Page 2936 - Week 10 - Thursday, 7 October 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The government supports the clear criminalisation of stealthing as one measure to address the harm that is caused. We agree that the amendments made by this bill signal to the community that the practice is criminal in nature. The amendment also supports the effective prosecution of the practice by putting the act of stealthing clearly in the list of behaviours that negate consent, as set out in section 67 of the Crimes Act.
The amendments made by this bill build on the definition of consent, acknowledging the fact that, in the context of sexual activity, consent is dynamic and does not typically involve a blanket agreement to any form of sexual activity. Paragraph 67(1)(g) of the Crimes Act currently provides that consent may be negated if it was caused by a fraudulent misrepresentation of any fact. This bill will introduce a further paragraph to make it clear that if consent to sexual contact is conditional on the use of a condom, and a person makes an intentional misrepresentation about the use of a condom, consent is negated.
Subsection 67(1) provides that the list of matters which negate consent is given “without limiting the grounds on which it may be established that consent is negated”. The new paragraph is a quite specific example of behaviour which negates consent, but it does not result in the reading down of other matters which may negate consent.
The amendments made by the bill are positive steps to protect individuals in the ACT from risk of harm through non-consensual unprotected intercourse, thereby promoting the rights to life, security and privacy, all of which provide that a person’s bodily autonomy and health should be protected.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues throughout this Assembly to improve the ACT’s response to sexual violence. I note that Dr Paterson is currently developing her own consent legislation, which proposes further changes to the Crimes Act to advance a positive, communicative model of consent. This builds on work developed in the last term by Ms Le Couteur, and I welcome the fact that Dr Paterson is once again making the case for a definition of consent that requires an active understanding between sexual partners. While legislative reform alone will not address all of the work that we need to change attitudes, it does play an essential role in defining clearly our expectations as a community as to the behaviour we expect and demand.
As flagged earlier, the advice of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Steering Committee will assist in guiding the integration of criminal justice responses with other aspects of the ACT’s response to sexual assault. Once the government receives and then considers the report and recommendations of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Steering Committee over coming months, I look forward to undertaking further reform work, including what refinements may be appropriate for the reforms in this bill. I know that Minister Berry will comment shortly on the working group’s consideration of this bill.
It is encouraging to know that all members of this place have a shared commitment to addressing the devastating impact of sexual assault by way of not only law reform but
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video