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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 984 ..

The deficiencies of the law in New South Wales in this respect were brought into sharp relief by the ramming of the car containing Renee Shields, then seven months pregnant, and the subsequent stillbirth of her baby, Byron.

In that discussion, when talking about the appointment of Finlay J to investigate the loopholes of the law, he said that Finlay J had undertaken a study of this most complex area of the criminal law. He then went on to define Finlay J’s major recommendation, being the creation of an offence for the killing of an unborn child, as a priority. Mr Debus later went on to say:

I make it clear from the outset that in investigating this offence there is no intention to unsettle the well-established common-law position on abortion in this State.

The Attorney-General of New South Wales made it quite clear that he saw that in New South Wales law there was a loophole that needed to be plugged to protect the unborn. He appointed a well-respected justice to investigate that loophole and made it very clear—I would like people here to take note of this—that his mission was to have this investigated and the loophole plugged, and not at the expense of well-established common law positions on abortion in that state. The NSW Attorney-General drew that distinction, which I emphasise here. Members in this place need to address and understand this most important issue, to better understand the motives on this side of the house in bringing on this piece of legislation.

The Crimes Amendment Bill 2002 is not just about recklessness in road incidents and other actions, it is also about protecting women in cases of domestic violence. It is important that we, as members of this Assembly, send a clear message to the community that violence against women is not acceptable and holds penalties, and that violence against pregnant women is an abomination that holds more serious penalties than simply a charge of assault.

The role of the judiciary is an important component of this bill. Members of the judiciary are the ones who ultimately administer the laws that are passed in the Assembly, and they are the ones who make certain determinations based on the guidelines the Assembly provides. We are not trying, in this legislation, to impose qualifications on time of life, et cetera. We are saying to our judiciary, “We will give you the legislation, this will be the tool for you to make judgments and we respect your ability to make those sorts of determinations.”

Presently, in cases of violence or recklessness that involve pregnant women, the judiciary does not take into account any injuries sustained to an unborn child. The ability to do this is limited to sentencing and is limited by the maximum sentence accorded to the charge associated with the act against the mother. This means that, if a man beats his pregnant partner and kills the unborn child, he can be sentenced only to the maximum term appropriate for the assault on his wife. While that term may be sufficient in some cases, if the assault is so severe as to attract the maximum penalty, the discretion to appropriate a more severe sentence for the death of the unborn child is removed.

I refer to something Ms Dundas said earlier in this debate. When referring, I think, to this area she said that we have laws in place for assaults resulting in death to the unborn. The extra provisions under law are so minuscule as to be meaningless—they do not provide a

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