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: 6177


Senator PATTERSON (Minister for Health and Ageing) (9:54 AM) — With all due respect to the honourable senator, the arguments are totally different. The argument last night about whether `particular' would go in before `woman' in that clause was totally different from the argument here. The argument here is that it is prudent to put `intentionally' in to ensure—


Senator Abetz —Why?


Senator PATTERSON —Senator Abetz asks why. For the third time, I will say why. It was thought prudent to include the word `intentionally' in the offences, because the Commonwealth Criminal Code does not apply in 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. In order to make the legislation across the nation look as consistent as possible, although it would have the same effect, it was thought desirable in the interests of promoting that national consistency to have things the same. It is a totally different argument from last night. Do not come in here and argue that I am not being consistent. I am being consistent. The argument last night was a totally different argument.