Page 4109 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government’s amendment will again defer the execution of the order until the normal appeal period expires. This amendment is similar to the previous two amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 24, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 24A, 24B and 24C.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (12.09): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name which inserts proposed new clauses 24A, 24B and 24C [see schedule 1 at page 4176].
As I said earlier, we were pleased to see non-association and place restriction orders and some other suggestions that were made by the opposition last year actually incorporated into this bill. There were, however, several pretty important parts of that package that were not. That is what these three clauses actually deal with.
Proposed new clause 24A deals with non-association and place restriction orders being suspended while an offender is in custody. Obviously, if they are in custody, there is no need for those orders to run because they are in the one place and they are probably not associating with the people who would be referred to in the order. Proposed new clause 24A provides, firstly, that a non-association order or place restriction order for an offender is suspended whilst that person is in lawful custody; secondly, that the suspension of the non-association order or the place restriction order does not operate to postpone the date when the order ends; and, finally, that the offender is not taken to be in lawful custody only because that person is serving a sentence by way of periodic detention. If someone is on periodic detention, it is invariably weekend detention. For five days of the week they will be out in the community. It is important that any place or restriction orders continue while that is the case. We think it is very important that that is actually provided for.
Proposed new clause 24B refers to the contravention of non-association and place restriction orders. There is nothing in the attorney’s package in relation to this, and this is an omission that needs to be rectified. The proposed new clause provides that an offender must not engage in conduct that actually contravenes a non-association order or a place restriction order to which the offender is subject. The penalty recommended there is a maximum of 500 penalty units, imprisonment for five years, or both.
Proposed new subclause (2) provides that subclause (1) does not apply if the offender associated unintentionally with a person in contravention of a non-association order and the offender immediately ended the association. That is basically a defence. If the offender otherwise has a reasonable excuse for the contravention, subclause (1) would not apply. That, I suggest, would give ample protection to any offenders. Subclause (3) defines “engage in conduct” and refers readers to section 13 of the Criminal Code for clarification.
Finally, proposed new clause 24C deals with changing or revoking non-association and place restriction orders after subsequent conviction. That applies to an offender who is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .