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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4142 ..

Clause 106.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for Women) (5.41): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No 10 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 4186].

In accordance with amendment 7, the definition of "serious harm"will now apply to clause 42 (3) (a) as well as clause 106. This amendment will therefore remove the definition of "serious harm"from subclause 106 (3), and amendments 16 and 17 will insert that definition in the dictionary, together with a definition of "harm".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 107 to 122, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 123.

MS TUCKER (5.43): I move revised amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 5 at page 4191].

The model criminal code report, under the heading "Supercession of existing offences of damage to infrastructure"at page 211 of chapter 4 states:

Criminal liability for sabotage supplements the general offence of criminal damage. Taken together, the offences of sabotage and criminal damage eliminate the need for a host of particular provisions in existing law, dealing with damage to railways, waterways and other infrastructure.

Under the heading "Penalty"the report states:

Sabotage is by far the most seriousness of the Chapter 4 offences, punishable with the same severity as manslaughter or dangerous driving causing death. The draconic penalty for sabotage is a reflection of the origin of the offence as an anti terrorist measure.

I seek leave at this point to table a supplementary revised explanatory memorandum.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I thank members. Basically, the offence, as written in the model code and in this bill does not define terrorism in addition to the actual offence of property damage. Obviously, I have concerns about this aspect of the criminal code, and this is why I have moved an amendment.

I have prepared the amendment to make it clear that actions which have been part of our democratic society differ from sabotage. Sabotage is something intended to wreak destruction on a large scale. Although the 25-year penalty of the sabotage offence indicates its application to this more serious level of action and intention, it may also work on lower level offences.

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