Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3714 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I acknowledge that this is a particularly difficult area of the law. I think it is an horrendously difficult area of the law, particularly in relation to the determination of intent and intent to harm, and this would invariably be the defence of a stalker. I know from my own experience within the Domestic Violence Unit at the Magistrates Court that the response is invariably, "Oh, I didn't mean any harm, I didn't mean to frighten the person, I didn't mean to cause them alarm." Those sorts of statements illustrate how difficult it is to legislate in relation to these areas.

I repeat that the Labor Party supports this legislation. We acknowledge, however, that this is a very difficult area in which to legislate. It raises some very difficult questions, particularly in relation to the issue of intent and intention to harm, frighten or harass. But over and above that, of course, there is the absolute right which people within the community, particularly women and girls, have to be protected from this form of particularly frightening behaviour.

I am sure that the Attorney, his department and the courts will keep an eye on the amendments to this area of law. There are issues here that could perhaps benefit from some review in a year or so in relation to how the law is operating in the area of stalking. Issues relating to apprehended violence orders or restraining orders have proved from time to time to be quite difficult.

I imagine that the Attorney, his department and the courts would place these amendments under review to see how they operate in practice. I can indicate that from time to time I propose to follow up on how these laws are operating in practice.

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs, Attorney - General and Treasurer) (10.01): I thank the Labor Party for its support of the bill. I will make just one comment. There are other examples of stalking legislation which go further than our legislation. In Victoria, for example -

Mr Stanhope: And South Australia.

MR HUMPHRIES: And South Australia, Mr Stanhope advises me. In Victoria there is not a subjective test of intention but an objective test of ought the person concerned have realised that harm would be occasioned to his/her victim.

We have not gone that far in this legislation and I hope we do not have to go that far in the future. The intention here is to fix the problem of failed stalking prosecutions. As I said in my presentation speech, the majority of stalking prosecutions have failed since the new legislation was introduced. We want to correct that problem, and I am hopeful that this bill will do that. I would not like to have to come back to adopt a Victorian style bill in the ACT, but that obviously would be considered if these provisions somehow did not achieve the effect of protecting people, particularly women, against stalkers in the ACT.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .