Page 812 - Week 03 - Thursday, 2 April 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
situation we find ourselves in. But we must proceed with caution, and where there is a better way let us acknowledge that. Let us learn from what New South Wales is doing and let us listen to the legal fraternity. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts, Creative Industries and Cultural Events, Minister for Building Quality Improvement, Minister for Business and Regulatory Services and Minister for Seniors and Veterans) (4.59): I thank Mr Hanson for moving the amendment, although the government will not be supporting it. He has picked up that vibe. I acknowledge the intent and the motive behind the amendment; I do not question that in any way. I note that I spoke in my earlier speech about most of the substantive comments around the issues of delay and the importance of justice being brought forward in a timely way.
I remind the members of the Assembly that it is a matter of balancing a number of factors here. Mr Hanson has argued for a particular view from a particular perspective; it is not the only perspective. Important issues have been expressed to me by the court, the Chief Justice and people involved with matters in supporting victims and the traumatisation that can happen with delay. This involves an important weighing of a range of views, a range of perspectives and a range of interests. They are difficult to weigh. As I said earlier today, the balancing the government has done has brought us to the provisions in the bill.
We have considered the New South Wales provision. We have looked at that from the perspective of what it would achieve and what it would not achieve. At a recent meeting of the Council of Attorneys-General, which was joined very generously by the chief justices from around Australia, it was acknowledged that jurisdictions were applying similar and in many ways identical principles but embodying them in different ways. Jurisdictions are taking different decisions around how they respond because of their particular circumstances.
I note that for the equivalent of the bill we are debating today New South Wales has gone significantly further than the ACT in a number of ways. It is simply not the case that all jurisdictions are working in exactly the same way, even though we are clearly seeking to live out the same principles.
It is also the case, as I am sure Mr Hanson is aware, that within another jurisdiction in Australia already a court can order a judge-alone trial without agreement of the accused. So it is not the case that the ACT is out of kilter with other jurisdictions on that. Mr Hanson talked about the fact that the Human Rights Act includes the right to a jury trial. It is important to make sure we are accurate in this. The Human Rights Act does not have a right to a jury trial.
Mr Hanson: I didn’t say that.
MR RAMSAY: My apologies then. The Human Rights Act provides for a right to a fair trial, and we have very deliberately and carefully thought through what is involved in the right to a fair trial, including the High Court declarations as to what is involved. There is no constitutionally enshrined right to a jury trial other than in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video