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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (1 May) . . Page.. 1289 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

penalties from about 12 months imprisonment onwards. Acknowledging some of the comments made by Mr Stanhope and Mr Moore, the government felt that that probably would be a bit too restrictive. We looked at Western Australia, which is a bit more similar in terms of the serious nature of offences, and we settled on five years, as I said in my tabling speech, because of the types of offences it encapsulates.

This bill will have most effect on burglaries. Blind Freddy can tell you that burglaries are a real problem in this community. The community expect answers. It seems that the courts too want answers and guidance from this legislature. I am delighted that today we will give them that assistance and guidance. The community, the many thousands of victims of burglaries, will benefit especially from this legislation. I think a number of criminals too will benefit from this legislation, which a few people do not seem to appreciate.

Mr Clack reported on this issue in the Canberra Times on Sunday, 25 February. This might be anecdotal to Ms Tucker, but it accords with my experience of working in the courts in this town over about a 15-year period. In that article Mr Clack stated:

I do not know whether it is going to do that, but if repeat offenders who commit multiple burglaries get bail and come back two or three weeks later having committed another 15 or 20 burglaries, they will need to convince the court of exceptional special circumstances if they are not to be remanded in custody. That might well be very hard, and rightly so. That might lead to a lot of premises-businesses and houses-being saved from burglary.

Mr Stanhope, Mr Moore and Mr Rugendyke are quite right. Burglary is probably the main area where this bill will impact. There are other areas too. For example, persons who have committed armed robberies in recent times have got bail and, whilst on bail, committed further serious offences, including further armed robberies. My staff mentioned to me a female offender who committed three or four very serious offences-armed robbery and something else-prior to having her matter finalised.

Mr Stanhope said that he supports the bill with reluctance. At least he is supporting it. He stated quite correctly what the Law Reform Commission suggested in 1998. He is correct in saying the DPP and the police argue strenuously for bail to be refused. As I have indicated, the courts themselves sometimes feel constrained by the presumption in favour of bail in all but those two earlier cases I mentioned which are currently contained in the Bail Act. As a result of this legislation, that will change and there will be one other reversed presumption in relation to these serious offences.

A lot of property crime is related to substance abuse. If desperate people who have immense personal problems are kept in the one spot, as they would be if they were in custody, there may well be a chance that they can start on the road to kicking their substance abuse by getting the assistance they need. In some instances, far from denying them justice, it might make it easier for their counsel to see them and to offer assistance.

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