Page 2060 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
criminal justice system before we get the report from the national body that is looking at this. A race to show who is the most progressive is not a sufficient reason to act unilaterally, and our children and our community deserve better from this minister.
We do not want a situation where jurisdictions act unilaterally. As Mr Ramsay said, we do not want a situation where something is a crime in New South Wales but not in Canberra. I think that we can all envisage the complications that something like that would throw up. This is being discussed at the national level right now. The ACT, according to Mr Ramsay—and I believe him on this—is heavily engaged in this debate. It is not a good enough reason.
Our view is that we should await that review and then come to a conclusion at that point. I certainly support the further work that is being done by the ACT government in the interim in anticipation of that debate. Much of the amendment put forward by Mr Ramsay I fundamentally agree with. We have a very similar position on this issue, actually. I think that Mr Ramsay would rather wait. When it comes to the national decision, as he said, the best outcome is a national solution and it is better that we move collectively as a nation.
To that end, I have circulated an amendment which I will move shortly. It keeps Mr Ramsay’s amendment as is and does not change it, other than what we are calling on the ACT government to do. Mr Ramsay has basically made the decision that the ACT government should support raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. That may be where we end up, but before we make that presumptive decision let’s await that report. Why are we engaging in these national forums if we are just going to act unilaterally anyway? It makes it a bit of a nonsense of engaging in the process.
I am encouraged by the fact that Mr Ramsay, in paragraph 3(a), which I am going to seek to replace, notes that consideration needs to be given to exemptions for serious offences. I think that is an important consideration, even though I am suggesting that that clause should be removed. We should delay the decision until we have a national consensus. If we do not get that, if there were further stalling by the Council of Attorneys-General, that would be frustrating. This is something that we need to make a decision on one way or the other and, as I said, the opposition is certainly open to this debate.
Mr Ramsay made the commitment that he will continue to progress the work done by the ACT government in this area of law reform should he continue to serve as Attorney-General. I make the same commitment: should I be the Attorney-General following the election, we will continue the work he has started. Regardless of what is eventually tabled by CAG, this is important work and we need to make sure that we understand the full complexities of this. If there is to be a change, we need to make sure that the ACT is positioned to make that change.
I commend the amendment I have circulated to the Assembly. I think that it is a better way, a more considered way. It is the right and, to be frank, this is the way that the government had been proceeding. I do not think that we should be acting unilaterally simply for political expediency and a little bit of grandstanding in the run-up to an election. I move:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video