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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4897 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

apply to everyone. Negligent manslaughter in the workplace should not be something that corporations can escape responsibility for.

MR STEFANIAK (9.29): Mr Speaker, I am not quite sure if people were actually listening to Mr Pratt. Ms Gallagher is now saying, "Oh well, you'll have two standards."Ms Gallagher, we do and it will be as a result of the rejection of Mr Pratt's amendments 2 and 3.

Ms Gallagher: No, we have two offences, not two standards.

MR STEFANIAK: Sorry, you have just ensured there are two offences. Indeed, I think you used the word "standards", Ms Gallagher, and so I will use that too. So you have effectively ensured that occurs by excluding workers, which Mr Pratt quite sensibly was going to try to put in. But you have rejected that.

So realising there are in fact now two offences of manslaughter, Mr Pratt, I think most sensibly, has moved these amendments to get a little bit of balance and to recognise the fact that, yes, we are now going to have two offences of manslaughter-section 15 of the Crimes Act plus industrial manslaughter. His amendments go towards that.

Quite clearly, a lot of the problems which nearly all ACT businesses have revolve around the concept of negligence. Mr Pratt, I think, in referring to recklessness has quite clearly shown that the intent of what you are trying to do will indeed be achieved. But you have already managed to achieve two separate laws of manslaughter, and that in itself quite clearly will lead to problems.

Amendments negatived.

MR PRATT (9.30): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move my amendments Nos 2 and 4 together.

Leave granted.

MR PRATT: I move amendment No 2 and amendment No 4 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 4920].

Mr Speaker, last night the government knocked out the opposition's attempts to increase the penalty under the Crimes Act for manslaughter, as we know it-

MR SPEAKER: But you won't reflect on that debate, will you?

MR PRATT: No, I am just making a comparison.

Ms Tucker: Well that's reflecting.

MR PRATT: No, it is not, Ms Tucker. Just sit back in your seat and wait.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Pratt, you cannot reflect on yesterday's decision.

MR PRATT: I am not reflecting. I do apologise to Ms Tucker-it is a complicated matter. I am not reflecting, Mr Speaker. I am making a comparison between the two manslaughters that we currently have.

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