Page 2834 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Acting Speaker, as I indicated before, I do not propose to comment in detail on the particular provisions in the law, in the Criminal Code itself. There are some interesting changes being made to the criminal law, which relate to all sorts of things ranging from the law of mistake to the law concerning conspiracy. One particular thing which I think we would all applaud - I will comment on it only very briefly - is changes to the law concerning self-induced intoxication. It has been held by our courts that a person who is intoxicated lacks the intent to commit criminal offences. So, a person who is completely drunk would, in theory at least, be able to avoid a conviction for murder, because in that state he or she can kill somebody else. It is clearly indicated in this code that that kind of defence is not to be generally available, although it may have the effect, for example, of reducing a murder charge to a manslaughter conviction. I think we would generally accept that that is a welcome development in our criminal law.
There are many other significant changes in this code which I do not have the time to discuss this evening but which, of course, we will have a chance to discuss in detail when the Government asks us to enact this as the law of the Territory, which they will do, I assume, at some point in the future, although I note that in the presentation speech the Minister says:
My tabling of the code is intended to initiate debate at a local level on the merits of a national criminal code and the desirability of codifying the general principles of criminal responsibility, without committing the Government to that course.
I assume that they are committed in principle but have yet to decide on exactly how they will achieve this.
I finally comment briefly, Mr Acting Speaker, on the drafting of the Criminal Code Bill. It is a very interesting example of plain English drafting. For example, the sometimes cumbersome definitions section early in the Bill has been replaced by something very helpfully called a dictionary at the end of the Bill, in which things are defined in a fairly clear fashion. The language used is a very clear and straightforward form in a style which, one would imagine, most people would be able to digest fairly simply. However, that is a debate for another day. With the reservations I have expressed, I believe, Mr Acting Speaker, that we have made an important step tonight, at least in discussing and, by implication, accepting the idea that we should go down this kind of path. I believe that it is important to accept the limitations of this approach; but it is a valuable approach in achieving a very important goal, namely, the codification and uniformity of legislation in the area of criminal law around the whole of this country.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (8.50), in reply: I thank the Opposition for their constructive contribution to this debate. Since I made the statement in the house that sparked this debate, the Prime Minister opened in late August at Parliament House a major forum on access to justice. That was attended by people from around the country. One of the key points that he made about this search for easier access to justice and a more affordable system of justice - a search that governments and parliaments around Australia are engaged in, that the Government is looking for solutions on, that Mr Humphries's Assembly committee is looking for solutions on - is that in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .