Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (25 March) . . Page.. 843 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

people from appearing before the courts and not much to encourage them. They ought to be able to appear before the courts with the least amount of interference to their appearance.

Mr Speaker, the amendments that have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition are sensible ones. They are very small in the scheme of things. I thought that the Government would wisely accept their introduction, given the Attorney-General's admission that only a handful of people might be affected. It strikes me as unusually harsh to take away the right of individuals to automatically appear before the courts if they wish to. Mr Humphries raised the issue of Mr Eastman's behaviour in court, using it as an argument for the automatic removal of a civil liberty. Mr Eastman's civil liberties were intact and there is no reason to take away or interfere with the civil liberties of anybody else because of Mr Eastman's behaviour.

If Mr Stanhope's amendments were carried, the court would still have the right, pursuant to subsection (2) of proposed section 72A, to vary or revoke a direction made under subsection (1). If there were a hazard as a result of the actions of a particular individual, I am sure the court could deal with it and justify its position. But to have legislation in place that automatically removes that right, albeit a fairly small part of one's appearance before the court, is another matter. It is important that the rights of individuals not only are granted but also are seen to be granted in any legislation which is brought before this place.

Mr Humphries also said that there was some justification in the fact that other States have done so in the past. Several of them can get it wrong sometimes, especially if they are great contributors to the lowest common denominator principle, which seems to be the course of not only financial affairs in this country, but justice as well as we wind back rights. It is not a justification to do it because other States do it.

The issue here is one of principle as to whether somebody should have an automatic right to appear before a court, rather than giving the right of appearance to the courts. In the case proposed by the Government, the court is the one that would decide on the application of a remandee to appear before the court. The remandee should be the one that is making a decision about that.

Debate interrupted.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .