Page 5197 - Week 12 - Thursday, 27 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
amendments to Mrs Dunne’s bill to achieve the outcome that she has refused the government for its legislation today.
It is very interesting that Mrs Dunne and the Liberal Party are not prepared to support an important law reform, a law reform which we know is required—
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, the same promise goes for you.
MR CORBELL: following the court of appeal decision in relation to the matter of Creighton. We know that it is required, and they are voting against it. It is to their shame and to their petty political positioning that they refuse to either support this bill or make amendment to it, to those provisions that they object to. Clearly they do not object to the provisions in relation to culpable driving. They could be supporting those provisions today, with amendment. But have we heard a single proposition from those opposite to make amendment? No, none whatsoever.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, that is the last time—holiday time.
MR CORBELL: It just shows that the Liberals are not seriously interested in law reform to improve penalties against those people who recklessly or negligently kill people as a result of the way they drive. Clearly the Liberal Party are not interested in doing that. They are only interested in advancing their own petty political positioning in this place.
The purpose of this bill is to increase maximum penalties to enable sentencing courts to adequately punish these offences, particularly in the worst cases. The five penalties were selected for amendment after careful consideration. The government does not lightly make changes to maximum penalties and I intend today to explain exactly how the government arrived at these new penalties, to demonstrate the strength of the government’s justification for this bill.
The issue of maximum penalties was first raised when the Director of Public Prosecutions contacted me and indicated that his office’s experience with culpable driving cases warranted government action to increase the maximum penalties available for these offences. The DPP specifically referred to the Creighton matter and his concern that the sentence in that case was manifestly inadequate. The DPP also took the opportunity at that time to draw my attention to the potential inadequacy of the current maximum penalty for the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. This is an offence of the utmost seriousness. In fact, it is one of the most serious offences in the Crimes Act.
Key public officers like the Director of Public Prosecutions are in a position to provide the government with insight into criminal justice issues, and we should pay attention to them. The government would not be doing its job properly if it did not carefully consider and attend to the concerns raised by the DPP, who are at the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video