Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

Yes. So, with great respect, they have a very different view from the way we believe we should deal with offenders against a society’s rules. Senator Murray also made the point that he believed that chances are there are some people in jails who should not be there. I happen to agree with him. That is found on appeal on the odd occasion. Or there might be laws with which you and I might disagree—and, might I add, the vast majority of the laws are state laws. But I think the argument there is: let us change those specific laws rather than use that as an argument to undermine the principle that this government is putting to us.

Senator Ludwig told us about the Canadian case and the UK case. These are all very interesting but, with great respect, I am not sure how relevant they are. In Canada I think they have the bill of rights to which they then make reference. That is their own law and they have to have reference to it. With the United Kingdom, they signed up to some protocol with the European Union, I think, and as a result under the rule of law they have to abide by the interpretation of those rules and those laws. I happen to think that sometimes signing up to these international agreements or bills of rights can have unforeseen consequences, and clearly the United Kingdom government was of that view in trying to argue the case that they did, albeit unsuccessfully.

Senator Ludwig makes the point—and it is fair—that if you get a two-month period of imprisonment that falls during an election period you are denied the vote on that occasion, whereas you could get a two-year penalty that does not. Yes, that is right. But if your son was getting married during that time or if there was a funeral—you might get special leave to attend a funeral—or a friend’s graduation, or whatever: the period of time that you are in jail will have all sorts of varying impacts.

This is not an indiscriminate piece of legislation. We are saying that if, under the rule of law, the judiciary in this country has determined that you should be removed from society for a period of time, then we as a government say that during that period of time, judicially determined, you should be denied the vote, and of course as soon as that penalty is served you should get the right to vote again. I fully support that. In relation to penalties, they do vary. I think that illegal fishing fines, for example, are sometimes a lot heftier than those for an unprovoked assault. What is the rationale for that? You have got to ask the state parliaments about that. But, all that aside, I commend the legislation as drafted.