Page 4163 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
at this stage. In light of the committee’s recommendation, which did identify a possible alternative pathway, and the government’s very considerable response to that, there is still a live question of what is the best way to proceed.
The other element I would add here is that I have thought very seriously this morning about bringing on further amendments to this bill. Frankly, with having to do it today, I must confess that I have not been able to consider this as deeply as I would like to.
One of the other recommendations in the committee’s report is that we increase the penalty for manslaughter. I think that is an important part of thinking about this package overall. What the committee identified was the real point of community concern—the community was not coming in and saying, “The definition of murder is not what we, as a community, expect it to be.” They were saying, “We’re not getting the penalties, the sentencing, that we expect.”
When looking at this issue as a whole, we have to work out what is the goal here. It is unclear what the goal is. The goal seems to be to be seen to be doing something, because it is unclear whether this change in the definition of murder would even have changed any of the cases in the last decade that have, according to some of the witnesses before the committee, been of such significant concern. As I said, I thought about increasing the penalty to manslaughter, but when I really thought about it, I thought that, from a point of integrity, I cannot do that. These are serious issues, and we should have more time to consider this.
Rushing down here this morning with an amendment to change that penalty would be inconsistent with my own thinking on this approach, so I am not going to bring forward that amendment today, despite the fact that the Greens think it probably is the right thing to do. Certainly, I foreshadow that we will now go away and consider a private member’s bill to deal with that recommendation of the committee, but I am going to take some time to consider this in light of the fact that the government is going to force through this change to the murder law today, rather than just waiting three or four short weeks to the next sitting period and giving us the time to consider the government’s response. That is why I sought an adjournment to the debate today, and I regret that the Assembly has not seen fit to support that suggestion.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.44): I think it is timely that the Assembly consider this bill today. Firstly, contrary to the assertions made by Mr Rattenbury, this bill has been on the table in this place since December last year. It has been in the Assembly now for 10 months. The government is not rushing anything.
Secondly, there has been a detailed committee inquiry, and a broad range of evidence has been provided in relation to that inquiry. There has been a government response to the committee’s key recommendation, which is the definition that should be in place to deal with these particular provisions—that is, where someone causes injury to another person that results in their death, and how that should be defined in the murder offence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .