Page 591 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 8  NOES, 9 

Mr Berry Mrs Carnell
Mr Connolly Mr Cornwell
Ms Ellis Mr De Domenico
Ms Follett Mr Humphries
Mrs Grassby Mr Kaine
Mr Lamont Mr Moore
Ms McRae Mr Stevenson
Mr Wood Ms Szuty
 Mr Westende

Question so resolved in the negative.

Remainder of Bill, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

ABORIGINAL DEATHS IN CUSTODY
Ministerial Statement and Papers

Debate resumed from 14 May 1992, on motion by Ms Follett:

That the Assembly takes note of the papers.

MR HUMPHRIES (9.41): I was concluding my remarks on the last occasion concerning the Chief Minister's statement on the response of the ACT Government to the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. I had only a few remarks left to make. I repeat the last set of remarks I was in the process of making. In the section on legislative reform, the Chief Minister stated:

Legislation enforcing the principle that imprisonment should be utilised only as a sanction of last resort is also being prepared.

Despite what Mr Connolly might think about the Liberal Party, I certainly agree with the concept that imprisonment should be a sanction of last resort. That is certainly a view that I would share. But there is something in the terminology used there which sets alarm bells ringing in my ears and the Liberal Party's ears. It is a question of concern about whether there is to be, under legislation coming forward, a retention of the principle that all are equal before the law.

As I said on the last occasion, we certainly accept that individuals may have different penalties applied to them when they come before a court of law, because of their social condition. It may well be, for example, that an Aboriginal person should, for various reasons, be treated more lightly on conviction by a court than should another person, because of social circumstance. I accept that principle. That may be justifiable in the circumstances.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .