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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2141 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

the offensive behaviour offence in the Crimes Act, and the provisions in the Magistrates Court Act which cover harassment and offensive behaviour. Mental health legislation may also be appropriate in some cases. A definition of harm is included rather than the use of the words "mental" and "physical", although, as Ms Follett has indicated, some amendment to that definition of harm has been proposed.

The inclusion of a breach of a condition of police or court bail in the penalty provision of the Bill with five years' imprisonment as introduced is, I think, too severe and should be omitted. The result of this amendment would be to retain a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. The Bill would operate to cover isolated incidents which may be innocent, or prove difficult for the purposes of prosecution. Stalking should relate to a course of conduct. Subsection 34A(2) is amended to include a requirement of at least two occasions. A new subsection is proposed which clarifies that the prosecution need to prove that the person stalked, or a third person, apprehended or feared serious harm. The principle at work in this subsection is that the liability for threatening or intimidatory behaviour should not depend on the strength of mind of the victim selected.

Mr Speaker, I think those amendments, as modified, in turn, by Ms Follett, should make the legislation not only appropriate and consistent, but also closer to what has been produced, and is likely to be produced, by the ministerial council standing committee process which will generate legislation in the ACT which is consistent with legislation all over the country. A person will be committing an offence in the same circumstances wherever it might take place in the country. That, of course, is highly appropriate, particularly where, as I think Ms Follett indicated, victims may flee one jurisdiction and potentially be pursued by somebody into another jurisdiction.

MS FOLLETT (11.23): As I said before, there has been some discussion and negotiation between Mr Humphries and me over the amendments which he is proposing, and I accept the broad thrust of much of his proposal. Mr Speaker, a great deal of the amendments that Mr Humphries is moving are pretty technical, pretty much drafting matters, and I bow to the expertise in his department on that matter. In particular, I accept the point that we should not create two separate offences of stalking or intimidatory acts. I think it is a quite good point that has been raised by Mr Humphries - that stalking is, in fact, an intimidatory act, and we can leave it at stalking without adding further words. However, Mr Speaker, I will flag that I do want to include the notion of intimidation in the definition of stalking, and I will be moving an amendment to my own Bill, therefore, which is consequent on the passage of Mr Humphries's amendments. As for the remainder of Mr Humphries's amendments, I also accept that stalking represents a repeated pattern of behaviour and it is, therefore, appropriate to define it as having occurred on at least two occasions. I think that, for all of the victims of stalking that I have come across, the stalking has been repeated on many, many occasions. It has been repeated on a daily basis over quite a period of time. I do not believe that the amendment that Mr Humphries is moving will make any appreciable difference to the administration of this law when it becomes law.

Mr Speaker, as I say, I am happy to accept Mr Humphries's amendments for the most part. The proposals that I will be moving as a consequence of Mr Humphries's amendments really are refinements that we have come to agree on as a result of our negotiations. I move the following amendment to Mr Humphries's amendment:

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