Community Protection (Gregory Wayne Kable) Bill
| About this Item |
Speakers | Scully Mr Carl |
Business | Bill, First Reading, Second Reading |
COMMUNITY PROTECTION (GREGORY WAYNE KABLE) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [9.11]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is self-evident from the title of the bill that it is directed at one person, Gregory Wayne Kable. It is unusual for any parliament to legislate specifically for one person. In 1990 the Victorian Parliament passed an Act which empowered the Supreme Court of Victoria to continue the detention of Gary David after he promised that on release he would make the Hoddle Street massacre look like a Sunday school picnic. This Parliament has never before passed legislation - nor, I believe, ever had before it legislation - directed at the detention or continued detention of a particular individual. It is an extraordinary step to take and should be taken only in very special circumstances. The parliamentary Labor Party believes those special circumstances have arisen in the case of Gregory Wayne Kable. Gregory Kable was convicted in 1990 of the manslaughter of his wife and, following a successful plea of alleged diminished responsibility, received such a paltry gaol sentence that he is eligible for release on 5 January 1995. In 1993 the Offenders Review Board declined to grant Kable parole. One of the doctors reporting to the board found that:
Kable could place society at risk of a social disaster on the scale of the Hoddle Street massacre.
At the time of the killing Kable told police that, "There were no answers to my problem but I thought that if I killed Hilary, at least I could have the children". In correspondence he has threatened to kill his sister-in-law. This is a man who appears to be sick and a danger to the community. As Kable has only threatened harm and not actually carried out the threats, the Crimes Act may not be of great assistance. Section 31 of the Crimes Act, which deals with the malicious sending of letters threatening murder, should of course have been explored by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The section may well not cover the threats which Kable has made. The provisions of the Mental Health Act covering involuntary detention are probably inadequate to deal with the problem presented by Kable.
I turn to the specific provisions of the bill. Only the Director of Public Prosecutions and not the Attorney General may make an application to the court for a detention order against Gregory Wayne Kable. Proceedings will be in the Supreme Court, and under clause 23 will be assigned to the Court of Appeal. The Labor Party believes that, on the issue of detention or continued detention of a person, it is a gross affront to our criminal justice system that proceedings could in any way be regarded as civil in nature and that the standard of proof should be on the balance of probabilities. The type of application proposed by the bill is not about recovering debt or taking some similar action; it is about whether or not a particular person should be kept in gaol beyond the expiry date of his sentence because he has made threats of further violence upon release.
The Opposition regards these proceedings as criminal proceedings and, accordingly, the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt should apply. As with any other criminal proceedings, the Bail Act should apply - but, of course, not if a detention order is made. The Opposition does not believe it is appropriate in this kind of legislation to nominate minimum periods of detention. The Director of Public Prosecutions will need to prove to the Court of Appeal beyond reasonable doubt that Kable is, first, more likely than not to commit a serious act of violence upon release, and, second, that it is appropriate for the protection of a particular person or persons or the community generally that he be held in custody. The maximum period of detention is six months. The bill also provides for the appointment of psychiatrists and psychologists to assess Kable after a detention order has been made. Further, the bill contains a sunset provision that the Act will expire nine months after the date of assent.
I must make some comment on the Government's Community Protection Bill. That bill has been justly condemned by the Labor Party, by the honourable member for Tamworth, by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile, and by just about every group that is in any way connected with or interested in the administration of justice in this State. Both the Attorney General and the Premier publicly justified that draconian bill on the basis that its intended target was one Gregory Kable. However, in his second reading speech on 27 October 1994 the Attorney General made no mention of Gregory Kable - not even his name, let alone what he is alleged to have done.
The Premier and the Attorney General have cynically manipulated this issue in an attempt to look tough on law and order, but it was a clumsy attempt indeed. The Government's bill, prior to its amendment very late in the day yesterday, provided that all persons, whether or not they have ever committed a serious offence, or for that matter any offence at all, can be imprisoned for a minimum of six months on the suspicion that they might do something in the future. The standard of proof is only the balance of probabilities, which the Opposition believes is completely unsatisfactory. The Bail Act
Page 5222
would not apply, which means that any person served with an application under the Government's legislation would have to go to gaol pending the hearing.
The result would be that persons who may never have committed an offence, not even a minor offence, but who are served with an application under the Government's legislation would go to goal pending the hearing, on the suspicion that they may have made some threat. If the court happens to be busy and cannot hear the cases quickly, then such persons would be left to rot in gaol. The Opposition believes that this is most unsatisfactory. The Government's proposal was an act of hypocrisy on the part of the Attorney General and the Premier.
Honourable members would recall - certainly those on the opposite side of the House will - that for more than four months from May of this year the Attorney General put Gwen Hands and her family through sheer emotional trauma while the Attorney General and the Premier refused to intervene and prevent convicted child killer John Lewthwaite from being given day leave or parole. We were consistently told by the Attorney General that it was improper for any political figure to interfere in the process of the granting of parole or day leave. It was consistently put to the Government that this man was a danger to the community; that he should not be released; that if released he would commit another serious violent crime. The Attorney General consistently said, "I cannot intervene. I will not amend the legislation because it is not proper for me to be involved in the process". What has happened? What is different? The first difference between John Lewthwaite and Gregory Kable -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Smithfield has strayed considerably from the leave of the bill, which even he acknowledged when he introduced it specifically relates to the continued detention of one person only. Therefore, he is not at liberty to canvass matters relating to numerous other people who might otherwise be in similar circumstances.
Mr SCULLY: The Community Protection (Gregory Wayne Kable) Bill was introduced by me on behalf of the Labor Party because the Opposition believes that the Government's Community Protection Bill is far too broad; that it was an affront to civil liberties and was offensive to any like-minded citizen in New South Wales.
Mr Hartcher: Let us see your civil liberties.
Mr SCULLY: The Minister wants me to talk about civil liberties. As he has interjected on that basis I am delighted to be able to respond, notwithstanding your ruling, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Smithfield will flout my ruling at his peril. I direct that he remain within the leave of the bill. The Minister for the Environment will cease interjecting.
Mr SCULLY: We are only a short number of weeks before the next general State election. I can only assume that the Government's Community Protection Bill has been put forward for that reason alone, not because of any particular concern about Kable. The Community Protection Bill was introduced supposedly to protect the community against Kable, but no mention was made of Kable in the bill. That is why the Opposition has introduced its bill. There is concern in respect of Kable and provision ought to be made for the Supreme Court to have the power to assess whether his detention should continue beyond the expiration of his sentence, or, if he is released, whether at some later stage he should be detained if he continues his mischievous behaviour.
The Opposition will not tolerate in silence the Government pursuing a piece of legislation through this Parliament for no other reason than a clumsy media stunt. It is an affront to civil liberties. Last night the Government's Community Protection Bill was gutted in the Legislative Council. It was emasculated in such a form that it represents our bill. I call on the Government to apologise to the people of New South Wales, to withdraw its bill and to adopt my bill as its own. I am serious in that suggestion. The Government should apologise because it was an affront to the people of New South Wales to put citizens at risk of arbitrary arrest. The liberties that have been secured are ancient in tradition. The Government proposes to wind back the clock. It should thank me because I have saved its neck by putting this bill forward. Government members should thank me when this bill is passed through this Parliament because I have probably saved them a vote or two. I seek from that side of the House an acknowledgment that they and their Government embarrassed themselves and insulted the people of this State. After they have apologised, they should instruct the Attorney General to withdraw his bill in the upper House and adopt my bill as the Government's own legislation.
The Opposition is concerned about Mr Kable. It is extraordinary to move individual specific legislation, and I would not want it to happen too often. There are special circumstances in that Mr Kable has made post-conviction threats, making this bill completely warranted. I would like to comment on the hypocrisy on the part of the Government in wishing to pursue stalking amendments to the Crimes Act when it opposed those amendments initially. I am shocked at the hypocrisy on that side of the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.