Page 790 - Week 02 - Thursday, 23 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is the case that I have separately taken the decision to refer the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill to the ACT Law Reform Advisory Council, chaired by Professor Simon Rice from the ANU. I have taken this decision a short while ago because of the representations I have received from a number of members of the ACT legal community who have raised concerns about the implications of that reform.
I think I should be clear that the intention of that reform is to eliminate what would otherwise be a sanctioning of violent acts towards police. In my view there is no place in a justice system, where people are rapidly brought before a magistrate, where claims of illegal arrest can be promptly dealt with, where people can be released from custody again in a prompt matter, and no justification for this provision.
But I accept the commentary and the concerns of those in the legal community who have raised these concerns that there is nevertheless an important legal principle at stake, and it needs to be tested. I am very open to that discussion occurring, and in my view the ACT Law Reform Advisory Council is a good place to do that because it brings all of the key representatives and different sides of our criminal justice system and our broader legal community together.
It has legal academics on it. It has legal representatives from both the prosecution and defence side of the profession. It also brings together the police, Legal Aid and a broader range of other stakeholders. I think that is a good space to have that policy discussion.
You raised, Madam Assistant Speaker, in your speech earlier the matter of referral to the LRAC and referral to the standing committee. I see no conflict in adopting both courses of action. I would argue that the LRAC, as an independent body, has a strong level of expertise to bring to this discussion, and I would like the benefit of their advice in the context of the matters that have been raised. It is entirely open to me as minister to make a referral to the LRAC on whatever matter I feel is needing to be inquired into within the context of my portfolio responsibilities, and that is what I have done. Nevertheless, I do not believe there is any duplication in also referring the matter to the Assembly committee. The Assembly committee has a role to play in looking at these matters, and I have no objection to that course being followed as well.
In relation to the amendment proposed by Mr Rattenbury, the government, as I have indicated, will support that. We will support that because the proposal in the bill from Mr Seselja seeks to significantly change the penalties and also the offences available when it comes to assaults against police. In principle, the government agrees that it is important to make clear that we have a strong legislative framework that protects police officers when they seek to do their job in terms of enforcing the law and protecting the safety of the broader community.
The issue that needs to be tested in this discussion is the central argument of Mr Seselja’s bill, which, as he asserts, is about deterring attacks on police. I think the jury is out on that question. It will certainly provide for stronger penalties for those who are convicted of assaults against police, and that may, in and of itself, be a satisfactory argument for the bill. But Mr Seselja asserts that the prime motive of this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video