Page 564 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
should be? The government would argue that they should be. They have caused violent injury to that person, so violent that the person has died. Why shouldn’t they be charged with murder? Isn’t that what it is, Madam Assistant Speaker?
I note also that there has been some discussion by the committee about human rights. I think this is why the government has gone to some lengths to try to outline the provisions proposed in the bill and their compatibility with human rights. In summary, without wanting to address all the detail that I outlined in my letter to the committee, it is quite clear, by decisions by courts in other human rights jurisdictions, that the provision for a form of constructive murder is compatible with a human rights jurisdiction and with regard to human rights. Decisions by the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong, in particular, are important, and there was also—
Mrs Dunne: Hong Kong is a human rights jurisdiction?
MR CORBELL: It is a human rights jurisdiction, Mrs Dunne; it does have a bill of rights and it does provide statutory protection for its citizens. There are decisions by the Canadian Supreme Court, which also has constitutional protections of rights, and similarly recognises that the provision of terms around constructive murder do not fundamentally interfere with people’s human rights.
The government understands that a majority of members believe that this matter should be referred to a committee. We look forward to that committee process. We look forward to engaging with members on this detail. I would leave members simply with this thought: why is it acceptable in the ACT to cause someone such serious harm that they die as a result of their injuries and not be charged with murder, but it is unacceptable in every other Australian jurisdiction? I do not think our community is fundamentally different in that regard, and the law on murder should apply in those circumstances. The government will take the opportunity of the committee process to prosecute that case and to highlight why this reform is needed here in the ACT.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clause 1.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (8.32): I move:
That:
(1) the Crimes (Murder) Amendment Bill 2008 be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety for inquiry and report to the Assembly; and
(2) the Committee report to the Assembly by the last sitting day in September 2009.
This is an important step in the consultation because, before this bill arrived in this place, there was no consultation with the community. By his own admission, the attorney said that after he tabled the bill he wrote to a range of people and he sent the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .