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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 576 ..

MS TUCKER (4.13): No, the Greens will not be supporting this amendment either. I am very aware of the arguments that have been put by Mr Humphries, Mr Stefaniak and Mr Stanhope. Regardless of whether or not a statement has been made by other governments, I think it is quite inappropriate to be applying criminal law retrospectively in this way.

There are principles that we try to have regard for when making laws in this parliament. We make the laws in this parliament according to our consciences. That is appropriate for us as people elected here. I do not think it is appropriate to have retrospective legislation of this kind.

Question put:

That Mr Stefaniak's amendment No 1 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted-

Ayes, 7

Noes, 10

Mr Cornwell

Mr Pratt

Mr Berry

Ms MacDonald

Mrs Cross

Mr Smyth

Mr Corbell

Mr Quinlan

Mrs Dunne

Mr Stefaniak

Ms Dundas

Mr Stanhope

Mr Humphries

Ms Gallagher

Ms Tucker

Mr Hargreaves

Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for Women) (4.18): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 592].

I referred to this matter briefly when I spoke earlier. Just to clarify the position, I point out that the government's amendment puts beyond doubt that the government's intention is that proposed new section 140A in clause 4 will apply only in relation to a person doing "something that could endanger someone else's life or health; or"-and I emphasise the words "someone else's"-"something that, in the circumstances in which it is done, a reasonable person would suspect could endanger someone else's life or health (whether or not it could do so)".

I re-emphasise the point that there are a number of tests which the prosecution, the police or the DPP would need to hurdle in order to utilise this provision. It probably does bear repeating that the clause is drafted around the notion of reasonable suspicion. As I indicated before, where there are no standard or fixed rules to what are reasonable

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