CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (OFFENCES AGAINST UNBORN CHILD) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:56): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Criminal Law Consolidation (Offences Against Unborn Child) Amendment Bill is a very important bill, for which I would appreciate support from my colleagues in this council. It is not about politics: it is about addressing what I think is a weakness in the current laws in this state compared with a state like Queensland.

For the length of my 18 years in parliament tragic events have been brought to members of parliament's attention where, due to a criminal act, a family loses the life of a mother carrying an unborn child as well as that unborn child, or only the unborn child. The grief of these families and victims of crime is profound, and it is only compounded by the fact that our criminal law does not recognise that the criminal act has taken the life of an unborn child.

One of the fundamental problems with the law as it stands is the requirement that it must be proven that the accused intended to cause the death of the unborn child. It is one of the toughest criminal threshold tests in the nation. The legal responses to this situation around the nation are mixed and, in general, fall short of community expectations. Queensland has section 313 of its criminal code whilst the Western Australian criminal code has a similar provision, section 290, and a stated intent from its former attorney-general to expand the state's law further than what the Queensland law provides, criminalising driving offences that take the life of a child.

However at this time, in February 2013, the Barnett Liberal government in Western Australia had not yet tabled that reform. At this point that also appears to be a broken promise, with an election imminent in Western Australia next month; however, it is the stated intent of its government. Other states would require a sentencing judge to impose a heavier sentence on an accused for murder, manslaughter or other criminal offence due to the fact that the mother was pregnant. It is a fact that many United States jurisdictions have laws recognising this situation, but I have not drawn directly from them for this bill.

Family First reform is modelled on the Queensland law, but expanding it to capture the stated intent of the Western Australian government. I will conclude on this point, and in a gesture of time management for the council, I will shortly circulate a more detailed paper outlining the legal situation and how this bill will address that situation and I hope and trust honourable members can address that in their second reading contributions.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.