Page 2301 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill presented by Mr Corbell proposed to take away an exemption that applies to people who are picketing, protesting or demonstrating. I do not agree with this, and I wrote to Mr Corbell expressing this and my other concerns. The right to protest and demonstrate is fundamental. I am concerned the amendment will erode this, particularly in combination with the broader scope of the powers I have talked about. I am pleased to see that Mr Corbell is presenting an amendment to remedy this. The ACT will continue to be one of the jurisdictions to have an exemption to protect protest, as several other jurisdictions do. Taking this away would have been a negative step indeed.
As a summary of these two amendments—NAPROs and expanded move-on powers—I do not believe the evidence is there for their efficacy. I believe they have scope to be used in a much broader way than we may wish, and I do not think we have a suitable mechanism for ensuring that they will be used for their intended purpose. I do not believe the government has provided a strong justification for these laws. For laws that are supposed to be about stopping the activity of serious organised crime, I am concerned that these laws are not really targeted at serious organised crime and will impact disproportionately on the vulnerable groups I have spoken about today.
In contrast, I cite anti-fortification laws as an example of a law that I think would be targeted at serious organised crime and that I potentially could support. Fortifications are, apparently, used by criminal organisations to keep out police—things like massive barricades of steel and masonry. Allowing the removal of such barricades seems quite targeted—much more so than a law that says exclusion orders can be issued by police officers to people they think may damage property in the future or may cause a person fear.
Lastly, I want to express my opposition to the proposed new bail power. Fundamentally I do not see why the government is ceding the bail power away from the courts, whose job it is to make bail decisions based on all the evidence, and essentially giving some of this power to the DPP. Basically, what will occur is that if the court makes a decision on bail, the DPP can stand up, say they disagree and want to appeal, and then the defendant is no longer granted bail. They go back into remand while a judge reviews the matter and it is resolved. Essentially, the DPP has an overrule power over the decision a judge has just taken. There are problems with that both in practice and in principle.
I hardly need to explain my opposition further, as the legal community has been very clear about what is wrong with this proposal. It has described the new laws as a disgraceful attack on human rights and an unnecessary and draconian reform. It has pointed out that this DPP power can be exercised in relation to all kinds of offences and they are not related to public safety. The government is introducing amendments today that will water down this power somewhat, which is welcome, but I still do not support it.
As ACT Bar Association President Ken Archer said, the laws still allow prosecutors to unilaterally decide to lock up individuals after a court has decided bail should be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video