Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 263..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
That Ms Tucker's amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly voted-
Ayes 6 Noes 7 Mr Berry Mr Wood Mrs Burke Mr Smyth Mr Hargreaves Mr Cornwell Mr Stefaniak Mr Quinlan Mr Hird Mr Stanhope Mr Kaine Ms Tucker Mr MooreQuestion so resolved in the negative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Crimes Amendment Bill 2000 (No 3)
Bill as a whole.
Debate resumed from 13 February 2001.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.14): Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for leave to move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name together.
MR STANHOPE: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 291].
At the outset let me say that the Labor Party is not totally opposed to the government's definition of offensive weapon. We do not find it totally objectionable. There is an aspect of it that we feel to be unacceptable; that we do object to.
The aspect of the definition of offensive weapon which my amendments go to is the phrase "anything capable of being used" included within the definition. That particular phrase permits what might be regarded as otherwise innocuous objects possessed by a person to be defined-in fact, they are defined-as offensive weapons, regardless of the circumstances in which the objects are possessed or the intent of the person possessing them. That is the current situation with the government's definition of offensive weapon. The inclusion of the words "anything capable of being used" as a qualifier of what is an offensive weapon, in effect, deems any object to be an offensive weapon, without any regard to the circumstances in which it is possessed or without any regard to the intention with which it is carried, or the purposes for which it is proposed to be used by the person carrying it.