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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 562 ..

In clause 18 there are seven subclauses enshrining the rights of those who may be detained. There are plenty of provisions there for bail and release, and for ample time to be provided for mounting a defence in a trial. But very little is said elsewhere in the bill of rights about the expedition of trials and the expedition of justice; and very little is said about the appropriate detention of lawbreakers with a history of violence.

As I said earlier today there is little provision in this bill to protect the innocent. To illustrate my point, at clause 22 (2) (c), a person has the right to be tried without unreasonable delay. That provision is reasonable; however, we feel strongly that from the tone of the embracing text the emphasis in this section of the bill is on what the defendant and his or her counsel may want. If delaying the trial is advantageous, that is fine, but it is versus expediting justice in the interests of a safer community.

Clause 23 covers compensation for wrongful convictions. Again we see the gross imbalance that this bill of rights represents. The bill of rights comprehensively covers the rights of somebody who is wrongfully convicted. That is fine and reasonable, but where are the provisions in the bill of rights for the compensation of victims of crime? This government again demonstrates its disdain for the protection of the community. The balance here is in favour of the alleged criminal or those who may be detained.

I am deeply concerned with what is an imbalanced bill of rights. The legislation is designed mostly to protect those who may be offenders, not those who may be offended against. This bill undervalues the fundamental rights of the following principles of safe living: the rights for the protection of property, the right for the protection for police going about their duties, the right for police to be supported, if unfairly accused or convicted themselves; the right to see justice expedited in the interests of a safer community. Will there be another bill of rights to protect the rights of the rest of the community—bill of rights Mk II; son of bill of rights?

How many more rights must we have, to extend to those who are detained on suspicion of crime or to those who are on bail with a track record of violence, or with a proven burglary record and a drug habit to feed? The existing provisions in ACT law are ample to ensure the rights of detainees and criminals. We have sufficient provisions in place to make sure that the rights of those who are detained or convicted are looked after. What about the rights of offenders to have their cases expedited and processed through conviction procedures? What about their rights to be firmly but fairly dealt with, do their time quickly, get rehabilitated and then return to society as reformed citizens? What about the rights of the community at large to see justice done and offenders returned safely to the community?

This bill of rights is out of whack. Clauses 18 to 25, while containing important provisions which I support, cater for only one side of justice. To that point the bill of rights is a disgrace. A great majority of the ACT community is disenfranchised. At this rate every criminal in Australia will come here and hat will put up property values. It is a strategic plan to increase property values in the ACT. That will take the ACT from the second highest to the highest burglary rate in Australia. This bill of rights is a sham and a joke. If this bill of rights is passed we will become the laughing stock of the Western world.

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