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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2812 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

urge members to support the amendment to ensure that the courts are able to impose a custodial sentence for the most serious types of indecent exposure cases.

I suppose, for the sake of brevity, I should speak briefly to Ms Tucker's proposal.

Ms Tucker: No, I am not going to put it.

MR STEFANIAK: Thank you, Ms Tucker. Then that is all I need say.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (1.32 am): I want to make a point in relation to this. The Attorney has doubled the penalty for indecent exposure. It is difficult to stand up here and express perhaps any view, having regard to the attitude we have and views which we all instinctively feel in relation to people who expose themselves. They are not people that one finds very easy to defend. They cannot be defended and, as with most criminals, I have no intention of defending them.

But, once again, I do wonder about the basis on which the Attorney made the decision that he need to double the penalty for indecent exposure. I would ask the question: on what basis do we suddenly decide that we are going to double a particular penalty?

Indecent exposure is a complex and odious offence. I note from court reports that people who expose themselves are quite often young adolescent males. Some of them have, I think, quite significant mental problems; some of them have problems that lead specifically to these sorts of behaviours.

Who was consulted about this change? What consultation did the Attorney have with authorities that deal with disturbed boys, adolescents, that engage in these sorts of behaviours? Is this the best way; is this the only way; is this an appropriate way? What advice was taken from people who deal with these sorts of very difficult issues?

I raise this point because recently I had a briefing from Marymead about this very significant problem-and to some extent, it is a hidden problem-of the very aggressive sexual behaviour of very young boys these days. There is a significant problem in our community of very young boys, surprisingly young boys, engaging in aggressive sexual behaviour. We are talking about primary school kids. I am nervous about the Attorney coming in here and saying "Look, this is a really odious offence, this is something we all abhor, let's double the penalty."

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (1.35 am): This amendment has been moved as a result of the comments made by the Chief Magistrate, who is certainly a very experienced judicial officer. Of course, there is some strength in what Mr Stanhope says. But the courts have discretion when imposing penalties. In fact, a maximum penalty is very rarely imposed by our courts. There is whole range of types of offences. Obviously, the maximum penalty is reserved for the very worst type of offence, and I think Mr Stanhope can certainly take a lot of solace from that.

MS TUCKER (1.36 am): I agree with what Mr Stanhope has said. I think it is a complex issue. In the last Assembly, the Education, Community Services and Recreation Committee, of which I am the chair, looked at sexual offending by young people, and that is a problem. We recommended in the last Assembly that programs

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