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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1035 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

small step that we are taking. I think that we have to make a balanced decision on whether that is justifiable. In my view, it is not justifiable. I know that in Mr Berry's view it is justifiable. I am asking members to rethink their position, not just to consider whether it is justifiable in this small matter but to think of the broad ramifications that this will have in terms of other legislation.

The question in my mind is: Why would we continue to put limitations on when we can prosecute, on when we can carry something through? Relatively recently, when we put a public health Bill through this Assembly just prior to the last election, and when we put some environmental Bills through the Assembly, we put a series of limitations on when you could prosecute. We had reasons for doing that.

Mr Quinlan: There is still a limitation here.

MR MOORE: Mr Quinlan interjects, "There is still a limitation here". But the difficulty is that we are prepared to change that limitation retrospectively. If this amendment passes, nobody can ever feel totally confident that they are beyond that area where they now have the protection of the law. One thing fundamental in our society is that people are entitled to the protection of the law.

As I say, this is a relatively small matter. I am sure it is a big matter for three or four people, if indeed the coronial inquest finds that a prosecution should be made and a prosecution is made. For them it will be a very big matter. But in terms of the law as we look at it and the way we deal with it in this Assembly it appears on the surface to be a small matter, but it is the way that we come up with the worst outcomes, the way that the world ends with a whimper, not with a bang. That is one of the issues that we really have to deal with very carefully in making this decision. It is a decision that is fundamental in terms of civil liberties. It is fundamental, because it is about protection of the law. Once we have a law, how does that law apply, and are we safe under that law? How does it apply to us?

Mr Speaker, I know that members, in making these sorts of decisions, always seek to get the best outcomes in the particular situation. What I am asking you to do is reconsider your decision, put it in the context of what happens in terms of the broad law and recognise that this is a precedent that is being set in this Assembly, interestingly almost on the anniversary of 10 years of the Assembly. A precedent is being set in terms of civil liability, but I think in terms of criminal proceedings we have to be much more careful.

We make the decision on a cost-benefit analysis. All of us make our decisions on those terms - the costs in setting this precedent, which I believe will be quoted many years into the future to justify other actions that are deemed politically convenient or necessary at the time but which will mean that somebody who has the protection of the law loses that protection of the law. That is what we are talking about and that is why I would strongly urge members, while supporting in principle the broad legislation that Wayne Berry has put up, to oppose this amendment.

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