Page 4162 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to be able to consider. But I think what the government identified was that the committee report raised a significant number of questions about the impact on our courts of the adoption of the West Australian provision. Essentially, the concept of picking up a Western Australian provision and using it in ACT legislation is problematic, according to the government’s response, because of the lack of ACT case law on the particular use of words. The point here is that those words have no legal history in the ACT, there is no jurisprudence around them, and I think it is right of the government to raise those concerns. It is a useful and thoughtful response to the situation that we are discussing.
All of that comes to why I sought an adjournment of the debate today. I think the redefinition of the crime of murder is an incredibly serious issue, and I spoke about this when we first debated this bill. I think it should be dealt with in a careful and considered way. A decision such as this should be based on as much evidence as is possible after full time for consideration. We do now have much better information and evidence, particularly having gone through the valuable committee process. The committee’s research and recommendations have set out a case, and we now have the government’s response to one of the five recommendations. It is important to note that it is only one of five.
What we have not had is adequate time to responsibly consider the issues in light of the government’s response. It was tabled only 48 hours ago, and it is a very considered and considerable legal exposition which, frankly, takes some time to consider. Of course, 48 hours is no time frame for deciding on the appropriate definition of murder; it is no time to consult with community organisations; it is no time to go back to those who gave very compelling evidence to the committee about real concerns with this, Civil Liberties Australia amongst them. I know a former member of this place, Mr Bernard Collaery, himself an experienced lawyer and a former attorney, raised significant issues in the hearing process.
I would like to be able to go back and talk to some of those people in light of the government’s response, which was delivered less than 48 hours ago, to this chamber. I can read the report in 48 hours, except that I thought we were adjourning the debate today, so I did not bother doing it last night in its entirety. But 48 hours is certainly not time to say to a community organisation: “Here’s a substantial government response. Can you please give us some feedback before we push it through the chamber on Thursday morning?” The Greens want to be able to implement the best reforms in the Assembly in all possible areas, and when it comes to things as vitally important as the definition of murder, we are doubly concerned to ensure we are getting the very best results.
Unfortunately we have reached a point where we are going to push this through. I understand the Liberal Party are also going to support it today. We did ask to have the debate adjourned. We gave an undertaking that we would be prepared for the October sitting. I think it is reasonable enough to do it over a couple of weeks, but, unfortunately, we have not been supported in that request by the other members of the chamber today.
It may be, in light of the attorney’s response tabled in the Assembly on Tuesday, that the path the government has proposed is the only path, but I am not convinced of that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .