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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 581 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

The only other point I would like to make is that there is potentially a grey area with the amendment in terms of when does the self-harm stop and the endangerment to someone else's life or health actually kick in. There are some problems in relation to this. I think the Attorney had it right to start with in the first couple of paragraphs of page 3 of his letter, which I read out. I think the points raised by Mr Humphries are very valid. They are, in fact, backed up by some events in the ACT which over the years we have occasionally seen. I think it is far safer just to stick with the original bill.

MR HUMPHRIES (Leader of the Opposition) (4.36): Ms Dundas in particular cited cases of self-harm as a means of, if you like, legitimate political expression. I want to explain to her that I have no desire to see the legislation being drafted here apply to such people. You might argue that people, for example, who sew their lips together might be caught by this legislation. I would certainly agree with you that such a person should not be caught by the legislation, and should not be subject to prosecution under this legislation.

My point is that in trying to remove those cases from the ambit of the legislation, we also take out cases which are clearly much, much more serious-cases which go to the other extreme of the spectrum and which would be, I think, regarded as scandalous and inappropriate. A person who, say, goes into a classroom and threatens to blow their brains out in front of small children is not making any kind of legitimate statement about a particular issue. Even if they are trying to make some statement about an issue which is legitimate, using that device to do so is quite inappropriate.

Mr Speaker, my point is that I do not think the legislation should be so broadly drafted that it excludes all of those cases from prosecution under these provisions. I am suggesting that the government should go back and review this amendment, look at it again and ask itself whether it really intends that the cases that I have cited should be caught by this exemption.

Mr STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for Women) (4.38): If I might just respond, Mr Speaker. I made this point before and I think Ms Tucker just summarised it succinctly and correctly: in terms of the tests that have to be met, the particular example that Mr Humphries gave is not caught, and I think it is quite clearly not caught. The act that has been committed by a person must be shown to have been done with the intention to cause public alarm or anxiety.

Mr Humphries talked about the prospect of somebody with a loaded gun going into a classroom and threatening to blow his head off in front of children. It is all to do with the intention. There are a range of tests.

Mr Humphries: The test is to alarm the children, surely?

MR STANHOPE: Surely you are not suggesting that it is a legitimate political protest or tactic for the purpose of making some political point to go into a roomful of children and threaten to kill oneself? It is quite clear to anybody that that is behaviour designed to alarm.

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