Page 3310 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In a thin attempt to make this an ACT issue, Mr Wall has mentioned, both today and in the media leading up to this, an event that took place eight or nine years ago, noting that that had nothing to do with animals. If that is the closest he can come in terms of evidence that requires these new laws in the ACT, it shows that he is simply not driven by evidence.
The federal Liberal Party has been clearly driving a campaign on this issue. The Canberra Liberals are bringing their conservative agenda to this Assembly’s program. But this is Canberra. Our voters expect us to listen and to respond to their views. That is why we are a proudly progressive government. We are a government that stands against a national conservative view on marriage equality. We are a government that stands for supporting a community where everyone is valued, where everyone belongs and where everyone can participate. This government is hard at work, delivering reforms that meet the needs of Canberrans.
The resources of our criminal law experts are hard at work delivering nation-leading protections for children. We have created and passed a law that requires all adults to report child sexual abuse. That law makes no exceptions for any religion. We are hard at work developing effective practical tools for our police to stop crime. We are developing unexplained wealth laws and a suite of measures to make Canberra the most inhospitable place in the country for criminal gangs to operate.
Our criminal law reform agenda is ambitious, and it is responsive to the things that Canberrans care about most. There is no place in that agenda for Liberal-Nationals scaremongering. The government cannot and will not justify diverting resources from ACT child protection and ACT crime prevention to work on this narrow, conservative Liberal campaign. We are, and we will remain, a government that gives voice to Canberrans first, in support of equality, in support of social inclusion and in support of evidence-based approaches to criminal justice. I oppose the motion.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.24): It will come as no surprise that the Greens do not support Mr Wall’s motion. The main point, however, is that there is already a range of laws that respond to instances of trespass and criminal damage, and they impose serious penalties. Mr Wall is advocating for new penalties for people who trespass on farms. His motion mentions those recently introduced in New South Wales. The ABC reports that those laws could see an individual trespasser fined more than $400,000.
The laws proposed by Mr Wall’s federal colleagues, which I gather he also supports, would create a penalty of up to one year in jail for a person who published information online inciting trespass on a farm. A further offence would create a penalty of up to five years in jail for someone who published information online that led to another person causing damage or theft on that farm.
These are extreme penalties, and disproportionately excessive compared to similar offences. It is an unusual and kneejerk reaction to target a particular group of people, a particular type of trespass, and significantly to increase penalties for that group. It seems to me that this is more of a political reaction than good or consistent lawmaking.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video