Page 1104 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 May 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
which, as I mentioned, the government intends to support. That amendment is about including additional occupations to be protected under the new assault clause.
Amendments agreed to.
MRS JONES (Murrumbidgee) (4.04): I move amendment No 10 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 1142]. We are seeking a five-year maximum penalty for those who have been found to have assaulted an emergency worker—a police, ambulance, fire or corrections officer—while the government has settled on a two-year maximum penalty.
Despite the advice that the minister has been given, as the chair of the scrutiny committee I am very au fait with our human rights compliance legislation. In order for legislation to be human rights compliant, and not to affect some people in an unexpected way, it is required to be justified, as many ministers in this place are aware. I have justified the change as it pertains to my original bill. There were no problems found as a result of the human rights scrutiny of this change to my original bill. In fact, it was considered to be reasonably well justified because these personnel put themselves in harm’s way on a daily basis. If a crime is committed against them—a very callous and cold-blooded offence—the judge would have the option of going to a five-year maximum, which is higher than the average normal response of two years.
I commend my amendment to this place because, otherwise, this bill does not change the amount of time someone can serve for purposely assaulting a uniformed person in our community. For driving at their car there will still be the option of a five-year offence, so it does not really make sense that we maintain the two years.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Manager of Government Business, Minister for Advanced Technology and Space Industries, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Urban Renewal) (4.07): The government opposes this amendment, which relates to the penalty for the new assault offence. The government considers that a five-year imprisonment penalty is not appropriate and that the two-year imprisonment penalty should be kept, as this is the option which is most consistent with human rights considerations.
In developing the new assault offence, the government has paid careful consideration to the objective to protect and support police and other frontline workers against harm, as well as the need to ensure that any limitations on human rights are justified and proportionate to that objective. This consideration was undertaken in consultation with the Justice and Community Safety Directorate’s human rights unit and the ACT Human Rights Commission. The territory has an obligation under the Human Rights Act 2004 to ensure that the laws and policies in the ACT do not have a discriminatory impact on particular groups with protected attributes, including where a proposal may have unintended, disproportionate or negative impacts on particular groups.
The government recognises that the creation of any new offence has the potential to disproportionately impact certain groups, including vulnerable cohorts who are over-represented in interactions with police. A maximum penalty of two years
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video