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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2610 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

years ago when it went through. My point, especially in relation to the two years as opposed to six months, is painfully obvious.

If Ms Tucker has a problem, and I know she does not particularly like strong penalties for anything, then I stress it is a maximum. It is just bringing the legislation into line so that it is totally consistent with section 347 of the Crimes Act. Ms Tucker, if you wanted to be at the bottom end of the scale, you could amend it to 12 months, but 12 months to two years is normal for offences incurring a fine of $5,000. That is consistent with section 347 of the Crimes Act and consistent with a lot of offences. I hark back to the fairly basic offence of common assault, which carries a maximum of two years. I think this offence is at least as serious as a common assault.

I also reiterate the fact that, in acts which deal with abortion, 10 years is a normal penalty for serious breaches. We do not have anything in the Crimes Act there at all, but we do still have a maximum penalty of five years. I have no idea why Mr Osborne, and others who drafted this bill, arrived at that. I wonder if they do themselves. However, at that stage they still had the Crimes Act, and they had other acts which applied to abortion. We do not have that anymore.

People have expressed concern about ensuring that abortions are safe. Mr Berry has made much of that. He does not want to see unsafe abortions; he never has. I have been here in this place on a number of occasions when he has brought forward these bills, up until today without success, bemoaning and counselling against backyard abortions. It is crucially important, I would think, for someone such as Mr Berry, or anyone who supports abortion, to ensure that the procedure is done properly by a registered medical practitioner, to avoid backyarders.

Obviously, the bill that Ms Gallagher has brought forward, contains a penalty: it is five years. I am simply saying that I think it is not appropriate just to equate that offence with a degree of assault marginally worse than common assault, which is actual bodily harm-basically drawing a bit of blood-and which incurs a five-year penalty. I think it is far better to equate it with something such as, say, a burglary, or another offence that carries a penalty of 10 years or thereabouts. It is a maximum penalty. I think that is far more appropriate.

I would urge members to support these sensible amendments of mine, which simply bring the penalties into line with other types of offences and other acts. Indeed, in the case of my second amendment, this change brings the bill into line with other things in the Crimes Act, and section 347 especially.

Question put:

That Mr Stefaniak's amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to.

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