Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 8 March 2011) . . Page.. 443 ..
recommendations section, on page viii, recommendation 8 incorrectly referenced recommendation 6. Recommendation 8 should have referenced recommendation 7. In paragraph 4.41, under chapter 4, “Strengthening and safeguarding independence”, on page 52, recommendation 8 incorrectly referenced recommendation 6. Recommendation 8 should have referenced recommendation 7.
The corrigendum replaces the respective text in the published report. I therefore seek leave to table a corrigendum to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts report No 15, Inquiry into the ACT Auditor-General Act 1996.
MS LE COUTEUR: I present the following paper:
Public Accounts—Standing Committee—Report 15—Inquiry into the ACT Auditor-General Act 1996—Corrigendum.
Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
Debate resumed from 9 December 2010, on motion by Mr Corbell:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.06): The Liberal opposition will be supporting this bill which makes a range of amendments to the Crimes Act 1900, the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005, the Criminal Code 2002 and the Prostitution Act 1992. The Attorney-General in his presentation speech noted that these amendments “provide our laws with greater clarity and consistency”.
The bill makes seven amendments. Firstly, it reintroduces the offence of bestiality to the Crimes Act 1900 and imposes a maximum penalty of 10 years. The definition is wide ranging, covering any sexual activity between a person and an animal. The ACT and South Australia will be the only jurisdictions to carry such a wide-ranging definition. The next amendment, which is associated with the first, amends the definition of sexual intercourse in the Crimes Act to state that “an object” also includes an animal.
Thirdly, the Crimes Act 1900 is amended to provide that the fault element, currently knowledge or recklessness, in acts of indecency should be recklessness only, which is established by proving either knowledge or recklessness. This is to remove the current problem of duplicity in the court proceeding in which the court, rather than satisfying itself as to the relevant fault element, has been calling on the prosecutor to elect the fault element on which the matter should proceed.
In my discussions with the legal fraternity on this bill, it has been suggested to me that the amendment may cause technical issues in legal argument in these kinds of matters. But only time will reveal whether this is the case and I will be watching this matter closely and reserve the right to bring forward further amendments should the problems emerge.