Page 4107 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: I have some difficulty with that because we are not actually dealing with those amendments.
MR STEFANIAK: It is a consequential amendment to section 33 (1). I suppose I need only point out to members that I am seeking to amend that section because it does not make sense otherwise. My amendment No 4 seeks to change the wording of section 33 (1) slightly to read, “in deciding the sentence to be imposed on an offender for an offence, a court must have regard” rather than “in deciding how an offender should be sentenced (if at all)”.
A court has a wide range of sentencing options, ranging from admonished and discharged to imprisonment. My concern is with the words “if at all”. I think they are totally unnecessary. A sentence is a sentence even if it is an “admonished and discharged” or a bond that does not record a conviction. The words “if at all” are inappropriate. That is the substance of my amendment No 4. This is simply a consequential amendment in relation to a note. In other words, if you were going to vote against my amendment No 4, you would vote against the amendment to this note.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (12.02): The government will oppose this amendment and the consequential amendments. As Mr Stefaniak has indicated, this particular amendment is tied to a suite of amendments to clauses 14, 33, 34, 36 and 53. The changes that Mr Stefaniak proposes have been described to me by the parliamentary counsel’s office as essentially issues of language and style, rather than of substance. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel stands by the phraseology of the bill. Mr Stefaniak does not persuade me that his amendments to clauses 14, 33, 34, 36 and 53 should be supported. The government will not support the amendments.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.03): Mr Stefaniak’s explanation goes some way towards making up for the lack of a comprehensive explanatory statement that would have made the objective of this amendment much clearer. We read the amendment to suggest that a sentence “will be” imposed on an offender. The original clause only suggests how a sentence should be imposed. I am not sure whether Mr Stefaniak’s objective was to use stronger language. I will be opposing this amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 18.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (12.05): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the amendments [see schedule 2 at page 4178].
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .