Page 444 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, I have mentioned subclause 57(1) already and how it comprehensively supersedes all the very murky and difficult to identify law that exists in the ACT about bail. I do note, though, that one particular provision is expressly saved. I have to say, after my taunting comments about the Attorney yesterday in attacking the language of the law, particularly with respect to the Acts Citation Act, I think it was, that we have here the Attorney preserving a very important piece of legislation, namely, a provision in the Bill of Rights. I have to say that that warms the cockles of my heart.
I might quote that particular provision of the Bill of Rights. It says that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. It would have been quite easy for the Government to have incorporated those provisions somewhere in this Bail Bill; but I think it is good to see that that very old, very powerful plank in our constitutional history has been preserved and not done away with merely because the language might be a bit archaic.
Madam Speaker, the only other thing I want to say about the Bill is that the Attorney referred in his introductory speech to the question of how onerous we make bail conditions and how this Act, effectively, makes bail a more realistic proposition than it was hitherto. He says that this Bill is designed to make the threat of criminal sanctions rather than forfeiture of a sum of money the main means, the primary means, of enforcing bail. That, of course, is the case.
I am not entirely sure whether someone appearing before a court would be most driven to return to the court to answer their charge by the threat of the loss of a sum of money or by the threat of the loss of their liberty for a certain period. I do not know; but obviously that is a matter which is now in the hands of the court, and which I think is appropriately there. The powers granted to the court are wide and they deserve to be wide, and I think that in those circumstances it will achieve its aim.
Madam Speaker, I think that the Bill and the other Bill we are considering today are both worthy matters to be considered by this Assembly. It does, indeed, strengthen the criminal law of the ACT, if only because it states clearly, in a place where citizens can find it, once and for all, what their rights are with respect to the matter of bail.
MSÂ SZUTY (11.10): It is pleasing, Madam Speaker, to be able to support the Attorney-General in the introduction of this Bill. I wholeheartedly endorse his remarks about the presumption of innocence and am glad that this will now be translated into the provision of bail for alleged offenders. New legislation such as this helps clarify the law and makes it easier for the general community to understand their rights.
As most people do not deal with the court system on a regular basis, it is conceivable that many who find themselves before the courts are unaware of their access to bail and what conditions can be attached. It is conceivable that most would not understand much more than the need to reappear before the court and the threat of a loss of money if their bail were breached. I understand the need to increase the penalty for those who fail to meet their bail conditions or appear in court and I am prepared to accept what look like fierce penalties of a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum of two years' imprisonment in exchange for the freer access to bail which appears to be at the heart of the package of Bills.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .