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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2761 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

involved in this very significant law reform process, then we can see quite clearly and quite starkly, and very worryingly, that the government has got the balance wrong in this bill.

Who is it that might like to have been consulted or approached? We need to ponder the consultation and this government's recent claims to be concerned about consultation and listening to the people and consulting generally.

This is a major and significant law reform package that we are debating. It is one of the most fundamentally significant criminal law reforms that have been made this year. Whom did the government not approach? Whom did they not consult in this most significant law reform process? They did not consult the Bar Association. They did not consult the Law Society. They did not consult the Legal Aid Commission. They did not consult a single community legal centre. They did not consult any youth advocates or youth groups. They did not consult the domestic violence organisations. They did not consult the rape crisis centres. They did not consult any of these people on their most fundamental piece of criminal law that we will debate this year.

It was only after the bill was tabled and I had approached each of these organisations that they became aware of the issues we are now debating. The only input any of those organisations has had into this piece of significant legislation is the input they will now have through me raising their concerns. For the government to pretend that it does consult on any issue is rendered a nonsense by its record in relation to this exercise, if we can use this as a significant indication of its attitude to consultation on law reform.

Comment I have received back on the bill, which I circulated to each of these organisations, has been universally negative. Those organisations do not accept the rationale, the need, the explanation or the alleged justification for some of the changes that are proposed in this legislation.

We are not talking here about the calm, measured language which one expects, for instance, from the Law Society. In relation to the presentation of cheques and the consequences of a bouncing cheque, the Law Society says, "The scope of the proposed offence is breathtaking." That is a dreadful condemnation. This is from an organisation that was consulted only after the event. They describe the provision in relation to the passing of cheques as breathtaking. They go on to say:

It is our view that it is totally inappropriate to withdraw the requirement for criminal intent for this type of offence. The offence is made out against any person who has a cheque "bounce". It is not good law that the onus is then turned on the person to establish innocence-particularly when the meaning of sub section (3) is so unclear.

That is the nature of the language in relation to one provision from the Law Society, not exactly your raving left wing, heart-on-the-sleeve organisation.

The views of the Bar Association were not sought. On the proposed introduction of a new section allowing for prosecution appeals against an acquittal, this is the language of the Bar Association, once again not your raving heart-on-the-sleeve loony left organisation:

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