Page 560 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It has been put to me that the staffing profile of ACT Policing makes it the most inexperienced police force in the country. The ACT provides the only community policing role for the AFP in Australia, with a potential consequence of limited experience in producing briefs on infrequently committed crimes such as murder. I expect that the committee will examine this matter in some detail and report back to the Assembly on whether there is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
It has also been put to me that the DPP is possibly lacking in both the experience and resources necessary to effectively manage the prosecution of such serious and resource-intensive matters as murder trials. It may be that the problem is a prosecutorial one and that changing the definition of murder is not a sensible or even effective response to the perceived problem. Again, I will look forward to reading what the committee has to say about this aspect of the ACT criminal justice system.
I have also heard argument that the government considers that the sentences for manslaughter are too low where they are imposed as an alternative to murder. Again, I expect that the committee will look into that and that the problem could be fixed or ameliorated by increasing the maximum penalty for manslaughter and issuing a recommendation to the courts that they look at imposing harsher penalties in cases where the facts fall only marginally short of satisfying the definition of murder.
The explanatory statement to this bill claims that it will provide certainty about the harm which must be intended in order for the offence to be made out. For the reasons I have already outlined, I do not agree that this achieves this objective. In fact, I suspect that it does the opposite.
There are a number of other concerns about this bill which are also contained in the scrutiny of bills reports. As Mrs Dunne has already noted, significant concerns were also raised by the Law Society of the ACT when we met with them, the Bar Association in their letter and by Civil Liberties Australia. I am not sure whether the government or JACS were sufficiently proactive in seeking to consult with the various stakeholders who had views which were at odds with the government’s own view. These organisations are repositories of enormous experience and expertise on these issues, and their concerns need to be addressed.
It is not good enough for the government to claim a popular mandate for these particular amendments merely because it went to the election vaguely promising that it would do something about the low murder conviction rate. It should have released an exposure draft prior to the election if it wanted to claim a mandate for these particular amendments. If vague election promises actually constitute some form of political contractual relationship which could be sued upon for breach, the government’s argument may carry some weight. But they do not, and it does not.
There is no need to canvass every issue in today’s debate, because these issues will presumably arise in the course of the committee’s inquiry and again when we debate any consequent amendments. I do not think it would be good law to rush this amendment through today without further consultation and examination. The committee will be able to gather together community, academic, philosophical, criminological and jurisprudential expertise in its inquiry into this matter. I am
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .