Page 454 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 15 February 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I invite you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to read through those debates at that time, look at what Mrs Dunne said, look at what Mr Seselja said, look at what I said. All of us were saying, “Let’s have a look at the information and let’s table it so that we can have a considered, evidence-based discussion about this.” That is what the government always talks about, that is what Mr Rattenbury always talks about—evidence based. In this case the government, since 2012, has not been prepared to collate that information so that we can understand, so that the public can understand, what offences have been committed by people who are on bail and what is the nature of those offences and the frequency.
I read through that debate. I hope that the Attorney-General has as part of getting informed. As I have said to him, “It is impossible to have a discussion about this in many ways without that information and we’re not going to be able to do that without this information and the community deserves to have it.” That is the first thing and I think that the review needs to examine that, needs to look at the evidence in the ACT to see how those laws are performing.
We have also had, as I go to my next point, a range of calls over a long time for a considered look at bail in the ACT. We have heard front-line police talk about the revolving door of bail. There are many comments from the DPP who has often given evidence to committees—estimates committees, annual reports hearings, JACS inquiries—and we know he has made a number of submissions to the government. Indeed, some of them led to changes in legislation which we passed last year, even though that was watered down.
What is the implication of that watering down? For example, the DPP is quoted in the JACS committee report No 6 of December 2015 as asking that consideration be given to an alteration “where a breach of bail would be an offence” which it was not in the ACT “at the moment”. He went on to say:
That may sound a bit technical, but the significance of that is to really trace the history of failure to comply with bail, a failure to comply with bail. In other words at the moment a breach of bail can lead to the arrest of a person and bring him before the court, but a breach of bail is not itself an offence. If it were an offence it would be able to be tracked through the criminal history of the offender, which would give a better history as to compliance. Members would be very aware that offences in this area tend to be perpetrated across a long period of time and there is repetition.
These are people on the front line, the experts who understand the complexity of this issue and the need for reform. These are the sorts of matters that we should consider. They have been raised over a number of years. This is not a new call. Indeed, when we look at the calls nationally, when we look at the calls within the ACT by those on the front line, the police talking about the revolving door of bail, it is timely.
Last year there was an inquiry conducted by the JACS committee, Mr Assistant Speaker, which, if you were aware of the committee structure, was a balanced committee with Labor Party and Liberal Party members on it. That was into sentencing review but it had a broader look at the system. I am sure the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video