Page 3278 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 10 November 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Pathways to Justice report noted that, nationally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are already less likely to be granted bail than non-Indigenous people and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are over-represented in incarceration rates for assaults, particularly including those that do not cause injury or bodily harm. There is a real potential for the amendments proposed in this bill to exacerbate structural disadvantages in the criminal justice framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The government is firmly committed to taking the bold steps required to build communities, not prisons, and to reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the justice system. We will not take bold steps in the opposite direction.
I note that the Canberra Liberals have been very active in keeping this issue prominent for the government. We agree that action is needed—action we are taking. However, we cannot take one step forward and two steps back. Without evidence that this bill has a real likelihood of improving safety outcomes, and where all evidence would suggest that it will continue to exacerbate issues of over-representation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we cannot in good conscience support it. You cannot be in favour of reducing the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the justice system while at the same time seeking to exacerbate it, which is what this proposed amendment will do. Much like the Canberra Liberals’ stance on climate action, they are for the better future but against every single step that gets us there—every single step.
In that 2020 study referred to previously, the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council noted that assaults of public officers are more likely in particular circumstances or conditions, including when dealing with people with mental health conditions or cognitive impairment, people with drug or alcohol dependence, people in situations of domestic and family violence, or people who have experienced significant and ongoing trauma in their lives. The council concluded that, regrettably, many of these individuals have had negative and confrontational experiences with first responders and often react accordingly. That is to say, the response is often instinctive, rather than after a full contemplation of all the consequences. As such, it is unlikely that a change in the presumption from one in favour of bail to a neutral presumption will impact on how this cohort responds in a moment of stress.
Keeping our frontline workers safe is vital to keeping the community safe and is always going to be a strong priority for this government. We see how integral their work is daily during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we will always strive to improve conditions so that they are able to undertake this vital work as safely as possible. I do thank Mr Hanson for bringing well-deserved attention to this issue, because it is important. And I do respect the intentions behind the bill. However, the effects of the bill are such that the government cannot support it.
In summary, I will outline the seven major issues we cannot support in this bill. I have touched on them all, but let me reiterate them at the end of my speech. It is very clear that we have undertaken a detailed analysis of this work. We have taken it seriously. I have contemplated it personally, and I have also sought detailed advice from my agencies, and there are seven key reasons why we cannot support this bill. Firstly, the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video