Page 3277 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 10 November 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
inflicting grievous bodily harm, sexual assault in the first degree, sexual intercourse with a person under 10 years old, and trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug. These serious offences attract significant maximum penalties of between five to 25 years’ imprisonment and are more likely to attract terms of immediate imprisonment at sentencing.
There is no kind of conduct falling within those offences that does not cause serious harm to someone. However, when it comes to assault, there is a broad scope of behaviour being captured. This can be very serious, such as striking a person, or less serious, such as spitting at a person. Clearly, none of these is acceptable, but one is much more likely to harm. Regardless, the offence would still place it in that same very serious category.
For a range of reasons, sentences for assaults, including those on frontline community service providers, vary greatly and range from non-conviction orders to imprisonment, depending on the circumstances of the case. These circumstances include factors like the severity of the assault, the situation it occurred in and the extent of any injuries. The maximum sentence for the offence of assault of a frontline community service provider is two years imprisonment. While assaults against frontline community service providers should be and are treated extremely seriously, including this offence in the list of those where no presumption of bail applies would be inconsistent with the existing bail framework and the other types of offences where the presumption for bail does not apply.
I appreciate that Mr Hanson has acknowledged that there are human rights implications to this bill and has provided his justifications. However, the government cannot agree with his conclusions. The disapplication of the presumption for bail would unreasonably limit human rights, particularly the right to liberty.
This is not some esoteric debate. More than just the principle of human rights is at stake—it is a person. To deprive a person of their liberty is a very serious move, and one only to be taken solemnly. When a person is held on bail, they are removed from their home and family, and clearly they are no longer able to work. Even if a person is acquitted and released, they may struggle to re-enter housing and employment. This in turn increases their chances of offending in the future and being involved in the criminal justice system. The evidence clearly shows that heavy-handed and excessively carceral policies only serve to increase crime. The bill also has the potential to limit the right to equality before the law, as the proposed change may have a disproportionate impact on communities that have higher levels of contact with frontline service providers.
The ACT government is particularly concerned about the potential for this bill to negatively impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and other groups, including people living with mental illness, who have higher levels of contact with frontline community service providers. A 2020 study by the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council into the penalty for assaults on public officers found that while serious assaults of public officers are most commonly committed by non-Indigenous people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are overrepresented among those charged and sentenced for serious assaults of public officers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video