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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3468 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

it. I have a problem with remand, as I have articulated already tonight, particularly in regard to those people on remand who have not appeared before the magistrate and been convicted as yet. The opposition will be supporting Mr Osborne's amendment.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (11.47): I am going to do something quite unusual. I am going to ask Mr Hargreaves to reconsider his position. I think, from the way he described it, that he may have read this back to front. Mr Osborne, instead of saying it only has operation for two years, which is what it sounded like you would be supporting, is saying it does not come into operation for two years. So the situation in the remand centre will remain as it is now. We will not be able to use this facility, this approach, for people who are on remand.

Consider the state of the remand centre at the moment. The fact is that we have to use court cells on occasions. I have given authorisation to use periodic detention cells should it be necessary. We are already in desperate straits. I would urge members to give us the prerogative, should the courts so wish, and should somebody meet all the criteria that we set out, of allowing people on remand to be on home detention. I ask you to reconsider that position.

MR HARGREAVES (11.48): I have not misinterpreted this. I have voiced my opposition to the use of home detention for remandees already. As far as I am concerned it is a choice between whether a person should be detained or whether a person should be on bail. I think Mr Osborne put it quite well. You either trust them to go out on bail or you do not.

The people who would be eligible for this are unlikely to pose a danger to society anyway. There will be a temptation, in my view, for the judiciary to apply home detention when they should really be looking at bail options, not the other way around. So, in response, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I have not misunderstood this at all. You might find, when we have created a new remand centre, that I still have the same objection to using home detention as a remand option.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (11.49): I see that my appeal to Labor is having no success at all. I appeal to Mr Rugendyke, Mr Kaine and Ms Tucker who, I think, are aware of the situation in the remand centre. I will give this example-

Mr Hargreaves: We know about the remand centre.

MR MOORE: I know you understand the situation at the remand centre, but I will give this example because I think it is important. The department provided me with the example of somebody they called, hypothetically, Stephanie, who has a three-year-old daughter. She has been charged and she is back again for a drug-related theft. She has a lengthy criminal history prior to the previous sentence. She has been arrested on her latest charges and she has been remanded in custody.

Now, what happens with Stephanie's three-year-old daughter? The last time she was in custody the daughter went to Stephanie's mother for some time and then to foster care. Stephanie has been through detox. She needs to spend time with her daughter. It appears

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