Bail (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 June 2017.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:52): I rise to speak quite briefly on the Bail (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. It is only a three-page bill, as members are no doubt aware, and it contains minor but significant changes to the Bail Act 1985. First of all, the bill removes certain rights of prescribed applicants. The act defines a prescribed applicant as an applicant taken into custody under a number of different circumstances, including a person who is a serious and organised crime suspect, a person who has breached an intervention order, a person accused of manslaughter by use of a vehicle whilst evading police or a person who has breached bail conditions, along with a number of other certain types of alleged offenders accused of equally serious offences.

Clause 7 of the bill removes a prescribed applicant's ability to seek a telephone bail review. It is understood that removing telephone bail reviews will have little effect on prescribed applicants, as I understand such applications are rarely, if ever, successful. Additionally, a judge considering the application out of court and outside of normal hours, as is the case with telephone bail reviews, is arguably less properly equipped to deal with an application than a judge sitting in a court with all the resources available to him or her in the court. Requiring the bail review to be heard in court would therefore, in theory, enable a more complete and fair consideration of the application. In our view, this certainly has merit and the Australian Conservatives support this change.

We also support clause 6, which expands the definition of prescribed applicant to include those who are charged with an aggravated violent offence and at the time of the alleged offence also contravened an intervention order. As explained by the government in a previous stage of this bill, during its introduction, this is intended to address an existing ambiguity in the act that could potentially result in an accused falling outside the definition of a prescribed applicant based on a technicality where the court hears related matters simultaneously.

Although we commend the government for acknowledging and addressing this apparent loophole, perhaps the minister could answer the following questions in his summing-up: firstly, when and how was the government made aware of the aforementioned loophole; and, secondly, is the government aware of any instances where applicants who have been categorised as a prescribed applicant but fell outside the definition due to the ambiguity of the act actually applied for bail and were successful?

I look forward to the minister's response, but I indicate that we are supporters of this bill. I understand there are amendments to be made as well and we are somewhat favourable, although we look forward to the explanation of those amendments.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.