Page 5356 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011

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

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 4.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.55): The government will be opposing this clause. Paragraph (b) of the objects clause refers to the desirability of amending maximum penalties so they mirror those available in other jurisdictions. The government’s position is that this is not a proper methodology to apply to reform maximum penalties. Even though the objects clause would not be inserted into the Crimes Act by the bill, it is not appropriate to include a statement such as that in paragraph (b) in ACT law. The entire objects clause should be omitted as it adds little value to the bill.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.56): The Canberra Liberals will, on reflection, support the opposition to this clause, but for a slightly different reason. The Canberra Liberals believe, as I have already said, that there should be some connection between offences in various jurisdictions and that there should be a correspondence across jurisdictions. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with reinforcing it here.

The purpose of the objects clause essentially was to send a message across and to reinforce to the community that this Legislative Assembly considers the issues of manslaughter and culpable driving offences to be important. The attorney is quite right: the objects clause will not be incorporated into the Crimes Act; it serves a purpose in this piece of legislation alone. I am prepared to delete this clause now because it is constructed in terms of manslaughter and culpable driving, and the attorney’s amendments, which we will be supporting later in the day, will also add the range of grievous bodily harm offences to it. Because it will no longer reflect the legislation as it is finally passed, I am happy to delete this clause.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.58): The Greens will also be supporting the government’s opposition to this clause, partly for the reasons the attorney and Mrs Dunne have reflected on. In light of the different matters covered by the bill, it seems to not quite fit anymore. But we also support it for the reasons I have discussed earlier in the sense that the objects of the bill talk about reflecting community standards and reflecting the penalties for other jurisdictions. I will not repeat my earlier comments on that, but members understand the points I would make if we were to proceed on this basis.

Clause 4 negatived.

Clause 5.

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