Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 13 Hansard (Wednesday, 16 November 2011) . . Page.. 5398 ..


Ms Bresnan: On the point of order, we are actually talking about the question. As I said, it was about the document that was tabled by the minister, and that was in the document tabled by the minister.

MR SPEAKER: In the spirit of an earlier ruling, I think that we will focus on the part of the question that the minister is responsible for, just as I ruled with the question you asked before, Mr Hargreaves. Minister, could you focus on the part that Ms Le Couteur asked about that is relevant to your portfolio.

MS BURCH: Again I thank the Greens for their interest in the financial impact to the territory of the introduction of that bill. The bill spoke about energy, energy ratings and minimum standards around EER. We have provided you with up to—let us be clear: it is up to—a $217 million impact on Housing ACT should some of those elements be applied.

As for air conditioning, I regularly get contact in my office with people who are seeking air conditioning in their housing property. Given that I know that that is a request and that some are installed, it is not unreasonable to include it in the costings.

Crime—penalty for manslaughter

MR DOSZPOT: My question is to the Attorney-General. Yesterday in question time you were asked to clarify statements you made in the Assembly on 27 October 2011 that the Director of Public Prosecutions had given evidence to the JACS committee in its inquiry into the Crimes (Murder) Amendment Bill 2008 that, in relation to manslaughter, “the current penalty is appropriate”. In response you said you did not have the detail in front of you and you took on notice the range of questions asked. However, in the debate on the Crimes (Penalties) Amendment Bill this morning you repeated the statement. Minister, I ask you again: what were the words used by the DPP in giving evidence to the JACS committee, which were that the DPP considered the current penalty appropriate?

MR CORBELL: I refer members to page 31 of the transcript of the justice and community safety committee’s inquiry into the Crimes (Murder) Amendment Bill. The DPP made a number of statements with respect to the examples of the offence of murder and manslaughter. During the hearing Mr Rattenbury asked a question of Mr White in the context of contemporary cases of homicide. Mr Rattenbury’s question was:

The question that has arisen in committee discussions this morning, to some extent, is: is the issue one of the definition of the offence or is the issue more that we have a problem of inadequate penalty?

Mr White said in response, following a preamble:

There is plenty of flexibility available to sentencing judges in relation to sentences for both manslaughter and murder.

Later Mr White was asked by the chair of the committee:


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video