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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3490 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

that is even worse law because we really are bastardising the criminal law when we have very high standards for manslaughter.

I have given an instance of industrial manslaughter in Victoria. I will give you two instances of manslaughter in the ACT under normal law. It is a very high standard-gross negligence, effectively, has to be shown; an act which causes death.

An example is the very tragic case of Rita Cameron and Rod Cameron's son, Grant Cameron. The Grant Cameron Centre is named after him. He was at a school fete. A young bloke called Kenta and his mates picked on Grant because they didn't like the shirt he was wearing. They punched him around. He went to the ground. They kicked him and certainly laid into him with the boots. He died.

I remember I was at the DPP at the time. We argued whether that was murder or manslaughter. It was manslaughter. A charge of manslaughter was brought. Justice was duly dispensed. That was an instance-and I think a very good example-of what manslaughter is.

I will give an example of manslaughter when driving a motor vehicle. Again, a very high standard is required in terms of the elements. There was some altercation outside, I think, a pub or a drinking establishment in Phillip. Someone got a car and just kept ramming this other person into a brick wall with the car and killed them. I think that is reckless indifference to human life and would justify a murder charge, but manslaughter was brought in by the court.

I think that just shows you the seriousness of the offence of manslaughter. If this is to be an equally serious offence, as it should be, it isn't something that one would expect to be used very, very often at all. Certainly from the history of the ACT, I would suspect, again, that this is an offence that may actually never be used at all. And that is a problem.

I know a lot of industry groups and a lot of individuals gave evidence before the committee-and I appreciate the fact the government made a commitment before the last election to the unions that it would bring in this offence and there is strong support for it in the union movement-but I think it is indicative that no-one else in the community gave evidence before the committee that this is something we really need. All the evidence, indeed, was the other way.

I think most of those groups were employer groups, but I think they made some very valid points in relation to occupational health and safety; why we should not have this particular offence; the fact that over the years employers and employees have really improved their game in terms of safety standards in the workplace; how they have actually worked together in a cooperative way to ensure that the same accidents and any negligence are ruled out and minimised. This might turn the clock back. Employers might well be trying to seek ways to show how they can actually justify getting out of this type of offence if something happens to go wrong.

There is a real fear in the workplace in terms of employers that this will have a really bad effect. I have certainly spoken with a number of persons who have given evidence before the committee, and there is a fear that not only will the people not invest in the territory and simply go over the border, but that certain people are feeling, "Right, we will give up

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