Page 399 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006

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

---

justice. That still leaves a very significant loophole in the system. That is why in this amendment that I have tabled today we are offering manslaughter in such a case. That will provide a real deterrent, not the soft deterrent that the Chief Minister’s law is currently providing.

We do not support some of these watered-down attitudes that we are seeing put on display here today. Again we call upon the Chief Minister to put some teeth back into his legislation and accept our amendment.

Question put:

That proposed new clause 17A be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 18.

MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (5.06): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 421]. I table the supplementary explanatory statement for the amendment. The explanatory statement, for the information of members, incorporates changes that have been suggested by the scrutiny of bills committee on the issue of an aggravated offence and the provision of an offence that a person charged with an aggravated offence, on the balance of probabilities, did not know or could not reasonably have known that the woman was pregnant.

The amendment replaces proposed new clause 48A (2) to (5). The effect of the amendment, as I indicated earlier in debate today, is to include a lack-of-knowledge offence to allow an accused to avoid liability for an aggravated offence if he or she proves on the balance of probabilities that they did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the woman was pregnant.

I moved the amendment because I have accepted concerns that have been expressed that, in the absence of a requirement to prove fault, the aggravating factors are a limitation of the right to presumption of innocence. I have been persuaded that there are some concerns that the limitation may not completely satisfy the reasonable limits test in section 28 of the Human Rights Act. This amendment goes to that situation. A person who has been charged with a particular offence involving a woman who was pregnant now has a defence that they did not know and had absolutely no reason to know and

---

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