Page 813 - Week 03 - Thursday, 2 April 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
commonwealth matters. This legislation has been carefully drafted to make sure it does not tread into those spaces. Therefore, on constitutional grounds we are very confident that this legislation stands strongly.
We do not believe that following the New South Wales model is the best model for the ACT. Obviously different criminal offences apply between New South Wales and the ACT; you get prosecuted for different things. The courts already have a range of different processes. So in that sense there are already different legal rights for people who live in Queanbeyan and those who live in Canberra. We are looking at how in this particular circumstance we can make sure there is the best access to justice for the people of the ACT.
The ACT Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court are nation leading with their facilities. The audiovisual and remote witness links place us in one of the best positions in Australia for the ongoing work of our justice system. That is a really important thing for us to affirm and to be able to support. We obviously cannot predict where things may go with the COVID-19 epidemic, but we are in a position to be able to keep our trials going, potentially longer than other jurisdictions, and that is important.
The views that have been shared today are important and I acknowledge them. IÂ acknowledge that people have expressed their views to Mr Hanson. Clearly some of the people who have expressed their views to me have not also expressed their views to Mr Hanson. We have been balancing these very carefully. We are looking to do things appropriately, in the interests of justice in society. On the balance of all of the considerations, we will not be supporting the amendment. However, if passed, we will monitor the way the legislation is implemented and I will continue to see how it is that the ongoing rights and protections of the people of the ACT are best upheld.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (5.05) This is an issue for which there is not a single answer, as Mr Hanson alluded to in his remarks. There are countervailing arguments about the merits or otherwise of this approach. We must endeavour to try and anticipate human behaviour in response to legislative change and ensure that the justice system continues to operate, and in a way that is fair.
This provision does two things: firstly, it allows matters that are currently excluded offences to be conducted as judge-alone trials. That provision does not appear to be controversial. It will enable trials for a range of serious offences to be held under a judge-alone trial where currently they cannot be. That seems a useful and practical measure at a time when, because of physical distancing rules, it seems jury trials will be nigh on impossible to conduct.
Secondly, subsection (3) allows for the court to order a trial to be judge alone if the court is satisfied that the order will ensure the orderly and expeditious discharge of the business of the court and that to do so is otherwise in the interests of justice. The interests of justice test is the crucial factor, in my view. A number of factors will need to considered and each case will have its own characteristics.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video