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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 141 ..

case, why get rid of another law that has served the test of time? If you use the argument that the government is using, why on earth would you not get rid of, say, racial vilification and sexual vilification laws, or whatever, if they have never been used and if there are other laws which have stood the test of time and have been very, very effective.

That is probably something that needs looking at in greater detail. However, in terms of this particular act, all right, it will add vilification on the grounds of sexuality to what we have already. I strongly suspect, and I strongly hope, too, that it will never be used. I think we do need to look at it again, if it is not used. I thank God we do not need it and that charges do not need to be laid under this legislation, because of the nature of our community. Long may it be so.

There are a number of issues in this bill about which we do have concerns. Generally though, most of the legislation is simply bringing these acts into line with other legislation introduced some time ago. The opposition will be supporting the bill in principle.

MS TUCKER (10.42): This is another step in the introduction of the package that has been under way for most of the term of this Assembly. Ms Dundas and I raised the issue earlier on. I remember attempting on a couple of occasions to make some of these changes, but my attempts turned out to be out of order. Then Ms Dundas moved a motion that was in order.

I have a few comments about this legislation. It is very important to remove the provocation defence as a defence for murder. This change would not prevent someone using the defence that they have been a victim of violence at the hands of the murdered person on previous occasions and that this was somehow a last straw. This remaining defence should only be used in very specific circumstances, for example, in a domestic violence situation.

I also want to mention the serious vilification provisions. These are worded carefully so that they are about serious public inciting and not about the discussion of issues, academic or artistic exploration and so on. The maximum penalty for the worst offences is very high. We have to remember that the end result of vilification can be murder and we should bear that in mind when looking at the maximum penalty. I would say that some of what Mrs Dunne said tonight was getting close to it.

It will be essential to the effective enactment of all of the amendments that have been part of this reform process that there is an active education program. Many of the amendments concern administrative decisions in areas where the work does not usually deal with sexuality. Medical administrators and medical professionals need to know that they must take into account same-sex partners’ views. The courts will also be dealing with a number of matters amended by this bill. Court workers and magistrates should perhaps know, through keeping track of law reform, but an education effort will ensure that the laws are applied by all staff there.

There is the community affected. The conduct of this legislative review, assisted particularly through the efforts of good process, has raised awareness of the changes under way. However, it is important that, as much as possible, there is another effort from government to advertise the changes. The experience in Western Australia has been

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