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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1150 ..

I think will open up a Pandora’s box in all sorts of ways if people do not realise. I suppose that is for another day, and I make no further comment there. Although I note that these amendments are going to go down, I commend them to the Assembly. I think they are amendments that the community would expect. To an extent, they would ensure the safety and security of the community, better than perhaps just going along the path the Attorney has taken in reversing the presumption for murder only.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 18.

MR STEFANIAK (9.15): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 6 at page 1188]. I note that Ms Dundas has said she is not going to accept any of my amendments and I do not think the Attorney is going to either. Again I hear what they say and, although I do not have the numbers here, this is an important amendment. It is it not a case of saying children are all that different. The Law Reform Commission—all these very experienced judges, magistrates and legal practitioners—have come up with the recommendation that, as previously mentioned, it does not seem appropriate to require that bail decisions be based upon the best interests of accused persons, even if they are juveniles. In this area my amendment still includes any other conditions that the court or authorised officer considers appropriate, having regard to the principles in the Children and Young People Act 1999 section 68. That act deals with a number of areas which look after the best interests of the child. It contemplates the relevant considerations but does not give a primacy to what we have at present, which now drops back to a primary consideration of the young person automatically getting bail.

Quite clearly there are situations where young people who, for the very best of reasons—in the interests of the safety and security of the public, victims, witnesses and perhaps even themselves—are best remanded in custody. I do not think—I agree with the Law Reform Commission—that there should be an open slather granting of bail to young people. There should be restrictive provisions that make it difficult, where a judge or magistrate feels that a young person should be remanded in custody, to feel: the law is really against me there and I cannot actually do it.

Whilst the government has pulled back a bit from having that as a paramount consideration—it is now just a primary consideration—I think it is still far over and above what the Law Reform Commission has said at page 69 of its report. Hence my amendment there, which would give effect to what the Law Reform Commission recommended after much deliberation, much research and much consultation. If people have regard for consultation and the views of people who are effectively experts, then they should support my amendment. But of course I can read the numbers and it is plain that this is not going to be supported.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18 agreed to.

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