Page 1547 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
on the Assembly. Obviously you are going to vote against it, but you really are putting your head in the sand there and you really do totally miss the point here.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (12.14): Very briefly, these are important points to refute, and it is important to do them now. Mr Stefaniak has indicated that there are other safeguards that protect against abuse and that is, therefore, the reason why the threshold should be less stringent than that proposed by the government. The government does not agree.
In addition to the reasons outlined, it is worth reflecting on the other safeguards that Mr Stefaniak makes reference to. For example, Mr Stefaniak makes reference to the rights of detainees to talk to their lawyers. If Mr Stefaniak had looked at the New South Wales legislation, for example, and the commonwealth provisions, he would know that there is very little protection for communication between detainees and their lawyers to be confidential, which is what I would have thought Mr Stefaniak regards as a very important, basic entitlement for someone in detention.
Indeed, it is only in the ACT where the presumption would, if this bill is passed, be based on the fact that that communication will be private and confidential, and good reason will have to be given for that communication to be monitored, whereas in New South Wales and under commonwealth legislation the presumption is the reverse. The presumption is that all communications between a client and their lawyer will be monitored.
If Mr Stefaniak makes the claim that somehow the threshold issue is not as significant because the focus should be on these other safeguards, look at how those safeguards themselves have been watered down in other jurisdictions—an approach that Mr Stefaniak believes is acceptable. The confidential communication with lawyers safeguard has been left out. It is not absolute under the ACT’s bill, but the presumption is that it will be confidential, whereas the presumption in other jurisdictions is that it will not be.
It is the same on contact with family members. There is a much greater restriction on contact with family members in other jurisdictions’ legislation than there is in the ACT bill. Even on basic things such as access to interpreter services there are much greater restrictions in other jurisdictions, including in New South Wales, which Mr Stefaniak regards as model legislation, than in the ACT. So those safeguards are watered down in other jurisdictions, and watered down significantly.
Those issues should also be brought into play when Assembly members consider the issue of the threshold test for whether or not a periodic detention order should be granted. Mr Stefaniak’s arguments do not stand up when you look at the approach adopted by other jurisdictions and the watering-down of those other safeguards that he uses as an argument to justify a lower level of test for gaining a PDO.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (12.17): To take up my second option, I have a couple of points. Firstly, I can see the point made by Mr Corbell that charges had been laid in one of those examples that I put forward earlier. But the example that I was using in terms of the weaponry available was still relevant. The point that I make is this: where
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .