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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1146 ..

court case, the ACT is one of the few jurisdictions that still follow the common law in respect of the award of costs in criminal proceedings for summary offences that have terminated in favour of a defendant.

In conclusion—I think this is the fundamental point at the heart of the issue of presumption against bail for people accused of murder—it is the government’s belief, no doubt backed by overwhelming community sentiment, that governments have a responsibility to govern on behalf of all citizens. The government must be an advocate of people’s liberty, as I am and this government is, and must also be an advocate of the right of the community to live in safety and security.

The government’s Bail Amendment Bill strives to meet the mutual responsibility of preserving the liberty of the people of the ACT and, to some extent, strives to meet that other major responsibility which is very much at the heart of community debate in relation to issues such as this—the rights of all the people of Canberra, but particularly those directly affected by circumstances they are confronted with in a situation where someone known to them—a neighbour, friend, relative or whoever—is murdered. There is a balancing act and we know, from exposure to some of the particular cases or incidents, that there is an issue here. The rights of those who continue to be traumatised and suffer and continue to live in a state of other than safety and security demand a response by the government and by this parliament. That is the response we are providing today.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 5.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for Environment) (9.00): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 3 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I move amendments Nos 1 to 3 circulated in my name together [see schedule 5 at page 1185]. As I indicated in my closing speech, these amendments are to do with the presumption towards bail for breach of periodic detention for whatever original offence a person was charged with. Amendment No 3 is consequential to amendment No 1. I table a supplementary explanatory statement.

Amendments agreed to.

MR STEFANIAK (9.02): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 4 circulated in my name together.

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