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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (26 May) . . Page.. 554 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I would ask members to reflect on what the difference between deterrence and prevalence might be. I would suggest to members that the only difference is that prevalence refers to what has already occurred and deterrence refers to what is yet to occur. But they are, effectively, two different sides of the one coin. They are both a reflection of what other people do - other than the person who is actually before the court being sentenced.

If members genuinely believe that we should not allow the behaviour of others to influence the sentencing principles which are affecting a particular individual before the court at that time, they ought also to remove from the Crimes Act the reference in subsection 429A(1) to "deterrent effect", because that is exactly the same thing - taking into account the potential behaviour of others when passing sentence on a particular individual. I am happy for members to move that amendment if they wish to. Obviously, it will not get support from this Government; but it is the logical outcome of their arguments.

Mr Speaker, I would suggest to them that they reconsider their position, because, clearly, you do have to take into account the behaviour of other people. It is the role of the court - it is incumbent on the court - to send signals to other people about behaviour through the way in which sentences are passed. It is incumbent on the courts - indeed, it is their obligation - to attempt to stem particular problems in the community by sending clear signals through sentencing policy. Mr Speaker, that is what this legislation attempts to do and what I hope the Assembly will support the legislation in doing.

Question put:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 9	 	NOES, 8

Ms Carnell	Mr Berry
Mr Cornwell	Mr Corbell
Mr Hird		Mr Hargreaves
Mr Humphries	Mr Moore
Mr Kaine	Mr Quinlan
Mr Osborne	Mr Stanhope
Mr Rugendyke	Ms Tucker
Mr Smyth	Mr Wood
Mr Stefaniak

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

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