Page 3640 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries may say, "There is safety there because the police officer has laid the charge". The police officer should be laying charges where the police officer believes that there may have been an offence. There are criteria laid down in police operational instructions and in the Director of Public Prosecutions' annual report which indicate essentially that a police officer should be laying charges if he thinks there are sufficient grounds to believe that an offence may have occurred. But the police officer is not and never has been the judge and jury. The police officer is not making a finding of guilt. The police officer is merely saying that he believes that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the law may have been breached.
To have preventative detention is a very serious issue of principle. That is not to say that there may not be cases where it could be appropriate. Clearly, domestic violence is an issue that this Assembly feels strongly about. There seems to be overwhelming support in the Assembly for the proposition that the ACT should continue to lead the field in relation to domestic violence. There have been arguments from persons who are very well versed with issues of domestic violence that preventative detention, along the lines that Mr Humphries is proposing, could be a good thing.
The Government, at the moment, has a major reference running with the Community Law Reform Committee and I think that only last week we debated that major research paper that the Community Law Reform Committee prepared on domestic violence. One of the issues that are being debated through that forum is the issue of the use of preventative detention. At the end of the day when we have been through that full community consultation process through the Community Law Reform Committee, which does involve extensive public hearings and extensive debate, if the Community Law Reform Committee reports that it is the overwhelming view of that committee that we introduce preventative detention the Government would have no difficulty with accepting such a law.
At this stage, Madam Speaker, it is a very drastic step to take on a matter that is currently out for consultation. It is a very drastic issue of principle to say that once you are charged you shall not get bail; once you are charged you must be held in custody. That is an extraordinarily serious step for the Assembly to take. I would urge members of the Assembly to not do that at this stage. That is not to say that at a future time, when this Assembly has before it the benefit of the considered views of the Community Law Reform Committee, we may not feel comfortable with taking precisely the step that Mr Humphries proposes; but at this stage, Madam Speaker, the jury is still out in the sense that the Community Law Reform Committee is still debating this issue within the community.
There will be strong views presented to the Community Law Reform Committee that will suggest that we should have preventative detention. There will be equally strong views that will suggest that we should not have preventative detention on the basis that it is a very significant infringement of a very basic, fundamental liberty. This goes further than a presumption against bail. This is preventative detention in its purest form. Again, at the end of the day, when the Assembly has the benefit of that full consultation process, it may feel confident in taking that step. I would urge members not to take that step today. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, the Government will be opposing both of Mr Humphries's amendments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .