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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 155 ..

Ms Tucker: Yes, it is.

MR STANHOPE: I do not know whether you want to speak to this. I do not think it is consequential, Mr Stefaniak. The government will oppose your amendment. It maybe that you do not wish to speak to it. I would be happy if you do not, as it is getting late.

Mr Stefaniak: If that is the case, no.

MR SPEAKER: Do not encourage him.

Mr Stefaniak: No, I have already made my comments, Mr Speaker.

MR STANHOPE: The government will oppose this amendment, Mr Speaker, but while I am on my feet I will take the opportunity to say that I take your point, Mr Stefaniak, in relation to the previous debate and the previous matter. There was an arguable point, Mr Stefaniak, and I do not disagree with you. I must say that I think Ms Dundas was a bit harsh on you. It is the only arguable point you have made tonight, Bill, but I want to acknowledge it. At least it was arguable.

MS DUNDAS (11.36): I rise to be probably a little bit harsh again, but my understanding of this amendment is that it is about removing the new provisions for vilification that have been inserted into the legislation. Some of the arguments that could be put forward about this relate to freedom of speech, but I would like to note that the bill specifically exempts anything that is “a public act, done reasonably and honestly, for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and presentations of any matter.” Those things are exempted from the unlawful vilification legislation that we are putting in.

Mr Stefaniak: Point of order, Mr Speaker: with the greatest respect to my colleague, she had me a bit worried there. This amendment actually refers to parts 2.4 and 2.5, which just relate to a heading. My understanding was it simply relates to the application of the criminal code and definitions, rather than part 2.6, which actually remains. Actually, it is part 2.7 which deals with vilification. I think the intention there was simply the application of the criminal code, which relates back to the non-violent sexual advance provision.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stefaniak, I have an amendment from you, amendment No 2, which is about schedule 2 part 2.3, and another amendment which is for schedule 2 parts 2.4 and 2.5. The proposal we are considering now is that schedule 2 parts 2.3 to 2.5 be agreed to.

Mr Stefaniak: That relates to page 30, line 1, sir, and that is a completely different section entirely.

Mr Stanhope: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I am advised that Mr Stefaniak’s amendments as circulated probably contain typographical errors in that the sections, as circulated in Mr Stefaniak’s amendments, do not equate to the government’s bill. There is a bit of a difficulty there.

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