POLICE OFFENCES AMENDMENT (INCREASED PENALTIES FOR DAMAGE TO TASMANIAN WAR MEMORIALS) BILL 2026 (No. 5)
[6.19 p.m.]
Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, I thank Mr Ferguson for bringing this to the House. The desecration of war memorials is something that must be condemned, just as the desecration of other monuments and places of worship should also be condemned. That said, those memorialised who laid down their lives and sacrificed for this country should be honoured and acknowledged for their contribution to our country and our way of life. I also recognise the presence of RSL president Mike Gallagher and CEO John Hardy this evening.
When this parliament is asked to debate legislation that affects a person's liberty and, in particular, how long that liberty may be taken away, it is a solemn responsibility. It is one that must be approached with the full benefit of evidence, analysis and expert advice the state has at its disposal. But that is not what we are being asked to do today. Instead, we are being asked to consider significant changes to criminal penalties on the basis of a private member's bill, one that has not been subjected to the rigorous analysis and preparation that criminal justice legislation ordinarily requires.
Normally, such legislation would be developed through policy specialists and legal experts, often informed by the Sentencing Advisory Council. This is important to hear for the House, for the opposition, for others who are going to support this bill ‑ and for the RSL, because to have something with rigour is more important than to have something that doesn't have the rigour it should have.
The Sentencing Advisory Council exists precisely to give the Attorney‑General high‑level independent advice on sentencing in Tasmania. Its purpose is to assist the government to make informed decisions on sentencing matters and improve the quality and availability of sentencing information in this state. A bill proposing to dramatically increase penalties, raising the maximum term of imprisonment sevenfold and imposing mandatory sentences would ordinarily be referred for consultation. You would expect to see submissions from Tasmanian Legal Aid, the bar, the Law Society, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Community Legal Centres Tasmania, UTAS academics and the Director of Public Prosecutions. These are quality‑control mechanisms available to the government.
The member has chosen not to use any of them. Instead, he justifies his bill by saying, 'Harsher penalties are needed to impose meaningful penalties', a phrase he does not define. He also claims there is evidence that interference with war memorials is increasing. I asked him what evidence supports these claims, whether he had received any data from Tasmania Police showing the number of offences over time. The answer was 'No'. I asked what information he could provide to support his assertions that these offences are becoming more common. The only material he relied upon was a single letter from the RSL. That's not to diss the RSL, but I want to stack up the evidence one‑on‑one here.
I asked whether he had data on how many people have been charged with the offence each year since its introduction in 2014. The answer was 'No'. I asked whether he had any information about the sentences imposed by magistrates and judges, or whether those sentences have changed over time? Again, 'No'. I asked whether he had any data on how many people have been committed to the Supreme Court for the crime of interfering with a war memorial since its introduction - an offence that carries no maximum or minimum penalty, allowing a sentencing judge full discretion to impose a just and proportionate sentence. He had no information at all.
I would genuinely like to know whether anyone has ever been committed to the Supreme Court for this crime. I suspect the answer is no. If that's the case, on what basis can the member assert that existing penalties are inadequate? My adviser searched for any Tasmanian appeal decision alleging that a sentence for interfering with a war memorial was manifestly inadequate. We could not find one. If I am mistaken, I welcome correction.
On what basis, then, does this bill propose increasing the maximum fine from $5000 to $100,000 - a twentyfold increase? On what basis does it introduce a mandatory minimum fine of $5000? As far as I am aware, no offence in either the Criminal Code nor the Police Offences Act carries a mandatory minimum fine. If I'm wrong, I invite the member to correct me. Introducing one now without any consultation with the Sentencing Advisory Council or the legal profession is irresponsible and sets a dangerous precedent. On what basis does the member propose increasing the maximum term of imprisonment from 12 months to seven years - a sevenfold increase? This proposal is not only unjustified; it is legally incoherent. Under the Sentencing Act, the maximum sentence a magistrate may impose for a single offence is three years. Had this bill been subject to proper departmental scrutiny or public consultation, this error would have been identified and removed long ago. There is simply no evidence at all before this House that could persuade its members that there is a compelling need to increase the maximum sentence, let alone increase it by up to 20 times.
I respect the RSL a great deal, of course, and recognise the members in the Chamber, but it is inappropriate to base the law of this magnitude on just the information they have provided. As with the Greens, I do not mean to condone or minimise the offence and hurt caused by this sort of offending.
I can't finish without pointing out the weakness of the Labor Party, unfortunately, which used to stand against mandatory sentencing, but now prefer to put politics ahead of principle. To our RSL friends, this is not good legislation. I'll say that just one more time.
I will not be supporting this bill. Tasmanians expect a responsible and serious parliament to pass responsible and serious laws, but this bill fails the test. I had considered drafting amendments and perhaps if the honourable member would like to withdraw the bill, then we could start from the very beginning, but doing so would risk legitimising a fundamentally illegitimate bill.
Finally, I want to talk about moral equivalency and the sort of statement we are being asked to send here today. Is damage to a war memorial any more confronting to members of the aggrieved community than damaging a place of religious worship, which we know are increasing in frequency? Yet the penalty is quite different. The penalty units or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. Note there is no specific offence in Tasmania for causing damage to a place of religious worship, despite the increased incidences of these sorts of offences around the country. I do not support this, and I feel it's a mistreatment of what we have before us.
Before I finish, I also want to say, when the sentencing is changed in this way, if we have somebody who desecrates a war memorial - Person A versus Person B. Person A may for argument's sake be a war veteran and who may have a mental illness. If there is a desecration that has occurred because of that versus somebody who has through an act of extremism or a political vandalism who will carry the same penalty, this is totally unjust. The sentencing judge would not have any opportunity to say, 'Well, I see there might be leniency in case A and there might be a higher penalty in case B'.