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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2016 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 4 August 2016) . . Page.. 2302 ..

granted. He said the government still had not demonstrated why these powers were needed. He said, “You don’t introduce changes that effectively allow the DPP to incarcerate people, no matter for how long.”

I actually do not understand this. The DPP brings forward the evidence as to why somebody should not be given bail. The magistrate’s job is to then weigh up that evidence. Then almost straight away, if the magistrate decides to give bail, the prosecutor can say, “I don’t like your decision and I’m going to overrule it.” It essentially allows a second bite of the cherry and I cannot support it. I cannot see how others cannot see the problem with this being a fundamental challenge to the separation of powers.

I will reiterate my support for the other parts of the bill that I will not discuss in detail. The bill also amends the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 to allow corresponding offenders to be prescribed where they have not been convicted but have been subject to a registration order in another jurisdiction. The Chief Police Officer must then decide, based on a number of considerations, whether a prescribed corresponding offender should be placed on the register and made subject to reporting obligations.

The bill also makes a number of other changes and minor amendments to the operation of the intensive correction order regime, which I support. The bill proposes amendments to sections 42 and 58 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 that, by adjusting the conditions applicable to intensive correction orders, will improve the operation of the ICO for courts, corrections and offenders as well.

The amendment to section 42 simply clarifies that every offender who is subject to an ICO is on probation under the supervision of the director-general and that the offender must comply with the director-general’s reasonable directions in relation to the probation. It was always the intent that this be a core condition and this amendment simply makes that intent clear.

The amendment to section 58 is designed to make adjusting a curfew condition simpler and more practical. ACT Corrective Services, acting on behalf of the JACS Director-General, already provides advice to the courts about the suitability of a place of curfew. In order to avoid the offender having to return to court should they move residence during the period of the order, a not unusual occurrence, this amendment allows for the assessment and decision on the suitability of an alternative residence to be made by the directorate. The assessment of the suitability of a place will be conducted as is the case now. This will reduce lesser matters being brought before the courts and significantly avoid situations where an offender is in breach of their order because they have moved and have not been able to have the curfew conditions reviewed in a timely manner.

With those remarks, as I have flagged, I will be moving an amendment later. There are a number of provisions that I will be opposing in the detail stage.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Climate Change) (11.29), in reply: I thank members for their comments on this

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