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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 618 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

As we have heard from other speakers, some crime rates have decreased since the amendments and some have increased. There are other factors. There was the police exercise to change how they were working. There were other factors which have already been mentioned by Jon Stanhope in his presentation on this issue.

I do not think anyone is claiming that they fully understand the impact of it. They could not be claiming that. They do not claim that, because the evidence is not there. As this motion says, the police think that, in part, it may have had an impact. However, you do not look at an impact just in part. When looking at changing the law, you try to look at all the impacts. One impact is pretty clear-that we have a major problem in the remand centre.

That potential problem was pretty obvious when this was debated. However, it was not one that was given any serious discussion or concern when this amendment was passed.

I am sure most members would be aware of what has actually happened in terms of overcrowding in the Belconnen remand centre. The fact is that police cells are used regularly and people are housed together overnight in a way that would not seem appropriate.

The resources are not up to it. They are not able to cope with the numbers of people and their complex needs. Remand is an opportunity. Quite often, it is a window of opportunity for addressing very pressing problems. The quite inadequate preparation and resourcing of what would occur after this change should be of grave concern to anybody in this place who is responsible for supporting this legislation.

The other fundamental concern we expressed was the fact that this amendment challenged the presumption of innocence. This was about someone who had allegedly committed a crime not being able to receive bail if they allegedly committed another crime. That was the fundamental concern expressed broadly through the legal community, the civil liberties community and the human rights community in the ACT.

National discussion has followed that, in terms of the concern that this is an inappropriate thing for us to do, or that it is quite inconsistent to support that and yet still claim that there is presumption of innocence. The other thing was that there was always the potential, under existing law, to not allow bail if there was seen to be a danger to the community in that person being given bail. So it was not as if we could not deal with the issues surrounding this problem.

Anyway, obviously that has passed and we have this legislation. This government is saying that they want to understand the implications of it for crime, but I imagine they will be looking at the broader implications as well. I know they expressed concerns then-and Mr Stanhope has done so again today-about the question of whether or not this is consistent with fundamental legal principles, well-accepted community values of presumption of innocence and how easily we can detain someone or remove their liberty. This is not a small matter.

The second point Mr Stefaniak raises is the stated intention of government to wind back reforms. The last two Assemblies were characterised by majority support, pretty well always, for these sorts of initiatives. That was because the Liberal Party had that

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