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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 271 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

not specifically address the definition of offensive weapon in that debate-I cannot recall-but it is fair to say here and now, in relation to the point the Attorney makes, that I and the Labor Party made a very specific decision in relation to the stalking legislation.

Stalking is a most difficult and intractable offence to deal with. Stalking is an offence almost in a class of its own. The Labor Party on that occasion took a deliberate decision to support the government's legislation in relation to stalking, in recognition of the fact that dealing with stalking is incredibly difficult. Stalking is an intractable problem, and it raises the purpose for which a stalker carries an umbrella or a walking stick.

It seemed to us that there were very good reasons to seek to deal appropriately with that offence, which is an offence that is particularly difficult and traumatic, almost invariably, for women. Difficulties surround the threat that is presented by being stalked by somebody who has either rendered violence or threatened violence and who in the stalking activity carries something perhaps as innocuous as a briefcase, a handbag, a walking stick, an umbrella or any other object. We decided in that instance to support the government's legislation, acknowledging that it was strong and tough and was legislation that raised a significant number of issues to do with intent to deal with the specific difficulties of that offence.

Attorney, to some extent, I regret that you used the Labor Party's support of that legislation to make a point in relation to the definition of offensive weapon generally in the Crimes Act. The Labor Party position in relation to the stalking amendment was to support a specific provision for a particularly difficult offence. I make that point to clarify the issue.

On this issue, we believe something and you are not persuaded. I have made the point that the definition which was incorporated into the stalking amendment which we accepted is not a definition of offensive weapon that we think should prevail universally under the Crimes Act. That is our position.

By this definition, we are moving back to views that prevailed about the law many years ago. They are views we have progressively moved against as we have become more progressive and as we as a community have become more demanding about rights and civil liberties and the need to ensure that there is no undue trespass on the rights of citizens. It was this sort of provision that in the past led us to those sorts of conclusions.

I persist with my view, Attorney, that the inclusion within your definition of offensive weapon, in the way and in the place you have included it, of the phrase "capable of being used" unnecessarily renders every object that any person carries potentially an offensive weapon, without any suggestion within the definition that there has to be any intent associated with the carrying of the object. That is a position you simply do not need. You do not need to provide so expansively in that definition.

The definition contained in the New South Wales Crimes Act, I would have thought, would have been fairly significant evidence to you that you do not need to do it. The New South Wales police force manages quite well with a definition of offensive weapon that is not as broad as the definition which will now prevail in the ACT.

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