Page 3571 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 12 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (4.58), in reply: I thank members for their support for the legislation. This is, as Ms Szuty noted, the first major review of this legislation. The Bail Act 1992 was a very significant piece of legislation. It was an attempt to codify what had been previously very disparate common-law provisions. It was based very closely on the New South Wales codification of bail law - their Bail Act - but we did make certain departures in some cases to be a little tougher than New South Wales, and in some cases perhaps to be a little more liberal than New South Wales. In many cases when the Assembly passes that sort of landmark legislation it is likely that it will come back and revisit the situation in a few years' time.
I have foreshadowed and circulated amendments. These amendments give effect to some comments in the fourteenth report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which was handed down after the Bill had been introduced. The committee noted that, while what we were doing when we simply made forms was legally appropriate, these forms do go to issues of personal rights. While falling short of having to go through a process of making regulations for forms, the committee felt that there could be some benefit in having a provision that at least they are tabled in the Assembly and are subject to disallowance, so that members can make any comment if there is a problem. While the Government would not necessarily say that in all cases all forms of all bureaucratic processes should have to go through this, in a case like this, where it does go to personal liberty, it is appropriate. We have acknowledged that point made by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and my amendment does that.
We will be opposing Mr Humphries's objection to changing clause 5 of the Bill. The original form of the ACT Bill departed from the New South Wales model and was somewhat tougher. Automatic entitlement to bail for minor offences is a very important principle because there are a lot of low income people. Mr Kaine, in question time, was very concerned about the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. I think Aboriginal people, historically, have been particularly affected by this sort of thing. Historically, and particularly in isolated parts of Australia, but here too, Aboriginal people spend a lot more time in the lockup than non-Aboriginal people, often for minor offences; and often, at the end of the day, they have been found innocent, or, if found guilty, the maximum penalty that might have been imposed has been less than the period they spent in the lockup.
To say that bail should always be given for minor offences could be a little draconian, or a little too liberal, because you may have a repeat offender who just keeps offending, and the state has to have some way of controlling that. Our original provision said that if you have previously breached your bail for an offence you can miss out. An offence may be too broad because it really covers anything, any minor offence. We are following the New South Wales model, which hones it a little and basically says that you will lose the right to bail if you had a breach for the same offence - obviously, not the same individual offence, but the same category of offence. All I can say is that we are going to the New South Wales model, which seems to have worked well. I note Mr Humphries's concerns, but we will not be supporting his amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .