Page 3309 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM SPEAKER: You were heard in peace, Mr Wall.
MR RAMSAY: When anyone’s activity, protest or not, breaks the laws, we have strong punishments already in place. The ACT has a range of offences which protect people’s properties and businesses, in our Criminal Code and in other laws. Whether it is through burglary, unlawful entry, aggravated burglary or a range of offences, there are already very strong penalties in place.
I am delighted to be able to give the Assembly, and Mr Wall in particular, a short overview of some of the laws that we have to prosecute interference with property and business. At the lower end of the scale, there is section 4 of the Enclosed Lands Protection Act 1943, which prohibits a person from entering without lawful excuse onto the enclosed land of any other person without consent. This carries a maximum penalty of five penalty units, which at present, for an individual person, would be a maximum fine of $800.
At the other end of the scale, the more serious end of the scale, the ACT already has offences of criminal damage and burglary. Damaging property carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, under section 403 of the Criminal Code 2002. The offence of burglary covers people who enter buildings to commit theft, to cause harm, to threaten to cause harm or to commit other serious offences that cause damage. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment.
Just to break that down a little so that Mr Wall can understand it, under our existing laws, a person who trespasses on a farm building, a zoo or any building, including the ones around the businesses that Mr Wall referred to in other jurisdictions in his speech, without permission and causes criminal damage would be committing burglary. Equally, if the person threatened to harm a worker in the building they would be committing a burglary.
Then there is the offence of aggravated burglary, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. Under section 312 of the Criminal Code 2002, if a person commits a burglary in company with one or more people or commits a burglary and has an offensive weapon on them, the offence becomes an aggravated burglary. I am not sure that I would class 14 years imprisonment or 20 years imprisonment as minimal, as Mr Wall suggests today.
The offences that I have mentioned are just some of the offences in the ACT that are already in place. There are other offences which could be prosecuted, depending on the circumstances, such as offences against a person, including common assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
One of the key things for this government is that we undertake evidence-based decision-making. The evidence is clear that our laws are strong and they protect farmers, businesses and people’s property from harm. We do not intend to have any new laws to fuel ideological scaremongering. That is something we will leave to the Canberra Liberals to do, as they do so often.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video