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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1147 ..

Leave granted.

MR STEFANIAK: I move amendments Nos 1 to 4 circulated in my name together [see schedule 6 at page 1187]. These amendments are in fact consequential on what occurs later on in relation to schedule 2 offences. In this case schedule 2.1 substitutes a new heading—murder and certain other offences. I mentioned those other offences in my speech in principle in relation to the additional offences that I would be seeking to move into the category of offences where the presumption against bail applies as well as murder. Looking at page 4 of my amendment sheet, intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, sexual assault in the first and second degree, sexual intercourse with a young person under 10, armed robbery and aggravated robbery.

I would reiterate the points I made in relation to that. I would also note, for the benefit of members, that clauses 3 and 4 of my amendments simply supply new examples which are necessary if my amendments to the schedule of offences, schedule 2, part 2.1, were to be accepted. In that event you would need these new examples. The examples are consistent with the amendments to move those other offences into offences where there is a presumption against bail. Further to what I said earlier, I have indicated why it is important for those offences to be moved in there. They are the offences that the Law Reform Commission would expect to have a presumption against bail.

I agree with about 90 per cent of what Mr Stanhope said in his speech to close debate in principle. He talked of the right of the community to live in safety and security and the right of victims to live in safety and security. Thankfully, murder is not a terribly prevalent offence in this territory. Thank God for that. We do, however, have a number of other very serious offences, particularly nasty offences, some of which, thankfully, are also not particularly prevalent. However, there are others which are perhaps a little more prevalent—offences such as armed robbery.

Twenty to 25 years ago you would have been lucky—or unlucky—to have about two or three a year. I suppose that is lucky now. Sometimes you can get three or four armed robbery offences a week. Those are particularly nasty offences which cause a lot of angst in our community and make people very scared and fearful for their safety and security. They are the sorts of offences which are often committed by people who have been given bail. As I said earlier, the Law Reform Commission—a learned body of a cross-section of the legal fraternity—after much deliberation came up with their recommendations. In our view, the Chief Minister’s bill has not gone far enough. My amendments give effect to the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for community Affairs (9.05): The government will not be supporting these amendments. I hear what Mr Stefaniak says about the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations and the extent to which the opposition believes that the government has ignored them. I think it is fair to say that what the opposition does not say is that the commission envisaged the subtle application of a presumption against bail, different from how the current presumptions against bail work. The commission suggested a lower test to overcome the presumption against bail by simply working through the normal criteria and placing the onus on the defence to argue that bail would be appropriate.

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