SPEECH – War Memorials

Peter's speech in response to the passing of legislation increasing penalties for damage to war memorials 

Honourable chair, 

I recognise the Hon Member for Bass, Mr Ferguson, has a heart-felt reason for bringing this legislation to the Parliament. 

I recognise the passionate address to this House by the Hon Minister Pearce comes from deep seated experience. 

I also recognise that this should not be a debate for party politics but should come from a place in which common good takes precedence over all else. 

This is legislation I would like to support but cannot. 

I would wish to, since no sane person condones vandalism or desecration of war memorials. 

They’re mindless, offensive, hurtful to veterans and their families. 

They deserve to bear serious consequences. 

I have been with Australian forces in areas of conflict and recognise their service. 

But this legislation seeks to slip in an issue that is counter to good public policy and the administration of justice in this state. 

I am and have always been opposed to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties. 

This legislation imposes a minimum penalty of 25 points - maybe not a huge sum - but significant. 

I know there was strong argument in the Legislative Council to seek to amend the Bill on this very matter – along with reducing the maximum sentence from seven years to three. 

I find myself accepting the amendment but opposing the Bill because of its imposition of a minimum penalty and the precedent that sets. 

A mandatory minimum fine is a significant departure from sound sentencing principles. 

It’s not for this parliament to set minimum sentences or penalties as a matter of principle – it’s a matter for judges and magistrates to impose penalties and sentences that fit the particular circumstances of the crime and of the offender. 

Courts consider intent, mental health, age, capacity to pay, prior offending, remorse and prospects for rehabilitation. 

What courts don’t do – and nor should they – is impose one-size fits all. 

Serious offending should attract serious punishment. 

But that punishment should be imposed by the courts, not by parliament. 

This legislation sets a serious and unwarranted precedent, for when we impose mandatory minimums, we’re at the top of a slippery slope. 

Today we honour around 60,000 Australians who served in Vietnam, many who still bear the mental health scars of the conflict. 

We acknowledge and mourn the 523 Australians who died in the conflict lost their lives and the thousands who were wounded. 

I’m therefore a melancholy duty to oppose this legislation on this day. 

However, this parliament should not impose inflexible and ultimately inconsistent conditions that ultimately undermine sound sentencing principles. 

18th August 2026