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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 270 ..

MS TUCKER: But there is the question of sentencing. You are saying that there would be no way that this offensive weapon definition could have an impact on the sentence. You are telling me that that is not possible, are you?

Mr Stefaniak: If I come up to you with a gun, a knife or a baseball bat and say, "Give me your money or I will shoot you, stab you or bang you on the head," I am committing an armed robbery. If I simply come up to you, grab your bag, threaten to punch you but do not have anything in my hand and you hand over your money, that is a robbery, because I am not using an article to threaten you with. I do not have a weapon.

MS TUCKER: I am listening to what Mr Stefaniak is saying. Maybe he is correct. Mr Stanhope was listening also. Even if that is not correct and I have misunderstood-I do not claim to be an expert, and I am trying to grapple with it-I still cannot understand why it is such a problem to link the definition of offensive weapon to intent. Mr Stefaniak has not argued why it is a problem to improve that definition by linking it with intent. I do not understand why that is not a slight improvement. Mr Stefaniak said in his argument that it is a problem because it brings in all sorts of different definitions, but I understood that there was going to be one definition. Is that correct?

Mr Stefaniak: We have put in one definition. Mr Stanhope is trying to get the New South Wales-

MS TUCKER: Isn't he improving it?

Mr Stefaniak: No. He is saying he is. We are saying he is not. We are saying we have one definition we want to use.

MS TUCKER: Do we still end up with one definition, improved or not, according to your position?

Mr Stefaniak: Yes.

MS TUCKER: So it is clear that we are not creating lots of different definitions by supporting the amendments. All we are doing is adding something to the definition which will be-

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Ms Tucker. Would you like an extension of time, or are you done?

MS TUCKER: I will finish at this point, and I will listen to the responses.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (4.41): This is an issue of civil liberties and hence an issue on which I separate myself from government. I have listened to the debate, and I am not persuaded by the arguments that Mr Stanhope and Ms Tucker have put up. I can see where they are coming from. It is a difficult decision to be made, but in this case I will be opposing the amendments.


STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.42): I will respond briefly to a couple of points. I want to make some comment on the Attorney's opening remarks in relation to the definition of offensive weapon which we accepted in December. It may be that I did

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