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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (13 February) . . Page.. 22 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I will not persist at this stage with comments that I would wish to make about a more appropriate definition of "offensive weapon". I believe that the definition of "offensive weapon" contained in the New South Wales Crimes Act would be appropriate for adoption in the ACT, to the extent that it does require that there be at least some intent in relation to the possession of the offensive weapon. It does provide a much more objective criteria by which to measure whether a particular item is an offensive weapon.

I might just note that in correspondence with the Attorney-General in relation to another bill I did raise this issue of the definition of "offensive weapon". I note that the Attorney, in his response on that bill to this issue, advised me that the new broad definition of "offensive weapon" has not proven problematic during the many years in which it has applied in the ACT.

I have to say that I am not quite sure what the Attorney is referring to there, having regard to the fact that the broad definition which we are discussing and which I wrote to him about is the definition that was inserted only in December by the Crimes Amendment Bill 2000 and it is quite probable that the new definition of "offensive weapon" has not yet been relied on at all by the police in the ACT, so I really do not fully understand his response on that occasion.

The situation is that until recently the ACT Crimes Act had four separate definitions of "offensive weapon", all of them different from each other, all for use in different circumstances, and all of them much tighter and much more prescriptive than the sole definition which we would be moving to if the amendments contained in this bill were successful.

As I said, we do not object to the definition that was included as a result of the stalking amendment. We actually supported it at the time and we do not object to it out of hand. I do not regard it as totally objectionable. But it contains a phrase which, if used universally, creates quite serious problems. There is a diminution of rights that is unnecessary and, I believe, unacceptable to the extent that the definition of "offensive weapon" in the stalking amendment contains as a qualifier the phrase "anything capable of being used as an offensive weapon", which means anything at all that could be used as a weapon, absolutely anything.

It is a retreat in terms of the sorts of definitions that are now used around Australia. It is a significant retreat from the provision which is used in the New South Wales Crimes Act, the provision that I propose be inserted in our Crimes Act, and that is the substance and force of the amendment which I have circulated.

At this stage, Mr Speaker, I am happy to say that the Labor Party is happy to support this bill in principle. We support the very desirable intention of outlawing sexual servitude. We do know that this is a significant issue round Australia, with some of the very unsavoury, unacceptable and unlawful behaviour that does characterise some sections of the sex industry in Australia, particularly in relation to sex workers who sometimes travel here in various guises from other places.

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