David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, the government does not support amendment (32) concerning the repeal of presumption against bail. Section 15AA(1) of the Crimes Act provides that bail should not be granted to persons charged with or convicted of offences covered by section 15AA(2) unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to justify bail. The presumption against bail was first inserted in 2004 to ensure a consistent approach to bail proceedings for certain serious offences. Prior to this, the Commonwealth had to rely on state law governing bail proceedings. This resulted in different appeal rights depending on the state or territory jurisdiction that the offence was being tried in. Presumptions against bail currently apply to certain serious offences in most state and territory jurisdictions. It is appropriate that terrorism offences fall within the class of serious offences where the presumption against bail applies. Importantly decisions about bail are ultimately at the discretion of the judge. The presumption against bail does not fetter this right or discretion.

The government does not support amendment (33) concerning the stay on grant of bail. This amendment opposes proposed sections 15AA(3C) and 15AA(3D) of the bill. If a bail authority decides to grant bail, proposed section 15AA(3C) will provide for a stay of the court order. Proposed section 15AA(3D) will provide that the stay will last only until a decision on the appeal is made or the prosecution notifies the court that they do not intend to pursue an appeal or until 72 hours has passed, whichever is the least period of time. These proposed provisions are similar to existing state provisions. However, not all state and territory jurisdictions have such provisions. It is desirable for us to have a consistent approach, particularly given that some of the investigations concern activity that spans state borders. As Senator Ludlam will appreciate, it logically follows that the government does not support consequential amendment (34).