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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4733 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

feedback from ACT police fairly regularly. When they talk about systemic weakness in the ACT, this is what police talk about most often.

Mr Stanhope: Who are they? Which police are they?

MR PRATT: You'd like to know, wouldn't you, Chief Minister?

Mr Stanhope: This is just off the record, is it?

MR PRATT: Ms Gallagher has a bill before-

Mr Stanhope: This is down the pub, is it?

MR PRATT: In fact, Chief Minister, I talk to stakeholders in the police business regularly. That is my job.

Mr Stanhope: Are policemen leaking to you, Mr Pratt?

MR PRATT: They are pointing out the concerns that they have to face, which your government does hardly anything about.

Ms Gallagher has a bill before us for debate tomorrow where the maximum penalty for industrial manslaughter is 25 years. Normal manslaughter is still only 20 years. Mr Stefaniak's bill at least increases the maximum penalty to 25 years, making it consistent with Ms Gallagher's industrial manslaughter maximum penalty-if we even accept that. If his bill is rejected, the industrial manslaughter legislation-if it gets up, and on the numbers it probably will-will have a much higher maximum penalty than any other type of manslaughter.

Ms Dundas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like your guidance on this matter. Is Mr Pratt anticipating discussion, under standing order 59?

Mr Stefaniak: You do not like free speech?

Ms Dundas: I am asking the question.

MR PRATT: What are you afraid of, Ms Dundas?

Ms Dundas: I am afraid that you are anticipating debate and breaking the standing orders. We will have the debate on industrial manslaughter tomorrow, Mr Pratt.

MR SPEAKER: It is open to members to compare these things. If Mr Pratt strays into an argument about whether it is appropriate to have industrial manslaughter laws or not, then you are right, Ms Dundas. But I think it is open to him to draw comparisons.

Ms Dundas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is all I was asking.

MR PRATT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that we were quite clear about that in the first instance. I was going to say that this is reason in itself for the government to at least vote in principle for this sensible piece of legislation, if you use the industrial manslaughter proposal as a benchmark.

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