Page 2586 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The main focus of the inquiry, and the reason that I introduced dissenting comments, was the elements of the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill that related to self-defence. The other aspects about occupations, and the whole aspect of Mr Seselja’s Crimes (Offences Against Police) Amendment Bill, were pretty much an afterthought by almost everybody who appeared before the committee. It usually came about as “we’ve dealt comprehensively with self-defence; what do you think about these other aspects?” For the most part, where there were prepared submissions they were not addressed. We heard often, “I haven’t really thought about it, but.”
It is true that members of the Bar Association—Mr Whybrow, for instance—and Mr Gill from the Law Society, did not think that this was a great idea. But the only submitter who made any reference to it directly in their submissions was the government, where the government reiterated its view that it should not make law in relation to particular occupations and that it did not want to make law in this place.
The Australian Federal Police Association specifically asked that this legislation be passed. It is also worth noting that the Chief Police Officer made it very clear, again, that he would like to see specific offences in relation to assaulting police, and this legislation introduced by Mr Seselja addresses that issue. The view is that Mr Seselja’s legislation addresses offences other than just assault of police and that this is a valid and appropriate way of addressing these issues, especially considering that the government and others in this place do not want to create the offence of assault police.
I make the point that this is a proven legislative approach. This was an approach adopted by the government in the Crimes (Offences Against Pregnant Women) Amendment Bill, which created a similar range of offences against pregnant women where there is an aggravated form of the offence in a number of categories of assault. So we already have the precedent before us—it was a precedent introduced by this Attorney-General—and I think it is a reasonable approach to take.
On the basis of that, and on the clear recommendations and requests of the police, and the clear statement by both the Australian Federal Police Association and the Chief Police Officer that they would like some protection in law for police who are assaulted and for other crimes against police, I believe that this is the best option that is currently available to the ACT Legislative Assembly and I believe that it should have the support of the Assembly.
I want to thank members and the committee staff for the work that they have done and thank the submitters for the work that they have done. (Time expired.)
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (11.51): I will be brief. This report is in two parts. The first part deals with the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. I think the report is pretty self-explanatory. I just want to echo the chair’s thanks to the Committee Office for all of the work, particularly Dr Lloyd, in putting this report together. For me, anyway, it was pretty clear-cut. The evidence that was given to us by witnesses was pretty dramatic and pretty consistent, and it was very persuasive. It has found its way into the way this report is presented.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video