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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 723 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Page 27 of this report deals with burglary and breaking and entering. Again I look at the December figures for the last three years. There were 2,248 such offences in December 1999, 1,937 in December 2000 and 1,261 in December 2001. Quite clearly, this bears out exactly what the Australian Federal Police have been saying-that the Bail Act has been significant in reducing crime.

Our judicial officers complained about the reasonably small number of recidivists to whom the old act gave a presumption in favour of bail virtually at all times. The same people would keep coming before the courts for breaking into places. They had to be given bail under the old act. They would be back again in a few weeks for more offences, and they would get bail again. I hark back to the example I gave yesterday. Under Operation Anchorage one bloke was up four times in three months for break and enter offences.

These statistics are irrefutable proof of the success of that act. I know that the Labor Party does not particularly like it. I reiterate that they supported most of it in May of last year. I detected yesterday a wish to get rid of it or to change it. Any change that weakens it will lead to an increase in offences and innocent people being traumatised and victimised. That is not what members of this Assembly are here for, under the oath we swore to look after the people of the ACT.

The Attorney said that they would keep the act under review, but these figures hammer home in no uncertain way the effectiveness of the act. The December quarter is traditionally prime time for offences. The figures speak for themselves. It would be very dangerous for this government to go down the path of watering down sensible measures that protect honest, law abiding citizens, many of whom are quite vulnerable, from crime. These figures bear out exactly what the police have been saying. It is commonsense. I just cannot reinforce enough what might happen if this government winds back this incredibly sensible piece of legislation.

I have had a chance to look at these statistics only in the last few minutes. I look forward to going through the rest of them in detail. From the cursory glance I have given them, it is pleasing to see that a number of other offences have been reduced. I commend the diligence of the Australian Federal Police in their task of protecting the community and doing their best to drop the crime rate. Quite clearly, these figures bear out what they and other people have been saying.

I briefly turn to the comments made on ABC radio about some solicitors having problems. I know that some are. Jennifer Saunders, for example, has consistently opposed the improvements to the Bail Act. She has a certain point of view which I completely disagree with. I have said so publicly and I will continue to say so publicly. A number of solicitors have a point of view they will push. That does not mean that those points of view should be taken over and above the legitimate rights of the Canberra community to protection.

A number of solicitors have told me privately that they are very happy with the improvements to the Bail Act.. When I opened Law Week last year when I was the Attorney-General, I can recall a Canberra barrister saying to a member of the Law Society, "These government amendments are what the community want. We should not be out of kilter with the community. We should be more responsive to community needs

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