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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1252 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The covenant goes on to explain the reasons that perhaps one might be denied an open hearing in a court of law. Of course they go to issues of public morals, public order or national security, private lives, and the protection of juveniles or young people. There is no exception for convenience or cost, for the fact that it is cheaper to conduct your criminal trials by video camera than it is to conduct them in person.

What the Attorney seeks to do with these provisions about audiovisual bail hearings and mental health inquiries is to set up a system of closed hearings affecting persons who, in one case, are presumed innocent and, in the other case, simply ill. Arguing that an accused person or a mentally ill person should be detained without the right to face their accusers and judges in an open hearing is another chip taken out of the foundation of our liberties.

There is an axiom that should, in my view, always be borne in mind by legislators debating legislation which affects the rights and liberties of individuals. It is to the effect that we can only ever ensure that the rights of the best of us are protected and maintained if we are prepared to guarantee the rights and the liberties of the worst of us.

At the appropriate time during this debate-I am now talking generally about all my amendments-I will move that the Attorney's amendments relating to the removal of the discretion from persons who are mentally ill or who are bailed on remand should not be supported; that the discretion must be with a mentally person or detained person; that the discretion should not be located in the court. My amendments simply go to that fundamental principle.

Let us have audiovisual evidence for remandees, but let the remandee decide whether it is appropriate in his circumstances. Let us have an audiovisual link for people compulsorily detained in the psychiatric unit of the Canberra Hospital if such a person is competent to say, "I am happy to proceed in my hearing before the Mental Health Tribunal by audiovisual link but I will make the decision. I will not derogate to the court the right to decide for myself whether or not I can attend in person to put my case or to defend myself when it is a matter so fundamental as an individual's right to their liberty."

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (11.21): Mr Speaker, I reiterate that these issues were canvassed in last year's debate on the closed-circuit television provisions that went into the legislation which is now being amended. I would respectfully suggest to the Assembly that it should not change its view from the debate we had last year.

I will briefly outline why I believe that is the case. The argument is about the capacity of the court to adequately protect the operations of the court as well as the rights of people who come before it. In most circumstances-in fact, in almost every circumstance-where a person appearing before a court, either as an accused person or as a person who is the subject of some order such as a mental health order, seeks personal appearance they would be granted personal appearance. It would be extremely rare for such a person not to obtain personal appearance if they requested it when appearing before the court.

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