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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4727 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Another aspect of the bill is that it creates a number of new specific offences that prohibit conduct currently covered by general offences in the Crimes Act. Specific offences like those that appear in the bill could create confusion about which offence should be charged and could in fact make prosecutions more difficult by requiring the proof of additional elements of the offence. For example, the government doesn't consider that a specific offence of car jacking is necessary. Why do we have to dream up these new offences-car jacking? Car jacking is covered in the Crimes Act. Anybody that pinches a car is guilty of an offence.

It is new-age, jazzy law making. This comes about all of a sudden from watching too much American television. We have got a whole raft of offences in the Crimes Act that cover the stealing and taking away of cars in a multitude of circumstances. But it is all sexy, it is new age and it is a gas. "Oh, let's introduce a new offence, car jacking. We'll get serious about people who pinch cars. We'll actually invent a whole new offence, car jacking."

Mr Stefaniak: You don't understand anything, but go on.

MR STANHOPE: That is what it is like; it is pop law making; it is populist; it is pop; it is jazzy; it is sexy. You don't need new offences such as that. That conduct is prohibited just in the general offence of robbery or forceful confinement. We have a range and a raft of offences to cover car jacking. It is called robbery; it is called forceful confinement; it is in there, Bill; it is all covered. Just pretending that you can address issues around criminality and crime by inventing new offences really is, as I said before, a fraud.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.00 pm.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, the government is also concerned about the repeal of sections 27 (3) (f) and 28 (2) (c) of the Crimes Act which provide that it is an offence to set a trap or device for the purpose of creating circumstances likely to endanger human life, cause a person grievous bodily harm or is dangerous to the health, safety or physical wellbeing of another person, including a trespasser.

Mr Stefaniak's bill would introduce a new replacement offence of setting a trap which would prohibit conduct of the kind currently covered by section 22 (3) (f). However, that offence will not apply in relation to any trap, device or thing placed or set in a dwelling for the protection of the dwelling. This amounts to an incredible step back into the dark ages.

These offences that Mr Stefaniak would propose to reintroduce were originally established in the late 19th century to address the habit of English landowners of setting large traps, some of which were capable of cutting a man in half, against poachers and trespassers. Mr Stefaniak seems to confirm that some people still want to deter unwanted trespassers with lethal instruments, and that property is worth more than human life. I am concerned that the bill sends a message that such actions are condoned.

Mr Stefaniak: Come on!

MR STANHOPE: It does. It says these actions are condoned; you can set life-threatening traps in your home against people that would wish to enter. It is like a law

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