to the election, the attorney said that he would look to amend these laws after the election but there has been no consultation with a range of groups in relation to the precise wording and the effectiveness of this. For example, the Bar Association has written to me stating that the proposals are a marked and serious departure from the recommendations of MCCOC, that is, the federal Attorney-General’s Model Criminal Code Officers Committee.
Back in 1998, MCCOC made particular recommendations in relation to the treatment of murder and the ACT, for the most part, has had bipartisan support for adopting the model criminal code and those elements of the model criminal code. In relation to the MCCOC recommendations on murder, there has been no action, and the minister points out in his response to the scrutiny of bills committee that no jurisdiction has acted on the MCCOC recommendations in relation to murder.
As it stands, the current commitment of this government and the previous government is to implement the model criminal code and, while there may be merit in departing from the MCCOC recommendations in relation to murder, these have not been particularly tested in the ACT to see whether this is what the community wants and, if we do want to depart from this recommendation, how is it best to do this.
Further, Civil Liberties Australia, in a letter to the Attorney-General and copied to me, stated:
It is unfortunate that, if enacted, the Bill would see the ACT depart from its commitment to implementing the model criminal code which has been the subject of more vigorous consideration than has been given to this bill.
To quote further from CLA’s letter:
It does not bode well for the development of ACT law that major reforms to the criminal law are based on knee-jerk reaction to individual cases.
It is interesting to look at the history of these provisions in the Crimes Act and the Criminal Code. At this stage I have not had a satisfactory explanation why, for instance, back in 1990 the then federal Attorney-General, the Hon Michael Duffy, under the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance No 2 of 1990, actually changed the provisions from something which is similar to what is now being proposed by the attorney to what we currently have. The government is now seeking to essentially reinstate the provisions that we had in the ACT before 1990, and I think that there
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .