Page 1902 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As always, I welcome robust and constructive discussion relating to legislation and policy reforms in the territory. The government has consulted closely with key stakeholders during the drafting of this amendment to ensure that the reforms strike a balanced approach between the rights of victims and the community to safety and the rights of the accused in a bail process.
A number of stakeholders have expressed concerns that the power does not provide equity to a defendant. I am confident that the Bail Act already appropriately safeguards the rights of an accused in the bail process. For example, an accused may apply for bail on two occasions requiring no new evidence to support their application. If bail is refused after the second application, the accused may seek bail on a third occasion if there has been a change in circumstances relevant to the seeking of bail or if there is fresh evidence or information relevant to the granting of bail that was not previously available. Ultimately, if bail is refused the defendant can then appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
This bill also makes significant amendments aimed at serious criminal offending. Firstly, the bill amends the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 to allow corresponding offenders to be prescribed where they have not been convicted but have been subject to a registration order in another jurisdiction. The Chief Police Officer must then decide, based on a number of considerations, whether a prescribed corresponding offender should be placed on the register and made subject to reporting obligations. The considerations include the severity of the offence, the age of the person at the time of the offence and whether the person poses a risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more people or of the community at large.
In addition, the bill makes some minor and technical amendments to legislation that targets serious criminal behaviour. It clarifies the operation of the new intensive correction order in relation to the imposition of probation and the administration of curfew orders to support the new sentence and ensure that it is imposed and administered effectively.
The bill also provides that the registrar for the ACT child sex offenders register is the respondent in applications for removal of a person from the register under section 122(c) of the Crime (Child Sex Offenders) Act, and it amends the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2009 to improve the operation of assumed identities used by commonwealth intelligence agencies.
These amendments engage and limit a number of rights enshrined in our Human Rights Act, including the rights to freedom of movement, of association and privacy. While this engagement has been comprehensively addressed in the explanatory statement attached to the bill, I note that the government has taken the least restrictive approach necessary to ensure that community safety is balanced with the rights of the accused and convicted people. The safeguards in the bill ensure that this balance is right.
In conclusion, I would also like to flag to members that I have today released a public discussion paper on consorting laws for the ACT. This discussion paper has been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video