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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1197 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The bill is based on a genuine belief that the Crimes Act provision on arson does not apply, as a matter of fact, to bushfires. The fact situations are different. Section 117 of the Crimes Act applies to arson. This goes to the nub of the issue we are discussing here. The arson provisions in the Crimes Act do not allow us to fit within their description the lighting of a fire without intent to cause damage.

An issue referred to by prosecutors and by courts was that in the lighting of a fire, particularly by a young person, it is difficult for a court to find and difficult for the prosecution to prove that the fire was intentionally lit to cause damage.

Section 117 (1) of the Crimes Act, the provision in relation to arson, which up until now we have been forced to rely on in relation to bushfires, provides for imprisonment for 15 years. Section 117 (2), which relates a person who destroys or damages by means of fire or explosive any property with intent to endanger life, has a penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. Section 117 (3) reads:

A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or herself or another person, destroys or damages by means of fire or explosive any property is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 20 years.

I said explicitly when I introduced this bill that this government was not interested in entering into a law and order war. We did not increase the penalties. In fact, the bushfire offence provision, which is part and parcel of this bill, does not increase the penalty. To some extent, it decreases it. The penalty is 15 years imprisonment. That is the punishment that was settled on through the criminal code negotiations of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, a process which involves every state and territory in Australia, plus the Commonwealth. We adopted the criminal code recommendation of 15 years as an appropriate penalty for this offence. It is important to understand that and not just throw around willy-nilly accusations that we have entered into some redneck law and order "beat 'em up, lock 'em up, throw the key away" battle with anybody. We quite explicitly have not. I resent the unfounded and wrong accusation that that is what we are doing through this legislation. We are explicitly not doing that.

We have created a new offence of lighting a bushfire, because the proof determinants are very different from those for arson. Kids who light bushfires often do not know why they do it. They are perhaps responding to some strange or unknown psychological need. We accept that. I went into some detail about that in my presentation speech. We acknowledged that.

I acknowledged in my speech that there were very good reasons for not ratcheting up the penalties. Fifteen years is a very significant penalty in anybody's language. We did not think it necessary to increase the penalties for arson set out in the Crimes Act. But the Bushfire Act 1936 does not deal with fires that are lit and get away. It deals with leaving a fire unattended and provides for a penalty of six months. It does not go the next step of dealing with people who deliberately light, say, grass or bush, reckless as to whether or not the fire may get away and, in getting away, may cause enormous property damage or even loss of life.

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