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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3344 ..

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 19, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 20.

MS DUNDAS (4.44): Mr Deputy Speaker, with apologies to the Assembly, I will not be moving amendments Nos 5, 6, 7 or 8 standing in my name today.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 34.

MR STEFANIAK (4.45): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move the amendment to clause 34 standing in my name [see schedule 3 at page 3371].

My amendment takes out the words "beyond reasonable doubt" and replaces them with the civil standard of proof of "on the balance of probabilities". The effect of clause 34 (1) (a) at present is that the injured person has to commit an indictable offence that has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is the criminal standard of proof. That is fine; there is no drama there. Also, it has to be proved that the accident itself occurred whilst the injured person was engaged in conduct that was an indictable offence. The standard of proof here for that is listed as beyond reasonable doubt as well.

That is quite different from similar legislation in New South Wales which, I would submit, we should be following. The standard in the New South Wales act is on the balance of probabilities. I am advised that the situation might be a bit different in South Australia, but in New South Wales the standard is the appropriate standard, the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities.

I would think that in every other instance in this act proof that an accident occurred would be based on the civil standard, would be based on the balance of probabilities. Why does it have to be the case here that not only the offence has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be an indictable offence, but also the accident that occurred to the injured person who was engaged in committing that indictable offence has to be proven on the criminal standard?

I think that that is a nonsense and I think that that makes a bit of a mockery of the point made by the Chief Minister in his speech when he stated, "The government supports the proposition that a person who sustains injury whilst committing a serious offence should bear their own losses." That is a sensible principle. It is something that the community

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