Page 1960 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That the Assembly take note of the following paper:
Inspector of Correctional Services Act—Report of a Review of a Critical Incident by the ACT Inspector of Correctional Services—Escape of a detainee from a secure escort on 9 July 2021 (CIR 01/22)—Government Response.
Debate (on motion by Ms Lawder) adjourned to the next sitting.
Auditor-General’s report No 5/2021—government response
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Manager of Government Business, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Industrial Relations and Workplace Safety, Minister for Planning and Land Management and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (3.06): Pursuant to standing order 211, I move:
That the Assembly take note of the following paper:
Public Accounts—Standing Committee—Report 5—Inquiry into the Auditor-General’s Report No. 5 of 2021: Management of Closed-Circuit Television Systems—Government response.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Human Rights Act—declaration of incompatibility
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Manager of Government Business, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Industrial Relations and Workplace Safety, Minister for Planning and Land Management and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (3.06): Pursuant to standing order 211, I move:
That the Assembly take note of the following paper:
Human Rights Act, pursuant to subsection 33(2)—Corrections Management Act—Declaration of incompatibility, dated 21 April 2022.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong—Attorney-General, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Gaming and Minister for Water, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (3.06): I rise in relation to a declaration of incompatibility made by Her Honour Justice Loukas-Karlsson on 21 April 2022 in the matter of Davidson v the Director-General, of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate.
When a proceeding is being heard by the Supreme Court and an issue arises about whether a territory law is inconsistent with a human right, under section 32(2) of the Human Rights Act, if the Supreme Court is satisfied that a territory law is not consistent with a human right the court may declare that the law is not consistent with that human right. Where that happens, the Registrar of the Supreme Court must present me with a copy of the Supreme Court’s declaration of incompatibility, which I must then present to this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video