❓ The Minister acknowledges awareness of the Opposition's Criminal Code Amendment Bill regarding spousal stealing, highlighting the Attorney General's similar bill already introduced in the Legislative Council. The Minister challenges the Opposition to support the government's broader and 'properly drafted' bill.
AnsweredQoN 195Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Is the minister aware that the Opposition intends to introduce its Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 during private members’ business this afternoon? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am of course aware of the Bill, as is the Attorney General, but the Opposition in this place may not be aware that yesterday the Attorney introduced a Criminal Code Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council that will, in part, repeal sections 35, 377 and 548(7) of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act. These provisions relate to spousal stealing. Currently the code provides that where a husband and wife live together, neither can incur any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or if intent to defraud another individual is an element. During his second reading speech yesterday the Attorney General said that the Criminal Code currently provides that where a husband and wife are living together, neither incurs any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or intent to defraud another individual is an element. These provisions reflect the law as it was shortly after the enactment of the married persons property legislation in the late nineteenth century. Clearly this is no longer acceptable and, accordingly, this Bill proposes the repeal of these provisions to allow the protection of the criminal law to persons who wish to preserve against their spouse their own separate property. That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am of course aware of the Bill, as is the Attorney General, but the Opposition in this place may not be aware that yesterday the Attorney introduced a Criminal Code Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council that will, in part, repeal sections 35, 377 and 548(7) of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act. These provisions relate to spousal stealing. Currently the code provides that where a husband and wife live together, neither can incur any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or if intent to defraud another individual is an element. During his second reading speech yesterday the Attorney General said that the Criminal Code currently provides that where a husband and wife are living together, neither incurs any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or intent to defraud another individual is an element. These provisions reflect the law as it was shortly after the enactment of the married persons property legislation in the late nineteenth century. Clearly this is no longer acceptable and, accordingly, this Bill proposes the repeal of these provisions to allow the protection of the criminal law to persons who wish to preserve against their spouse their own separate property. That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am of course aware of the Bill, as is the Attorney General, but the Opposition in this place may not be aware that yesterday the Attorney introduced a Criminal Code Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council that will, in part, repeal sections 35, 377 and 548(7) of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act. These provisions relate to spousal stealing. Currently the code provides that where a husband and wife live together, neither can incur any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or if intent to defraud another individual is an element. During his second reading speech yesterday the Attorney General said that the Criminal Code currently provides that where a husband and wife are living together, neither incurs any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or intent to defraud another individual is an element. These provisions reflect the law as it was shortly after the enactment of the married persons property legislation in the late nineteenth century. Clearly this is no longer acceptable and, accordingly, this Bill proposes the repeal of these provisions to allow the protection of the criminal law to persons who wish to preserve against their spouse their own separate property. That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
I am of course aware of the Bill, as is the Attorney General, but the Opposition in this place may not be aware that yesterday the Attorney introduced a Criminal Code Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council that will, in part, repeal sections 35, 377 and 548(7) of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act. These provisions relate to spousal stealing. Currently the code provides that where a husband and wife live together, neither can incur any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or if intent to defraud another individual is an element. During his second reading speech yesterday the Attorney General said that the Criminal Code currently provides that where a husband and wife are living together, neither incurs any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or intent to defraud another individual is an element. These provisions reflect the law as it was shortly after the enactment of the married persons property legislation in the late nineteenth century. Clearly this is no longer acceptable and, accordingly, this Bill proposes the repeal of these provisions to allow the protection of the criminal law to persons who wish to preserve against their spouse their own separate property. That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
These provisions reflect the law as it was shortly after the enactment of the married persons property legislation in the late nineteenth century. Clearly this is no longer acceptable and, accordingly, this Bill proposes the repeal of these provisions to allow the protection of the criminal law to persons who wish to preserve against their spouse their own separate property. That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am of course aware of the Bill, as is the Attorney General, but the Opposition in this place may not be aware that yesterday the Attorney introduced a Criminal Code Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council that will, in part, repeal sections 35, 377 and 548(7) of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act. These provisions relate to spousal stealing. Currently the code provides that where a husband and wife live together, neither can incur any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or if intent to defraud another individual is an element. During his second reading speech yesterday the Attorney General said that the Criminal Code currently provides that where a husband and wife are living together, neither incurs any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or intent to defraud another individual is an element. These provisions reflect the law as it was shortly after the enactment of the married persons property legislation in the late nineteenth century. Clearly this is no longer acceptable and, accordingly, this Bill proposes the repeal of these provisions to allow the protection of the criminal law to persons who wish to preserve against their spouse their own separate property. That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am of course aware of the Bill, as is the Attorney General, but the Opposition in this place may not be aware that yesterday the Attorney introduced a Criminal Code Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council that will, in part, repeal sections 35, 377 and 548(7) of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act. These provisions relate to spousal stealing. Currently the code provides that where a husband and wife live together, neither can incur any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or if intent to defraud another individual is an element. During his second reading speech yesterday the Attorney General said that the Criminal Code currently provides that where a husband and wife are living together, neither incurs any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or intent to defraud another individual is an element. These provisions reflect the law as it was shortly after the enactment of the married persons property legislation in the late nineteenth century. Clearly this is no longer acceptable and, accordingly, this Bill proposes the repeal of these provisions to allow the protection of the criminal law to persons who wish to preserve against their spouse their own separate property. That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
I am of course aware of the Bill, as is the Attorney General, but the Opposition in this place may not be aware that yesterday the Attorney introduced a Criminal Code Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council that will, in part, repeal sections 35, 377 and 548(7) of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act. These provisions relate to spousal stealing. Currently the code provides that where a husband and wife live together, neither can incur any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or if intent to defraud another individual is an element. During his second reading speech yesterday the Attorney General said that the Criminal Code currently provides that where a husband and wife are living together, neither incurs any criminal responsibility for any act done in connection with the other’s property, except if they are about to separate or intent to defraud another individual is an element. These provisions reflect the law as it was shortly after the enactment of the married persons property legislation in the late nineteenth century. Clearly this is no longer acceptable and, accordingly, this Bill proposes the repeal of these provisions to allow the protection of the criminal law to persons who wish to preserve against their spouse their own separate property. That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
These provisions reflect the law as it was shortly after the enactment of the married persons property legislation in the late nineteenth century. Clearly this is no longer acceptable and, accordingly, this Bill proposes the repeal of these provisions to allow the protection of the criminal law to persons who wish to preserve against their spouse their own separate property. That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
That is the situation in respect of the Bill that is currently before the Legislative Council. The Bill also encompasses a number of other amendments, in the main to the Criminal Code, that are not related to this particular matter but are of importance in themselves. Quite a number of the amendments simply update the criminal law, as that should be done on a regular basis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition’s troops in the other place will support the Criminal Code Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney General, because it will achieve what those opposite said they wanted to achieve, properly and properly drafted - which the Opposition's does not - and will also address a number of other issues. Is the Opposition prepared to support that; is the Opposition prepared to pass it; and is the Opposition prepared to do that now? No, it is not. Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
Dr Gallop: Why did you offer to resign and then not resign? Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
Mr PRINCE: All those opposite can do is make personal attacks, a loud noise and vituperate. They have no policy, they have no principles and they have no intention of doing anything to make sure we have good law in this State.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.