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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4895 ..

Question put:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Assembly voted-

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

MR PRATT (9.22): I seek leave, Mr Speaker, to move amendment No 1 and amendment No 3 circulated in my name on the white paper together.

Leave granted.

MR SPEAKER: Can I just ask the question: does that mean that amendment No 2 is not relevant to these two?

MR PRATT: Correct, Mr Speaker. I move the amendments circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 4920].

Mr Speaker, given the government has now established industrial manslaughter alongside the garden variety, general law manslaughter, we now have two offences of manslaughter. These amendments will address major concerns that industry does have, without detracting from the legislation which has now been passed.

I speak to the definition of recklessness. We seek to pull out "negligence". Mr Speaker, recklessness in the Criminal Code covers the situation the government is trying to address; it does that. I just draw your attention to section 20 of the Criminal Code. In relation to "recklessness", I would just point out this:

(1) A person is reckless in relation to a result if-

(a) the person is aware of a substantial risk that the result will happen; and

(b) having regard to the circumstances known to the person, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

(2) A person is reckless in relation to a circumstance if-

(a) the person is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists or will exist; and

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