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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2143 ..

MR MOORE (11.30): I think there is another element, too, Mr Speaker, about this type of amendment. Somebody who is terribly in love with somebody, or somebody who has effectively become obsessed with somebody else, sometimes gives the mythological impression that the person just has so much love, and this type of stalking can be addressed in that kind of frame. Occasionally I read a book or a story that goes along these lines, and sometimes the line is used in films. I think it is very important to understand that that kind of dressing-up of this type of obsessive behaviour that does have an impact on people is about intimidation. That is why I am strongly supportive of including intimidation in this, because there is a slight difference in tone between intimidation and harassment. Whilst the two run parallel, I think it is important that we make very clear that the whole issue of stalking is about harassment, intimidation and so on. Therefore I think it is appropriate that we include this amendment.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.31): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment that Ms Follett has moved but I want to make clear something which Mr Moore just said which might potentially be misinterpreted. Mr Moore was talking about someone who, through an infatuation, follows somebody else and makes that person's life a misery, but in fact is motivated by a strong sense of love for that person and simply wants to be near them. As I read Ms Follett's legislation, that behaviour would not constitute an offence because it is essential under proposed subsection 34A(1) that a person shall not stalk or perform an intimidatory act against another person with intent to cause apprehension or fear in the other person, or physical or mental harm. If someone is purely infatuated and does not understand the word "no" but has no desire to cause apprehension or fear, there is no question that that person would be committing an offence, as I read this legislation. I thought I should make that clear in case it were interpreted by a court that we were, by including the word "intimidation" in subsection (2), in some way negating subsection (1), which I think puts that qualification on it.

MR MOORE (11.33): I take that point that Mr Humphries is making. Basically, it is the role of the court to look at and interpret how people are acting, and to what extent they, personally, intend to intimidate. Somebody can always say, "Well, I was just in love. I was not trying to intimidate anybody at all, so, therefore, there was no intention". I believe that the court will interpret to what extent there was an intention or not. Also, the very existence of this law means that people can be warned about that action on the first instance. They can be told that this is intimidating and if they do it again, a second time, it is actually intimidating. I accept Mr Humphries's point and I think it is something that the courts will sort out. The stalking legislation itself creates an understanding of just what is intimidating and what is not intimidating, and I think that is one of the great benefits of having legislation like this. I hope that this sort of legislation will have widespread public discussion so that people who are involved in stalking will realise what they are doing, and realise just how intimidating it is for somebody who is on the receiving end.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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