Page 561 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
convinced that its recommendation will form the basis for a much more considered approach to the government’s perceived problem.
In finishing, I would like to draw members’ attention to the problems identified by the scrutiny of bills committee regarding the detailed human rights compatibility statement. I congratulate the government and relevant public officials for trying to live up to the government’s obligations under the Labor-Greens agreement to flesh out and publicise the human rights issues which arise in any piece of substantive legislation. However, I am sure the Attorney-General and the relevant officers in JACS and other departments are aware that the committee raises serious issues and shortcomings, and I can hope that these are taken on board as part of a process of continual improvement.
The Greens have insisted on greater substance to these human rights compatibility statements because we feel that the principles embodied in the Human Rights Act need to be explained, nurtured and entrenched in the community. It was counterproductive for the previous Labor government to keep its human rights reasonings out of the public eye. This educative function is clearly necessary in the interplay and feedback represented by the committee’s report. Other public comment can only lead to more focused, relevant and informed statements in the future. I look forward to reading the human rights arguments relied upon by the government in its presentation of all future bills. Where such a statement is not presented, I would expect that the reasons for such a departure would be clearly spelt out.
That is the basis on which we are not willing to pass this legislation immediately. As I stated earlier—and we have indicated this to both the government and opposition—we are willing to support this bill in principle, and we look forward to the important discussions that will take place during the committee process. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (8.17), in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate. The change that the government is proposing in relation to the law of murder is not a radical one. It is not a radical departure or a creation of some new law that has been untested and untried in Australia. Indeed, every other state and territory in the commonwealth has a murder law with a component that is known as constructive murder. The ACT stands alone as the only jurisdiction where a constructive murder provision does not exist.
The government believes quite strongly that there is a problem with the law of murder in the territory. And the government equally believes that the Canberra community has the same expectations about the circumstances in which someone should be charged with murder as exists in other communities—indeed, in every other community across the country; that is, where someone can be proven to have set out to cause serious harm to a person and that person dies as a consequence of those actions, that person should be charged with murder. That is what the government is proposing.
It is clear that we are going to face some conservatism from those opposite and from the crossbench on this issue. But I want to dispel a few myths in relation to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .