Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) — My question is in regard to clause 1 and the purposes. In the bail review Paul Coghlan said section 4 of the Bail Act should be amended so that it provides that:
in applying the unacceptable risk, exceptional circumstances and show good reason tests, a bail decision-maker must take into account —
more detailed factors, including:
the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether or not it is a serious example of the offence;
any special vulnerability of the accused, including by reason of youth, being an Aboriginal person, ill health, cognitive impairment, intellectual disability or mental health;
the availability of treatment or support services;
the length of time the accused is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused;
the likely sentence should the accused be found guilty of the offence charged …
There are also the existing factors in the act, such as the accused's criminal history and the strength of the prosecution's case, yet it appears that this bill does not provide for these additional considerations. I was wondering why that was the case.
Mr PAKULA (Attorney-General) — Quite simply, as I have indicated now on a number of occasions, the government made a determination that we would deal with what we would describe as the easier recommendations to implement from a technical sense in the stage one bill and other elements of the recommendations in the stage two bill. As I think I have already indicated, the interaction between the unacceptable risk test and the reverse onus test — and by extension the application of the unacceptable risk test, which is the recommendation that the member for Prahran has just read from — are matters of some complexity, and it is the government's intention that they would be dealt with in the second bill.