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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 154 ..

imprisonment that I considered entirely appropriate in the circumstances. I think you completely misunderstand me and I do somewhat resent you saying that, if it is a gay person, I have a different attitude. That is absolute nonsense. I wanted to make that point.

I do not know if you were listening but, yes, you were quite right that my initial reaction to this legislation was probably the same as yours and everyone else’s: I thought, “This looks fine.” It was after the scrutiny of bills committee considered it, Professor Bayne made his learned comments which are regurgitated here in the report, and I contacted and spoke to several other practitioners—who had concerns about it and the need to ensure that it is done properly, and said that this might well cause some difficulties in interpretation and getting results in courts as much as anything—that I thought it was important for this Assembly to say, “All right, hold it. Let’s get this right. Let’s not do this now because that could be counterproductive to what you want to happen.”

The attorney has mentioned that there is to be a comprehensive review. We will have a new—

Mr Stanhope: Chapter 5.

MR STEFANIAK: Thank you, Jon. A new chapter 5 and that will happen fairly shortly. Yes, I am aware of that occurring. I think that might be the best way to go. I note what he says, I note his opinion, I note your opinion, and I can count: nine beats eight. I am not going to presume how Mrs Cross or Ms Tucker would vote on this one, but you are quite happy to back the attorney on this one, Ms Dundas, and so my amendment is going to go down.

However, I do make those points and I do think it is important to ensure that we do pass good law and do get it right, even if it does mean sometimes that we do have to wait a little while. In terms of being a bit soft on prosecuting certain type of offences, however, no, far from it, Ms Dundas. I have dealt with these offences and I know how reprehensible these acts are. I have seen the results so that was the furthest thing from my mind in putting up this amendment. I think I have probably explained to you now exactly why we have it. If you do not accept that, fine. You will vote against it and we will live with that. However, I make those points and I do commend the amendment, for the reasons I have given, to the Assembly.

Schedule 2 part 2.1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 part 2.2 agreed to.

Schedule 2 parts 2.3 to 2.5, by leave, taken together.

MR STEFANIAK (11.35): The next of my circulated amendments is consequential on the previous amendments so I have said all I need to say there, Mr Speaker.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (11.35): This is in relation to vilification on the basis of HIV/AIDS status or sexuality. Is that this amendment, Bill?

Mr Stefaniak: No, it is not, or is it?

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