Page 562 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
process associated with this bill. The suggestion has been made by Mrs Dunne, quite falsely, that the only consultation that occurred was the assertion that there was an election. That is quite incorrect. I checked with people who were present at that briefing and, yes, it was said that the election was part of the consultation process, because clearly it was. The government went out and said: “This is our election proposal. This is how we believe the law should be changed and, if re-elected, we will introduce a change in a timely and prompt manner.” And that is what we did in introducing it in December. But that is not the only consultation that occurred, and Mrs Dunne quite incorrectly suggests otherwise.
In the same week that the bill was introduced, I wrote to the President of the Law Society, the President of the Bar Association, the President of Civil Liberties Australia, the Chief Police Officer, the Chief Magistrate, the Chief Justice and the DPP, seeking their views on the bill and providing them with a copy of it. To date, I have received no response from the Law Society for the ACT. This week I received a reply from the Bar Association. I did receive a reply from the Chief Justice, and I thank him for that. We did receive advice also from the police, and I did receive a reply within the last fortnight from Civil Liberties Australia. So to suggest that the government has not sought to consult with interested stakeholders on this matter is completely false.
The changes that the government proposes, as I say, are not radical ones. I note that some argument has been made by Mrs Dunne and others that this would mean that the government and the territory, if the bill were adopted, would be moving outside the provisions of the Model Criminal Code when it comes to the offence of murder. And, yes, that is true. I made that quite clear when I introduced the bill. But the reason for moving outside it is that the government believes that, after 18 years of operation with this current formulation of murder, it is time to make some changes.
No other Australian jurisdiction has adopted the Model Criminal Code provisions, nor do they intend to do so. Indeed, at a meeting of Attorneys-General that I attended last year, before the election, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed that, when it came to adoption of the Model Criminal Code, jurisdictions would adopt a flexible approach to suit their own particular circumstances. It is quite clear that jurisdictions want to be able to pick and choose those elements of the Model Criminal Code that they think are most appropriate for their jurisdictions and to retain other provisions which are contrary to the Model Criminal Code where they believe it is appropriate for them to do so.
I just want to dispel the suggestion that there is this great big body of the Model Criminal Code which we are all collectively, across the states and territories, absolutely committed to implementing 100 per cent in every degree. That is not the case. So that argument that it is contrary to the Model Criminal Code and therefore we should not be doing it is one that I do not accept. It is a nonsense argument and it fails to appreciate the environment in which we are operating when it comes to other states and territories.
The real issue is: are the Liberal Party and the Greens going to work to adopt a definition of murder that the Labor Party would argue meets the expectations of the community? In what circumstances is it unreasonable for someone who inflicts
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .