Page 2296 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill will modernise and relocate move-on powers, expand the categories of the offence subject to non-association, introduce a new bail power for the Director of Public Prosecutions, allow corresponding offenders to be prescribed where they have not been convicted but are subject to a registration order in another jurisdiction, clarify the operation of the new intensive corrective orders and amend the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2009 to improve the operation of assumed identities for commonwealth intelligence agencies.
There are some late government amendments, which we will be supporting. The supplementary amendment circulated by the government notes that the amendments to the bill are required to address issues that have been raised by key stakeholders about the bail review power, the exclusion order provisions and to include other urgent amendments to the Firearms Act 1996 to address matters considered by the Court of Appeal.
The second amendment circulated by the government is to insert a new clause 180, “Exclusion directions—annual report”, requiring the minister to prepare a report for each calendar year about exclusion directions given during the year and also to insert new clause 26A about the non-association orders and place restrictions made during the year.
The bail review power for the DPP has caused some controversy. The Australian Institute of Criminology noted that the purpose of refusing bail is to protect the community and reduce the likelihood of further offending. We have seen a number of media reports where offenders on bail have committed offences. I indicate my frustration at this point that the government does not collect and collate that information and make it available for members of the Assembly. I know, Madam Speaker, that when you were the shadow attorney-general you addressed this issue some years ago. I have continued to do so since becoming the shadow attorney-general. Even as late as the estimates hearings in June, when we asked for the summary of the number of offences and the nature of offences committed by individuals whilst on bail, that information was not available. It is not collected; it is not collated. That is an ongoing frustration and is something we would address in government.
There is no doubt that there have been incidences, both in the ACT and in other jurisdictions, of offenders released on bail who have then reoffended and committed serious offences, in some cases resulting in death. This is a matter of achieving the balance between the rights to liberty of individuals not found guilty of an offence and community safety. It is a difficult balance to achieve.
One of the key concerns raised by stakeholders was the length of time for which individuals can be held after an appeal made by the DPP. I note the amendment from the government reduces that period from 72 hours to 48 hours. That 72-hour period was working hours so, in effect, if an appeal were made on a Friday afternoon, the period of continued incarceration could have been significantly longer. Another change is to require a review of the powers two years after they come into operation, and that is a welcome amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video