Crispin Hull

Where are the US warplanes? Where are the demands that the peace accords worked out after the war in the early 1990s be adhered to? Where is the US outrage backed by military force? Iraq is obviously different from Angola. Angola was only of interest to the US when it was seen as part of the Cold War, when there were goodies and baddies that fitted neatly into the then bi-polar view of the world held by the US State Department.

In 1994 peace accords were signed between the two warring sides in Angola and UN peace-keepers were sent in. In the past two weeks, two aircraft carrying UN peace-keepers have been shot down. Up to 22 people are dead or missing. The aircraft were apparently shot down by rebels from the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) who are not happy with the power-sharing arrangement worked out with the UN, but want sole power.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US saw UNITA as an ally fighting what it saw as a Marxist Government which had filled the power vacuum after the withdrawal of Portugal in 1975. Of course, the fighting in Angola never was ideological. It was tribal. The warring sides just latched on to the major powers for arms and money, much of which is still being used in today’s civil war.
Continue reading “1999_01_january_leader05jan angola”

The result of the speed-camera test in the ACT makes depressing reading. This week the Minister for Urban Services Brendan Smyth issued the results saying that about half of Canberra’s drivers do not obey speed limits. The tests were taken on Belconnen Way, where 80 per cent of drivers kept a steady 70km/h to 75km/h speed in a 60km/h zone; Tuggeranong Parkway where drivers averaged 15km/h over the limit and the Monaro Highway where more that 40 per cent of drivers exceeded the speed limit, to name the worst sites.

Equally depressing is some of the reaction. Some people argued that the speed limit was too low, especially on Belconnen Way. However, in the places on Belconnen Way where the 60km/h limit applies, houses abut the road. There were the usual cries about revenue raising.

The trial was to test new digital equipment not used before. Mr Smyth says the cameras will go into force later in the year. Good.
Continue reading “1999_01_january_leader02jan speed cameras”

The fundamental bail question is: will the accused turn up.

When an accused person taken into custody is brought before a court it is usually the case that the matter cannot be dealt with immediately. The hearing will have to take place at a later date. The question then becomes: what should happen to the accused in the meantime?

Last week the ACT Law reform Commission called for tougher bail conditions. It suggested that where the charges were serious, like murder, violence with a weapon, drug trafficking or contravening restraining orders, the accused should face a presumption by the courts against granting bail.

It made a number of less fundamental recommendations which have merit, but the reasoning in its main recommendation is flawed.

The commission’s view has been supported by Justice minister Gary Humphries and the ACT branch of the Australian Federal Police Association. The secretary of the branch said, “”Bail is a privilege not a right.” Once again, the reasoning in flawed.

A fundamental element of the Australian criminal law is the presumption of innocence. Combined with the rule of law, it separates a civil society from totalitarianism and dictatorship.

It is quite reasonable for the police to express concern about arcane rules of evidence and technicalities that see patently guilty people go free, and to seek a better balance in that regard. But the presumption of innocence should not be diluted. Saying bail is a privilege not a right, undermines the presumption of innocence. It means someone who has been charged has fewer rights than everyone else, even though no offence is proved.

Reversing the onus of proof does the same thing. It puts the onus on a charged person to prove bail is warranted, even though no offence is proved. It makes the charged person have fewer rights than everyone else.

There is a better view of bail. The court directs its attention solely to the question of whether the accused will turn up and requires the Crown to show a reasonably apprehension that the accused will abscond. Otherwise bail should be granted. Bail is a right, unless the Crown can show good reason for it not to be granted.

Now in that equation the Crown can indicate that the accused person is more likely to abscond because he or she faces a long jail term and the outline of evidence is very strong. But that point must be solely directed at the issue of appearance. To do otherwise carries as suggestion of guilt and the need to protect society against dangerous criminals (even if no offence is proved).

Balanced against that is the accused’s ties to family and community, ownership of property, employment and so on.

Thrown into the equation, of course, is the question of bail money and surety. The commission recommends there should be no unconditional bail for minor offences where the accused is on bail for another offence. That is quite sensible. Demanding bail money does not impinge on the presumption of innocence. And it increases the likelihood of the accused turning up.

It proposal for home detention as a bail option is also sensible, though that should permit visits to lawyers and other engagements associated with preparing a defence. Indeed, these days with more complex scientific evidence the need for the accused to be out of jail to prepare a defence is that much greater. The home detention proposal could be refined. If it were reasonably cheap, perhaps electronic bracelets with homing devices should be considered.

The commission’s proposal for credit card and EFTPOS payment of bail and the streamlining of procedures for forfeiting bail money should be actively considered.

This year is the last year starting with 19. That much is clear. Debate still rages as to whether 2000 is the first year of the new millenium or the last year of old one. Many will ask, so what? Their lack of concern or sense of occasion is a sensible and rational position. However, many others see a sense of occasion and significance in this being the last year starting with 19. There is a sense of rounding off and hope for renewal, particularly in Australia as we end a century of nationhood and look forward to celebrating the Olympic Games. It makes us look to the big picture.

This year we will consider our nationhood with an intensity perhaps greater than at any time in the past hundred years. Australians will vote in a referendum towards the end of the year, probably, November, to decide whether we will become a republic. It may be that the preamble of the Constitution is also considered. This inevitably will raise the question of Aboriginal reconciliation.

These two issues present a great challenge to Australians and to our political leaders. In his first term, Prime Minister John Howard concentrated on economic matters. At the beginning of his second term, last October, he promised to pay greater attention to non-economic issues, including reconciliation. However, to date there is little to inspire confidence. He does not appear to have made any significant change in his attitude or actions on reconciliation. On the republic he maintains his position of public neutrality and personal preference for constitutional monarchy.
Continue reading “1999_01_january_leader01jan”

From today Europe has a new currency, the euro. Until January 1, 2002, it will not exist in notes and coins, but only as an electronic currency. The gradual introduction of the euro is perhaps wise. By the time the notes and coins arrive, many people will have already dealt with the currency. When, six months later, the national currencies disappear many Europeans will not notice significant change.

It is an exciting transition. Europe has been bloodied by war and dispute for centuries. Indeed, the period since 1945 has been the longest period of peace in Western Europe in history. A common currency will do so much to integrate economies that dialogue, arbitration and the rule of law will become the only way to resolve disputes between nations. Currency union will inevitably bring grater political union. The new currency will bring the European ideal to the city-street level. Hitherto much about the European Community has been elitist or dealing with farm produce.

On an international level, the euro is bound to challenge the US dollar as the main currency unit of international trade and travel.
Continue reading “1999_01_january_leader01jan euro”

Another exxcellent contribution in today’s Canberra Times. You’re one of the few writers taking a broad look at health care financing.

Ian Chalmers sent me a copy of his proposal for comment – my reply to him is below. Basically I am still puzzled about why they rest their fortunes on private insurance.

——————————————————- Dear Ian

Thank you for the paper on TMEs. It’s an interesting contribution to the health financing debate. The principle of achieving some equity between those who use private and public hospitals is one worth advancing.
Continue reading “1999_01_january_health-care fodder”

The move by Attorney-General Gary Humphries to reform the defamation laws is very welcome. So, too, are his stated aims — to make the law simpler and more accessible; to stop the ACT from becoming a Mecca for high-profile defamation cases like the recent Abbott and Costello case; and to better balance freedom of speech with the right to reputation.

However, Mr Humphries seems to be going about it the wrong way and has isolated the wrong elements of defamation law as the culprits in causing the problems he wants to fix.

The ACT is a Mecca for big-name defamation actions that have little or nothing to do with the ACT and involve out-of-town publications. The problem should and can be fixed, but not by the Humphries method.
Continue reading “1999_01_january_defo humphries”

People favouring the direct election of the president should look at the referendum of December 12, 1981, for inspiration.

At that referendum the Tasmanian Government offered two choices: a dam on the Gordon River below the Franklin River or a dam on the Gordon above the Olga River.

Of course, a very large number of people in Tasmania did not want any dams at all.

The “”no dams” group, conservationists and others who cut across party lines, organised a campaign for people to write “”No Dams” across their ballot paper and to vote informal.
Continue reading “1999_01_january_dams and republic”

Letter writers are perplexed about the sale of ACTEW. They wonder at the proposition put by Chief Minister Kate Carnell that if Actew is kept in Government hands its value will decrease sharply and ACT taxpayers will lose.

Surely, they argue, smart private operators would equally aware that Actew’s value is falling, so why should they pay over-value?

Other letter writers have wondered, if the private sector can make a go of it and get the income, why can’t the public sector do it and share the income among all ratepayers?
Continue reading “1999_01_january_actew forum”

The ACT had a batch of mosts, leasts, highests and lowests in the voting for the Senate at the last federal election.

According to the latest Electoral Newsfile put out by the Australian Electoral Commission, the ACT had the lowest vote for the Coalition of any state or territory; the highest vote for Labor; the highest vote for the Democrats; the lowest informal vote and the highest below-the-line voting.

The ACT has had the lowest informal vote in every Senate election since 1987.
Continue reading “1998_12_december_senatevote”