Page 796 - Week 03 - Thursday, 25 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
management must already be making assessments of age in relation to the charging of entrance prices and access by 18-year-olds to R-rated films, and if you look at subsection 9(3) on page 2 of the Film Classification (Amendment) Bill 1993 you will see that they can avoid prosecution by showing either that reasonable precautions were taken to ensure that under-15-year-olds were not admitted to an MA film unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, or that an under-age person appeared to be 15 years or older. As to the problem of identifying a parent or guardian, the Bill provides that it is a defence if it is proved that the young person was accompanied by a person who appeared to be the young person's parent or guardian.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I also ask you to note that the legislative amendments will have a standard delayed commencement so that the commencement coincides with the commencement by the Commonwealth of its new MA classification system on 1 May 1993. I now present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1993
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.00): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present the Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1993.
Title read by Clerk.
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
The Bill is a significant addition to the criminal justice process in embodying in legislative form important principles to be applied in regard to the sentencing of criminal offenders. Sentencing has traditionally been an area of great discretion. While it is crucial that courts retain flexibility in order to deal appropriately with individual cases, it is also important in administering an effective criminal justice system that punishments are imposed, and are seen by the community to be imposed, consistently so that similar offenders in like circumstances will receive similar penalties. Measures to promote consistency in approach amongst sentences and to state clearly the principles upon which sentencing decisions are made were recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its 1988 report on sentencing. Members of the commission have, in fact, provided valuable assistance in drafting this Bill, for which this Government is grateful.
Several jurisdictions have, since the drafting of that report, moved to take up those recommendations. In 1990 the Commonwealth enacted legislation which incorporated many of the recommendations, particularly in regard to listing the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. South Australia has similar provisions in its Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act of 1988. Over the last few years Victoria has undertaken a thorough review of its sentencing provisions and in 1991 it passed legislation which, among other things, embodies purposes of sentencing, provisions concerning pre-sentence reports and restrictions on the imposition of imprisonment. Other jurisdictions are also developing draft legislation along these lines. We have had close regard to all of these developments in drafting this Bill. In addition, the criminal law agencies of the ACT have provided valuable input.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .