Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 583 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
The committee accepts that it misunderstood the way proposed new section 140A should be read. The essence of the offence is that the person has done something, such as something that could endanger human life or health (paragraph 140A(a)), and did that with the intention of causing public alarm or anxiety. The Committee accepts that it was not correct to state 'that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the person intended to cause public alarm or anxiety' by acting in a way described ...
Initially, the scrutiny of bills committee got it wrong. The report continued:
The Chief Minister expresses surprise at some of the concerns and/or confusion which have arisen, and the Committee accepts that it did misread proposed new section 140A. The Chief Minister draws attention to the fact that the offences proposed 'are clearly stated and structured in accordance with the approach taken in the Model Criminal Code'. In relation to proposed new section 140A, the Chief Minister comments that the Government does not understand how the Committee reached the conclusion it did about how this section should be read. The Committee observes that this section is worded in a way that suggests that a reader asks first, whether the person had the intention of causing public alarm or safety, and, secondly asks whether the person did something that could endanger human life or health. It was by reading the provision this way that the Committee became confused. The Committee accepts that the provision may be structured in accordance with the Model Criminal Code, but the question is whether the provision is worded in a way-
and I guess this is the crux and something we need to dwell on here-
that makes it easily intelligible for a citizen who is not familiar with the code.
Well, there are some citizens here who are not familiar with the code. The report continues:
The Committee accepts that the word "public" qualifies both 'alarm' and 'anxiety'. It considers, however, that it is legitimate to ask whether a citizen not familiar with techniques for statutory interpretation would understand that this was the case.
The government has responded to the confusion that the scrutiny of bills committee felt by clarifying and providing some certainty to exactly what it was that the government intended to do in the first place. All the amendments do is clarify the position to overcome the confusion which the scrutiny of bills committee itself felt, and the scrutiny of bills committee now has most nobly acknowledged that it misunderstood what the government was doing. It now says that it has had another look at it, it has read it and it is really quite clear that the government in no way intended to trammel legitimate political activity, and there has to be a clear intention to cause the alarm or anxiety.
The report of the scrutiny of bills committee goes on to say:
The Chief Minister's response makes reference to the fact that 'no other jurisdictions have judged it necessary-
and this is a very significant response by the scrutiny of bills committee-
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .