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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3465 ..

MR STEFANIAK (5.39): The opposition will be supporting Ms Dundas’s amendment. As a result of the gutting by everyone of the penalties, I think it is even more important now that the word “must” should stay in there rather than “may”. That imposes a certain rigour on what the court will be required to do by her amendment. Even with Ms Tucker’s amendment it is better than nothing. According to Ms Dundas’s amendment, before the court can sentence someone involved in a violent act towards animals it must require the person to submit to a psychological assessment, consider the assessment and recommendations from that and impose any sentence order they need. That is eminently sensible, especially when what I read from the RSPCA shows that people who are cruel to animals often show very nasty tendencies to other human beings, including mass murder at the highest end of the scale. So a provision like this that is requested by the RSPCA is a very sensible one.

Because of that link, what Ms Dundas has proposed is preferable to what Ms Tucker is suggesting which would merely water it down. I note too that it has a quite significant maximum penalty, which I do not have a problem with. So, I think Ms Dundas’s amendment is the preferable one. Ms Tucker has been consistent, generally, on sentencing and she has opposed most of the sensible provisions I have put forward over the years.

But I reiterate what I said about industrial manslaughter. She did not seem to have too much of a problem with a significant penalty being a deterrent, indeed, a penalty that was initially five years higher than for normal manslaughter. Of course, she accepted the opposition’s amendment to make that 20 years.

Ms Tucker: I thought that was going to be brought up later, and you know that was about parity. Do not misrepresent it.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Stefaniak, please do not provoke Ms Tucker.

MR STEFANIAK: I also note that Ms Tucker supported the opposition amendment to at least make it consistent with the normal law of manslaughter. I acknowledge that. But I maintain the point I made in my in-principle speech in relation to that offence, as opposed to a number of other offences I have tried to improve over the years. As she says, she has quite consistently voted against that.

The opposition will be supporting Ms Dundas’s amendment. If that fails, we will support Ms Tucker’s amendment to the amendment.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (5.42): I indicated earlier in my remarks on the bill that the government would not support the amendment that Ms Dundas had foreshadowed. I explained the reasons for that in summary. The capacity already exists for the Mental Health Tribunal to be involved in a case involving anybody coming before the courts. Where the judiciary have significant concerns for a person appearing before them, the judge or magistrate can refer any person to the Mental Health Tribunal for an assessment order and for the making of recommendations or suggestions in relation to treatment that might arise out of the appearance of a person before the Mental Health Tribunal.

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