Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3300 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The significant part of the Bill, and the extent to which this Bill does break new ground, I believe, in the ACT, is that if an application for an emergency order is to be made the police will be able to take a person to a police station and detain the person for up to four hours. The argument is that this allows the police to ensure the safety of any potential victim of violence. In the discussions that my office has had with court officers it was suggested that the four-hour period is probably the minimum practical period needed to obtain such an order.

The Attorney has been quite specific, I understand. In situations in which the police believe that a criminal offence has occurred the police will, as now, be expected to arrest and charge the alleged offender. We are dealing here with a civil response of applying for an emergency protection order when there is apparently insufficient evidence for arrest but a party has good grounds to fear another person. An example that has been offered to my office by the Attorney's department is offensive or harassing behaviour by a person with a past history of violence.

I think we all understand the difficulties which those sorts of situations create not only for people who fear for their safety but also for the police. I think we are all very sensitive to difficulties in circumstances where human relationships have broken down or have come to the stage where people fear for their personal safety or are concerned about children's safety. These situations present real difficulties to the police, and this is the issue which we as a legislature have to deal with. How do we ensure that we provide every available protection to people within the community who are subjected to violence while at the same time remain true to values which we traditionally have accepted in this community and which we, as a member of the international community, have committed ourselves to in terms of a range of human rights instruments, not only the international human rights instruments but those to which we have committed ourselves here in Australia?

So there are two issues that one has to grapple with in considering this proposal. Is there any circumstance in which a member of the Canberra community should be detained or deprived of their liberty otherwise than through some lawful process, otherwise than through arrest? The argument is that a person should be arrested for whatever the alleged offence is. These are serious questions of balance that we have to deal with. They really are difficult issues.

The difficulties inherent in this Bill have been well summarised by the scrutiny of Bills committee. The scrutiny of Bills committee has focused my concern in relation to this piece of legislation. It is undoubtedly the most significant of all the reports prepared by the scrutiny of Bills committee this year in terms of the depth of the issues that are being dealt with and the rigour with which the committee has dealt with this issue. It has been the subject of two major reports by the scrutiny of Bills committee.

The scrutiny of Bills committee made an initial report. The Attorney responded in detail to the committee's initial report. The scrutiny of Bills committee then had regard to the Attorney's response to its concerns and prepared a further major report on the implications of this Bill. I think it is relevant to go to some of the concerns expressed

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .