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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (22 October) . . Page.. 3969 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

serious crimes involving a serious weapon, such as armed robbery, malicious wounding and anything particularly nasty like that, which would include rape.

Mr Stanhope said nothing at all in relation to the recommendations for protection or restraining orders; he was silent on those. They would also be picked up here as per the Law Reform Commission's recommendation, as would the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence or conspiring to commit such an offence. In other words, the bill is reversing the presumption for bail in relation to the crime of murder, serious violent offences like armed robbery, aggravated burglary, malicious wounding and rape where a weapon is involved, serious domestic violence matters where there is real fear and serious drug offence matters.

The community is crying out for this bill, Mr Speaker. I do not think the community wants Mr Stanhope just to go part way. By all means, let us look at his big package when it comes in. There might be some good points there and there might be some points which are not so good, but this bill is something that the community wants now.

If this billis passed by this Assembly-it does not look like it will be-it may well save lives. In my tabling speech I gave the example of someone in Sydney being charged recently with murder, being bailed and going out and committing another murder. This bill is something that would stop that. Someone who malicious wounds or does an armed robbery and who otherwise would be granted bail because of the automatic presumption in favour of bail would have much more trouble because the presumption would be reversed.

To answer Ms Dundas and Ms Tucker, this bill does not in any way stop a court from granting bail if the circumstances of the case are strong enough to indicate that that should occur. It merely means that a court starts from the premise that instead of having a presumption in favour of bail, which they feel they should give unless there is very strong evidence the other way and which is the way it pans out in reality, there is a presumption against bail.

The bill is hardly draconian. If I wanted to be tough on crime and do a real law and order thing on this one, I could. I make no bones about the fact that I believe that we should be tough on crime. I make no bones about the fact that I have some legislation before this house which would be tough on crime. It is legislation that certainly 83 per cent of the population and possibly 95 per cent want, that is, my bill on sentencing. Yes, it is getting tough on crime, a la New South Wales.

This bill does not go anywhere near as far as New South Wales is going. This bill is in accordance with what our Law Reform Commission wanted. I think it would be handy to read out for members the composition of the Law Reform Commission, which did a lot of work on this subject. Its members are Justice Ken Crispin, who is now the president of the ACT Court of Appeal, Mary-Ellen Barry, Professor John Braithwaite, Lisbeth Campbell, who is now a magistrate, Professor Richard Campbell, Peter Hohnen, a learned practitioner, David Hughes, Jennifer Kitchin, Ian Nicholl, a practitioner, Philip Walker, a practitioner, and Professor Charles Rowland.

I do not think any of them are rednecks. They are from a wide cross-section of the community. They, after a lot of learned deliberation, came up with this package and

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