Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 13 November 2002
Page: 6176


Senator PATTERSON (Minister for Health and Ageing) (9:51 AM) —I will repeat what I said, because the answer to the senator's question is, I believe, in there. Last year we introduced the Criminal Code, which attempts to codify criminal laws. The code makes it clear that, in relation to conduct that gives rise to an offence, the prosecution must establish that the person intended to engage in the conduct that gave rise to the offence. Thus, even if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 had not included the word `intentionally' in relation to the conduct leading to the prohibited offences, this would have been implied by the Criminal Code. It was thought prudent to include the word `intentionally' in the offences, because the Commonwealth Criminal Code does not apply in the states and territories. Even if the Commonwealth did not include the word `intentionally' in the offences, the states and territories would have to include it in their legislation, because they have no code which outlines the default provision. If this had occurred, Commonwealth, state and territory legislation would have looked different, even though it would have had the same effect. I can go on, but I did actually refer to the issue of why `intentionally' was used in one case and not in another.