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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4066 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

live in a society free of the threat of violence. In relation to all of the examples that were given, the committee felt that the explanatory memorandum had not provided sufficient justification for the purposes of promoting an informed debate of the relevant clauses of the bill. The report went on to say:

It is understood that this has come about because the Bill seeks to state in the law of the Territory the law as it has been adopted in Commonwealth law. Thus, it has apparently been felt sufficient to merely reproduce parts of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Commonwealth Bill.

Nevertheless, the issues raised by the Bill are for the Assembly to determine. While this is an example of "national scheme"law, it is to be noted that the subject-matter is one on which there has always been variance between the States and Territories of Australia. The content of the criminal law has generally been regarded as one lying particularly within the realm of the State and Territory legislatures. Diversity between these jurisdictions reflects the diversity of the history, culture and populations of the components of the federation.

This code is largely what the Commonwealth itself introduced back in 1995. I note that, in talking with government officials, there are some differences in similar aspects of the code in other states. New South Wales, which has not introduced as much as what is proposed in this bill, nevertheless has some provisions which are at some variance with what is proposed here. It is interesting to note that the code that has so far been introduced by the states and territories is not completely uniform. Obviously there are still local differences and historical differences in the various jurisdictions. Indeed, the states have been enacting laws since the 19th century.

Mr Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. Questions of criminal responsibility are especially important in our free democratic society. It is crucially important that we get it right. Obviously, a number of amendments will be moved, and I look forward to hearing the government's comments. The opposition has, as I said, two amendments, which I will move at a later stage.

Some other issues have been raised. The scrutiny report talks about rights of the child and the issue of the age of criminal consent. We had that debate not all that long ago in this Assembly. Several years ago we had a debate on legislation we introduced to raise the age of criminal intent from eight to 10 years. Accordingly, that is certainly something the opposition accepts and we will not be moving to amend that part of the bill.

We do, however, have some concerns, which I think are expressed in the scrutiny report, in relation to insanity defences. I think, as a general rule, it is obviously crucially important to ensure that people who are genuinely insane are properly covered. However, the provision should certainly not be misused. I think we need to be very careful about anything that might open the floodgates and that might lead to spurious and improper claims of mental impairment.

I think it is also important when we are adopting criminal codes to continue to use time honoured and tested standards. Indeed, some time honoured standards in relation to trespass, of people protecting property and protecting their loved ones, are replicated in this legislation. However, the government is seeking to add further provisions which I do

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