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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3458 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

I think home detention, if designed properly, should be a huge benefit to a number of prisoners, in particular eligible female prisoners. One of the great angsts I have had in looking into prisons is the distress and the anxiety women go through when they are separated from their families, no matter what they have done, and I think this possibly is a compassionate way out.

Mr Speaker, I want to foreshadow an amendment. I raised this at the round table and it has been struck off the minister's list of amendments. I am hoping, however, that he will see fit to support the amendment. It relates to part 2.4, clause 21. Essentially, the idea is that the police, on reasonable grounds, can arrest somebody if they have breached the home detention order. I do not have a problem with that, even without a warrant. A police officer, knowing that there has been a breach, can arrest somebody, just as a police officer can exercise the right to arrest somebody if the officer thinks that person has been shoplifting. That is not a problem.

I have no problem at all with clause 22, which says that if a judicial officer is satisfied by information on oath he or she can issue a warrant for the apprehension of a person. Clause 23 talks about a corrections officer. If a corrections officer believes it he has to tell the court, and then the court, on information on oath, issues the warrant.

Where I have a problem, Mr Speaker, is clause 21, because it refers to a police officer who believes that somebody might breach the home detention order. I think that's a bit stiff. My amendment will seek to remove that part of that clause which talks about the possibility of a breach. I think that if our assessments are done properly these people basically are reasonably trustworthy. If the information given to me by the department is right, and I suspect it is, there is not a great percentage of people who breach home detention orders, and that is largely because of that element of mutual trust. I think we are putting in a proviso that will hardly ever be used, and I do not think it is necessary. I do not think we need to infringe people's liberties.

I foreshadow, Mr Speaker, that we will be supporting the government's amendments in their entirety, and I would ask the minister, in the spirit of cooperation, to reconsider his position with regard to that amendment that I will propose.

Essentially, my concern about the regulations is that we have no idea when they are going to be gazetted. The minister is departing from this place and that means we only have two months. The problem is that if they are gazetted and introduced they will be, in practical terms, in operation for six months before anything can be done about them if there is a problem. We will all be working towards making sure there isn't one, but we are only human, and the ACT will be a special jurisdiction.

Mr Speaker, the opposition will be supporting the bill in principle, and I have foreshadowed the amendment that I will move. I would like to place on the record that it is nice to see us moving forward on a social issue, something which is going to do some real good for a lot of people. It is going to take a lot of the pain out of a lot of people's lives. It is to the credit, I think, of the Corrective Services people and to the minister. We have had our rows in the past. I had some rows with his predecessor. We just want to make sure this gets done properly. I remember the minister saying at the round table that one of the reasons for speed is that he has only been in the portfolio for a short while.

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