Territory Stories

Debates Day 4 - Friday 23 June 2006



Debates Day 4 - Friday 23 June 2006

Other title

Parliamentary Record 8


Debates for 10th Assembly 2005 - 2008; 10th Assembly 2005 - 2008; Parliamentary Record; ParliamentNT




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES Friday 23 June 2006 2646 pass on a benefit to someone starting up. I know it is not going to be supported but, as a matter of principle, CLP or the opposition will support the notion of retaining the benefit with the citizen rather than with Treasury. It is the belief that the empowerment and the strengthening of individuals and citizens within our community is the very grassroots by which our economy and our society grows, rather than to increase the power of government and to have any benefit transferred back to Treasury and then flow out in benefits through whatever programs government runs. It is a point of philosophical difference. I can only raise that. I do not want to put the energy into going to the barricades over it, but it is this sort of thing that we do not support. With that being said, and that concern being registered, we will not oppose this bill. Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, welcome back. It is good to have you back today. I thank the member for Blain for his comments, but I must admit to some confusion about his concern with the first home owner and principal place of residence changes under this amendment. What this amendment will do is see the original intent of the First Home Owner Grant Scheme through. The way it was first drawn up, an individual could not get first home owner stamp duty concession and principal place of residence rebate on stamp duty - the same person for the same home. That is simply the only intent here, because it was never intended that an individual could avail themselves of both concessions for the purchase of the one property. If there is a misunderstanding there - and there might be, I am not sure - I am happy for the member for Blain to arrange a further briefing or a clarification of detail around this. However, it is not taking away something that was intended. It was never intended that a first home owner be able to avail themselves of both concessions. It is one or the other. This simply clarifies the intent of the original bill and makes sure that that will be the case into the future. Motion agreed to; bill read a second time. Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to; bill read a third time. CRIMINAL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 61) Bill presented and read a first time. Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide a minor amendment to the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005 and to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005 reformed the Criminal Code by enacting new general principles upon which persons may be held criminally responsible for their conduct. It then applies those new principles to offences that are introduced or replaced by that act. The government is in the process of continuing this reform. The stakeholders have been recently consulted on the potential next stage of revision. In the meantime, it is appropriate to commence the law of manslaughter, dangerous act and dangerous driving offences contained in the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005 that remedy some serious defects in the Criminal Code. To commence this act, a technical amendment is required to the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005. The crime of manslaughter is of two kinds; voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. A person may be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter where there is a defence of provocation, diminished responsibility or coercion and reduce the culpability of the crime from murder to manslaughter. The term involuntary manslaughter is used to describe the other forms of manslaughter that exist at common law or under the codes that do not involve an intention to kill but some lesser fault element such as criminal negligence. Section 167 of the Criminal Code was to be repealed by section 11 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005. Section 167 provides simply that any person who commits the crime of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life. It, therefore, has application as a penalty provision for both forms of manslaughter. New section 163, enacted by section 10 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005, provides for the new offences of involuntary manslaughter, filling a gap within that crime under the current code provisions. It likewise applies a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for those offences. However, to preserve the penalty for voluntary manslaughter, this bill repeals section 11 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005, effectively reinstating a single provision that applies the penalty to both forms of the crime of manslaughter to avoid any confusion that might otherwise arise.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.