Page 351 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Concealment of birth
A person who disposes of the dead body of a child (whether or not the child was born alive) with intent to conceal the child’s birth is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 2 years.
So there are a number of offences around the time of childbirth and I think members might be able to see the logic in having a provision like this.
The law evolves and you cannot get away from the fact that Queensland has had strong laws in this area now for some time. And, yes, that may well be a separate provision and it probably is a move away from a longstanding principle. But we do move on. The law adjusts and it needs to adjust to the changing demands of society. What would happen if we never moved? I am sure the Chief Minister, with his civil liberties background and his strong views on capital punishment, would appreciate that 100 years ago we had the death penalty for a number of offences—not only murder but rape, treason and probably several others. If you go back 200 years, it applied to several hundred offences, including absolutely piddling property crimes. The law has moved on. Society has changed. There are changing needs and the criminal law moves on and adjusts. Even in the short span of time that this Assembly has been in operation, we have introduced new criminal laws.
What we now have before us is new criminal law. Thirty years ago I did not see anything remotely like this legislation—and I have never practised in Queensland—in the New South Wales/ACT context. In the last few years there has been a recognition in New South Wales and other jurisdictions that society, the community, feels that there is a need for laws to cover these types of situations. And they are horrible situations that need covering. We are perhaps taking a small step today to cover them. But do not kid yourself: I doubt very much if this small step today would have occurred if it were not for the fact that Mr Pratt brought forward a couple of pieces of legislation on two separate occasions in this place.
We are pleased to see these laws. They are better than nothing. What Mr Pratt and the opposition are trying to do is improve them. Even groups as diverse as civil liberties liked the original bill that he had before the Assembly. They certainly can be very critical of laws that seek to deter crime by going down the path of increasing penalties. In accordance with their brief, they can take a very strong view on such laws. But, in fact, a member of this group indicated to me that he felt that Mr Pratt’s original laws were better than what was being proposed by the government in this place.
As I have just said, what is being proposed is better than nothing. However, members can clearly see by simply reading Mr Pratt’s amendment that he seeks to differentiate, as he has always done, between these laws and the issue of abortion. What he is trying to do—and, indeed, to an extent what he has succeeded in doing today because the government has finally acknowledged it—is point out that there is a glaring gap in our law in relation to horrendous offences against pregnant women and the child in the womb and that there is a need for laws to protect the community from that. Queensland has obviously seen this need for a long time. Other jurisdictions in Australia, too, are going down this path. I for one certainly thank Mr Pratt for his interest in this area of the law. I think even today, with what is perhaps a watered-down version, we are seeing an advance in the criminal law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .