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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3303 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

There are arguments which allow us, on balance, to come to a view that we can support this Bill. As I say, I think there are issues of balance that we must weigh up carefully. I think the Attorney's continued justification for proceeding with the Bill in light of the quite vigorous views of the scrutiny of Bills committee is very important for the record because it reflects the concerns which the Labor Party has about arriving at the appropriate balance. On balance our view is that, in the interests of protecting, primarily, women and children from situations of violence and assisting the police in their role, we are prepared to take this further step, but with a rider.

I have indicated that I will be moving an amendment to impose a sunset of two years for this, basically to allow a rigorous investigation of the proposal to be undertaken, say, in 18 months' time. Then we will know how it is being implemented, whether or not any of the concerns that have been so vigorously expressed to us by the scrutiny of Bills committee have come to fruition, and whether some of the other issues which have been raised by the committee are reflected in practice. I refer to issues around the rights of a person detained. Does a person who is detained but not arrested have the same rights as an arrested person? Will that person be guaranteed a right to phone a friend or a lawyer? Will all other protections available to arrested people apply to that person? Will that person be subjected to questioning by police while in detention and not charged in relation to a range of other matters? There are protections which an arrested person has. Whilst we can accept assurances that the AFP in Canberra do adopt best practice, we actually are taking them on faith. I am not sure, in relation to a piece of legislation of this ilk, that it is up to us to take those promises on faith.

I would like to see the legislation rigorously reviewed in 18 months' time. In order to ensure that that happens, I think support by this Assembly of my proposed amendment, that there be a sunset of two years, is appropriate because of the serious extension of rights to detain that we are taking here in this Bill. I foreshadow that I will move that way. There was one other matter which now escapes me. I should have mentioned it when I thought of it.

Mr Humphries: How much you admire the Attorney-General?

MR STANHOPE: Yes, that goes without saying. There was one other issue which I will also place on the record. A concern was expressed to me and my office by some people I have consulted about this Bill. This is something which might be reviewed as well if the Assembly accepts the wisdom of reviewing this legislation. Some organisations involved in the care and protection of people subjected to violence are concerned that this Bill, to the extent that it will allow the detention and the resolution of an issue without the arrest of somebody reasonably suspected of being violent, will further reduce the range of incidents in which the police will arrest a violent person. This has been represented to me as a potential problem with this Bill; that the police, when confronted by situations of violence where perhaps they should be arresting a perpetrator, in fact will take this option and persons will not be arrested and subjected to the criminal law to the extent that they should be. That has been a concern and I think it is the sort of issue that we really do need to monitor.

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