Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (25 March) . . Page.. 888 ..
Mr Humphries: You do not understand, Jon.
MR STANHOPE: That was part of your argument.
Mr Humphries: The Bill does not do those things. They are already happening. The court already has the power to do those things, Jon. This Bill does not change that.
MR STANHOPE: This is interesting in the context of the debate we had yesterday. I think Mr Berry made the point well about the grandstanding that we witnessed yesterday, particularly from the Attorney and the Minister for Health and Community Care, about these inviolable principles of law. The contrast between that debate and this one really is quite stark. Here we are simply talking about providing an opportunity to people on remand and people with a mental illness to appear in person before a court. This is in situations where the particular remandee is not a David Eastman-type, whatever that is. This is in situations where the particular remandee is not a notorious criminal. Let us divorce the prospect of having to deal with notorious and dangerous criminals. Let us forget about that. Let us forget about the David Eastman situations. Let us forget about those. Let us deal with those differently. Let us let the court exercise its discretion in relation to those cases.
If there is somebody in the Remand Centre who is not a notorious or dangerous criminal, if there is somebody in the Remand Centre who is not a David Eastman-type, on what basis do we prevent that person, if they so wish, from being advised that they have a choice? On what basis do we prevent the meek and mild non-notorious criminal, on what basis do we prevent the non-David Eastman types, from appearing in person in court to face the magistrate on an application for bail? On what basis? None. There is not one reasonable basis on which we can deny a remandee the right to stand up in court in front of a magistrate, look them in the eye, and say, "Magistrate, this is the position I wish to put to you".
The same applies exactly to people with a mental illness. On what basis do we decide that a person with a mental illness does not have the right to appear before the Mental Health Tribunal in situations where the Mental Health Tribunal is proposing to make an order affecting that person? By what right do we deny a person with a mental illness the right to stand there with their representative and seek to plead a case? By what right do we do it? The right that we do it by is that we want to save a few bob. In order to save a few bob, we will prevent people who have been incarcerated from appearing in court in person with their solicitors or their legal representatives. We will prevent people with a mental illness the right to appear with the Community Advocate - - -
Mr Humphries: This is nonsense, Jon. You do not know what you are talking about.
MR STANHOPE
: Then do not oppose the amendments, which simply allow a discretion. Read the amendments. All the amendments do is say that the person affected must be given a choice and it must be presented to them as a choice. That is all they say, that it must be presented to them as a choice. I just cannot believe that we are debating this proposal. It is such a simple and non-threatening proposal. That is what we are suggesting. I commend these amendments. As we have said before, this is good
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .