 |
Other Parliamentary SpeechesThis page is dedicated to Peter's speeches during parliament that do not fall under Questions or Questions without notice. They range from debating legislation, reporting on events or issues in his seat of Southport and his Ministerial Statements.
Occupants [Home Invasion] Protection Bill |
![]() |
| Posted by Administrator (admin) on Feb 26 2003 |
| Other Speeches >> |
Mr LAWLOR (Southport-ALP) (8.42 p.m.): I am amazed at this bill. I think that the bill should be retitled the 'Dolly get your gun' bill. As the Attorney-General has already mentioned, and in my opinion, it is an absolute abomination. It certainly promotes a vigilante society. The second reading states that the purpose of the bill is to recognise in legislation that people have the right to defend themselves and their property without fear of prosecution and civil liability-in other words, a licence to kill to every home owner, or home occupier. That is quite amazing.
The Attorney-General has gone through the situations where the Criminal Code already avails the home owner of various defences, and that is just as it should be. The defences are tested in a court of law before a jury, which then makes the relevant decision. Basically, on an everyday basis they defend themselves-
Mr Flynn: What are you going to do when somebody is going to break into your house? Give them a cup of tea? A cup of coffee? Perhaps sit down?
Mr LAWLOR: The man who is off on stress leave! Yes, that is right. I think he got in the gene pool when the lifeguard was not looking.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Male): Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the debate.
Mr Flynn interjected.
Mr LAWLOR: The member should watch his stress level. This bill allows for any force whatsoever-in other words, guns. Where do we draw the line? Many people forget that it states in the second reading speech that a person has committed an illegal act by simply entering a house uninvited. What about the situation where a mistake is made? That can happen. The definition of a 'house' can include things such as sheds, garages-
An honourable member: Verandas.
Mr LAWLOR: Verandas. That is exactly right. The second reading speech also goes on to state that it is unreasonable for a court to say that the occupant used too much force when they believed that they were in fear of their own or their families' lives and that no-one can put themselves in another one's state of mind. That is just the situation that I am talking about. In the situation where there is a murder, for instance, or someone is killed, that is a matter for the jury to decide. Basically, this bill would take away that option.
The bill defines an intruder to include a person who is lawfully in the dwelling house and fails to leave the dwelling house immediately on being asked to do so by an occupant. The consequence of a person failing to comply with such a request is that-among other things as has already been mentioned by the Attorney-General, and there is going to be a fair bit of repetition because this is so obvious that I cannot believe that the bill has got this far-the occupant may use any force to cause the intruder to leave the dwelling house. If I am invited to a person's house and they get sick of me and ask me to leave and I do not, that person can shoot me. That is the effect of the bill. Tough on crime! The member has to be joking! It is tough on visitors, tough on salesmen, tough on couriers, tough on anyone. It is ridiculous. Let us be thankful that telemarketing has taken over from door-to-door salesmen, because if there were door-to-door salesmen, these people would be shot as well.
Mrs Pratt: You're being ridiculous.
Mr LAWLOR: I am not being ridiculous. Under this ridiculous piece of legislation, that is a possibility.
An honourable member: What about the Mormons?
Mr LAWLOR: The Mormons? Some good might come out of it. To be subject to any sort of force the occupant believes is necessary to get them to leave-
Mrs Pratt interjected.
Mr LAWLOR: Yes, it is stupid. The member has it right. The member has finally twigged. What about the situations that are all too prevalent these days-and they are very unfortunate and sad situations-where family breakdowns have occurred and there are domestic violence orders out? In those situations there are misunderstandings and there is even sheer maliciousness. But this legislation would allow the wife or the husband, the parent coming to pick up the kids-she has asked him to leave, he has asked her to leave, or whatever, and they do not leave-to be shot. What about the
person who comes to a barbecue at my place and drinks too much? I ask him to leave and he refuses to leave? Instead of leaving him here to sleep it off, I can shoot him. How absolutely ridiculous! I turn to the onus of proof that is contained in clause 9. This is another absolutely bizarre clause.
An honourable member: Don't go to his barbecues.
Mr LAWLOR: If the member comes around, I will lock up the guns. He will be right.
Clause 9 refers to the onus of proof. This is a bizarre clause. It favours the occupant in an extraordinary way by making any force reasonable unless the prosecution can prove that not even the occupant thought that it was reasonable. Essentially, it reverses the onus of proof. How do we prove a negative? If I have a certain state of mind, or I say that I have a certain state of mind, how on earth canwe prove it any other way?
Mr Flynn: I'll bring it to your place if you give me a scotch.
Mr LAWLOR: I think the member has had enough. This test is impossible to satisfy. Why are so-called occupants to be placed in a better position than any other citizen accused of having committed an offence? There are a few other issues, but I have already touched on the dwelling house.
Mr FLYNN: I rise to a point of order. The member indicated a sense of sobriety and said, 'I think you've had enough.' I find that offensive and ask the member to withdraw it.
Mr LAWLOR: The suggestion of the scotch came from the member for Lockyer. He said that if I invited him around he would just have-
Mr Flynn interjected.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Phillips): Order!
Mr LAWLOR: I withdraw. He is such a precious little thing. The definition of a 'dwelling house' is just absolutely ridiculous. In terms of a building or other structure that is within the curtilage of a dwelling house, it could be a farm shed or a garage. Those are the sorts of buildings that anyone can stumble into by mistake, but under this it is 'Get your guns out, you can shoot them.'
I have already touched on the definition of an intruder, namely, 'is not an occupant of the dwelling house but is lawfully in the dwelling house...fails to leave the dwelling house immediately'. I have already touched on clause 9 and the onus of proof. How do you prove a negative? You simply cannot do it. The bill is flawed from the outset and the Attorney-General has summed it up quite well. It is a shame that we are wasting our time on this sort of material. Last changed: [PUBLISHED_DATE] at 11:00 PM
Back
|
|
