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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (1 May) . . Page.. 1279 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

otherwise by the Attorney or other members-almost certainly will be housebreakers, people charged with burglary. I think in the context of this debate we have to acknowledge that we are talking here principally about people arrested and charged for property burglaries and other property crimes.

One feature of this debate that we should all be conscious of and should all acknowledge is that the vast majority of property crimes are committed by people with a substance abuse problem. It is in that context that I and the Labor Party have concerns in addition to some of our other concerns about this proposal. I say we have concerns even though I have indicated that we are supporting the bill. We have concerns and we are monitoring this legislation very closely.

It is a black-and-white provision which deals to some extent with an issue-namely, property crime, probably perpetrated in the main by people with a heroin addiction or other substance abuse problem. The problem with this sort of provision, this sort of legislation, is that it does not deal with the roots of the problem. It does not deal with causes of crime. Perhaps that is something we can deal with through other approaches and with other programs, but most certainly it is something that we need to keep uppermost in our minds in relation to this sort of provision. The courts refusing bail to alleged repeat offenders does not do anything about the causes of crimes.

In the context of the debate it is also relevant that many people, if not most people, brought before the courts in relation to these sorts of crimes-property crime, burglaries-either plead guilty when they ultimately get to trial or, if they do not plead guilty, are summarily found guilty of the offence with which they are charged. A person having pleaded guilty or having been found guilty, it is then a matter for the courts to determine whether or not they should be incarcerated.

The question is whether keeping these people in custody pending resolution of their charges would do anything to lessen their addiction, deal with the causes of crime or in fact deal with their propensity to steal or to burgle houses. I guess that is the nub of the issue. What is going to be the effect of this? Is it going to have any effect on crime?

We in this community would hope that programs offering treatment for people who commit property crimes as a result of addiction, programs for dealing with the causes of the crime-access to counselling and building self-esteem-would be well established and operational, but all of us know that at this time they are not sufficiently resourced or provided appropriately.

To summarise, I think everybody in this place would agree that simply removing alleged offenders, alleged burglars and alleged perpetrators of property crime from the streets is most certainly a stop-gap, short-term measure that does not address the cause of the crime. I think we perhaps all need to accept at the end of the day that we will probably have very little, if any, impact on the rate of crime in the community.

Another issue raised by the scrutiny committee, and another issue that is fundamental to this debate, is of course the extent to which a provision such as this, a presumption against bail, trespasses against the right of all of us to our liberty. The scrutiny committee rightly points out that the Assembly is being asked to decide whether it is appropriate to limit that role by legislating against the presumption of bail in some circumstances.

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