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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1154 ..

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.34): Just before the conclusion of this debate, there are a couple of things I would like to say. This has been a very significant piece of law reform on bail. It is a difficult area, an area that arouses significant community debate but there is a view within the community that a balance needs to be achieved by governments and by legislators on the availability of bail. There are a number of issues around the presumption of innocence, such as human rights and compensation for those detained or remanded and subsequently found innocent as the offence hasn’t been proved, that do raise some very real and significant issues around civil liberties.

I want to repeat the government’s position. We take very seriously the need to protect the liberties of individuals to the greatest extent; we take very seriously the importance of the presumption of innocence; we take very seriously issues around the fundamental role and place of human rights in this community, as evidenced by our commitment to the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act; and we acknowledge how difficult the debate is. I think each of us is aware of some very high profile and public instances of members of the community who feel not only a sense of real injustice but also quite confronted in their personal lives and in their capacity to lead a life in which they feel safe and secure as a result of decisions that are made, particularly in relation to—

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, we are in some difficulty. The debate is about whether or not we agree with the title.

MR STANHOPE: Right. In conclusion, on the issue of bail it is important that we ensure that we have the balance right. I am aware of the difficulty that members of the Assembly have in coming to that decision. The government took some comfort from Ms Tucker’s position on the Bail (Serious Offences) Amendment Bill 2003, which Mr Stefaniak introduced last October, which was defeated by the Assembly. Ms Tucker indicated the struggle that she experienced with issues around bail. She stated:

I have some sympathy for at least considering the part of the bill—

that is, Mr Stefaniak’s bill—

creating a presumption against bail for the offence of murder. This comes from the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations.

As she says, she did have significant sympathy for the presumption against bail.

MR SPEAKER: I call this debate to order. The debate should be around the title.

Ms Tucker: I don’t remember talking about the title then.

MR STANHOPE: She then touched on other aspects of the debate—the need for balance, the position of victims in the community and the assumption that we need to ensure that victims are a significant part of the debate around the availability of bail.

Ms Tucker: Mr Speaker, Mr Stanhope called a technical point of order for me to vote. You have pointed out that he is out of order. Come on!

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