Page 348 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: I have simply explained this. If you cannot understand that then there is no hope for you. Your amendment creates in a foetus a separate set of rights, a set of rights separate from the mother. We disagree on this but that, of course, is the whole point of the governments position. These are issues on which we can never agree. But we can agree to protect pregnant women from deliberate assault and the government’s legislation does that. Our bill protects pregnant women from assault, deliberate assault and malicious assault or injury. You claim your amendment does too, and that may very well be the case. But along the way it raises a whole range of complex issues that create a separate set of rights in an unborn child. It opens an argument about the right of the woman to an abortion and it is legislation on which we will never agree. We will never agree to your proposals.
The assertion has been made that this legislation is weak and wishy-washy and does nothing. I have to say that those sorts of arguments are very interesting, particularly in the context of the shadow attorney’s approach to law reform, which is simply around, “Well, if you want some criminal law reform, just put the penalties up.” It was interesting today to hear the shadow minister for police simply scoff and suggest that increasing the penalty for manslaughter from 20 years through the addition of a six-year additional sentence for an aggravation is worth nothing, is worth nought or does not send a message. I think it is drawing a long bow to suggest that adding the potential of an additional six years in jail for an aggravated offence of manslaughter involving a pregnant woman does not send a message that the community particularly abhors attacks on pregnant women.
It is not credible to suggest that increasing the penalty for inflicting grievous bodily harm from 15 years to 20 years if the infliction of grievous bodily harm involves a pregnant woman—that the penalty is potentially 20 years in prison instead of 15—does not send a message that this government, or this community, regards such an offence as particularly odious. It is suggested that there should be an additional three years in prison for recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. It is interesting to note that when the glove fits it will not necessarily be worn. If the argument suits on one occasion, Mr Stefaniak is out there constantly beating the drum and saying, “Put this penalty up by three years, put that penalty up by four years, put that penalty up by five years, to send a strong message that we really are concerned about the seriousness of this offence.”
The government is putting up penalties by six years and by five years for a whole range of offences involving assaults. Where the victim of the assault is a pregnant woman, all of a sudden it does not matter. But I think the suggestion that increasing the penalty by six years where the offence is against a pregnant woman, as opposed to an offence of the same order against a woman who is not pregnant or against a man, does not send a message that as a community we regard attacks on pregnant women as particularly odious and deserving of an extra penalty of six years has absolutely no credibility and it flies in the face of everything that particularly Mr Stefaniak and Mr Pratt have ever said about the criminal law and the application of penalties.
We are talking about sticking up the penalty by six years for some offences where the offence is against a pregnant woman and you say it does not count, it does not matter.
Mr Pratt: On a narrow band of offences. The overall bill does not provide it at all.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .