Page 5196 - Week 12 - Thursday, 27 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think that as community leaders we have a greater responsibility to actually lead the discussion, talk about what will work and not play to some populous notion that somehow point-to-point speed cameras, fixed speed cameras or more police vehicles on the street are just revenue-raising exercises.
The fifth area of concern that the Greens have about this bill is that the approach adopted by the government is to mirror sentencing laws in other jurisdictions. The inherent danger in this approach is that the ACT is potentially unwittingly copying the results of simplistic tough on law and order campaigns from past state elections. We believe that would be a bad result for the ACT.
We need to be able to think for ourselves, perform a review of how our sentencing regime is performing and then make any necessary changes. I think here in the ACT we pride ourselves on this Assembly carefully scrutinising proposals and ensuring that they come from the best place, give the best possible results in the ACT and not be constrained by the way it is done in other states. To suggest that we should simply mirror other states is not to my mind a solid basis for making policy decisions in this chamber.
Let me simply conclude by saying that the Greens will not be supporting the bill for the reasons I have outlined. We ultimately are concerned that there is no evidence to support the proposed changes and we believe that a more considered approach to sentencing reform is required here in the territory.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.14), in reply: I can only express my great disappointment at the failure of the Liberal Party and the Greens to support this important piece of law reform. It will be on the record today that the opposition, the Liberal Party, voted against proposals to increase penalties for culpable driving causing death and causing grievous bodily harm, and they did so only for their base political advantage. We have seen Mrs Dunne point the finger—
Mrs Dunne interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Stop the clock. Minister, just a second please. Mrs Dunne, I have asked you once before. The next time you open up an interjection I am going to name you, without warning. Minister, you have the floor.
MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We have seen Mrs Dunne point the finger and say, “This is all the government’s fault.” But if Mrs Dunne felt there were deficiencies in the government’s bill why did she refuse to propose any amendment to the bill? Mrs Dunne is never backward in coming forward in making amendments to government legislation, but on this occasion she has been mute. She has been mute because this is all part of her political play to defeat a piece of government legislation, well-based, well-researched government legislation, so that the government has to support hers. But I am not going to play the same petty games that Mrs Dunne plays. I am interested in getting a result. I am interested in getting these sentences for these serious offences increased and I will be proposing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video