Page 459 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Remainder of Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR HUMPHRIES (11.59): Madam Speaker, I want to comment on clause 45 that the Attorney made reference to, particularly the beginning of Part VI, Divisions 1 and 2. What the Attorney was saying is that, in effect, there is a statutory assumption that an accused person will go from more onerous to less onerous conditions as they move through the appeal process, the review process; that at least they have a chance of getting better. The assumption is that they only get better rather than get worse. They might not do any better, but they certainly would not get any worse. That is a strange kind of assumption to incorporate into the law, particularly when it is not expressly stated. I also wonder where that leaves the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. We really have here a situation where, in effect, we are stating this in a loose kind of fashion without expressly doing so.
It seems to me that if you want to create a regimen of that kind you should insert in clause 39 the words that a decision reviewed may result in a substitute decision which is less onerous than the first decision. Otherwise, you are giving a police officer the power to do something but not the means of enforcing that capacity. I think this kind of legislation, by that sort of implication, is not very satisfactory. We really need to have some kind of clear statement of what the Government is trying to do in these provisions. Although I am not suggesting an amendment, I predict that if those remain unamended we will have a problem with those provisions in due course.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.01): I note Mr Humphries's remarks and it is something, perhaps, that we should keep an eye on. The assumption behind this and the scheme essentially, as I said earlier, is that the more senior police officer might decide to be more lenient on the spot in the station. If there is a need to get tougher and a need to, in effect, revoke bail and relock up, we think that that is better vested in the judicial officer, the judge, or in effect the magistrate. The ability to whip across and get a magistrate in and get a matter reviewed by a magistrate should not prove onerous. If there does seem to be any difficulty with this, it is a matter that we could review. I think essentially you were saying that this may need review. Well, let us see. There are no amendments currently before us. I would suggest that we pass it in its current form and keep the matter under review.
Remainder of Bill agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
BAIL (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 9 April 1992, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (12.02): We have already covered this Bill fairly comprehensively, I think, by our earlier discussion. This effectively mops up all over the place. We are in the process of removing phrases or words like "recognisance" in favour of "bail undertaking", and they appear in many places. They are being removed systematically, one assumes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .