Page 1485 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The problem that was reflected in each report was that of the abuse of alcohol and its outcomes. That is a major aspect that has emerged from both reports. Inevitably, the Social Policy Committee's inquiry went over some of the ground of the Police Offences (Amendment) Bill inquiry. That was inevitable, but we were not hearing the same things - or, more accurately, we were not writing the same things into our reports.
We heard, not just from one source but from a number, that Canberra is a pretty safe place. One person went so far as to say that it was one of the safest places in the world. Let me make the qualification, as I did then, that any violence is undesirable and that we should always aim for a perfectly safe place where there is no violence at all. Nevertheless, we were told that this is, by world standards, a safe place.
I return to my point, that this committee report does not accurately reflect the views it received. I was astounded, for example, that the one-time senior legal person in this Assembly and his junior, Mr Stefaniak - - -
Mr Kaine: As Attorney-General, I think he still is.
MR WOOD: Oh, no, that was a quote used in opposition. Anyway, let me put it this way: I was astounded that two legal gentlemen out of three on the committee did not write into the report the comments of the major legal associations in this town. The only reference to legal opinion is at paragraph 3.25 of the report, which says:
The committee had the advantage of securing the views of the President of the Law Reform Commission of Australia.
That and the following paragraph did not express what Justice Evatt said; they simply acknowledged her views and expressed appreciation of them. Some action was taken as a result, but the report did not explain what she had said. Written into the report are more detailed views of other people, and that is fine. I support that and that is the way it should be; but a balanced report should have included what the legal people were saying. Those views are not there, and I have to ask myself why.
To provide a bit of that balance, just let me read a couple of remarks, one of the Australian Capital Territory Bar Association. One would have thought that its views would have been worthy of comment, along with the views of ordinary citizens which are rightfully expressed in that report. Let me be very careful what I say here. These were the views expressed on the first draft of Mr Stefaniak's proposals, and they were moderated, no doubt as a result of some of these reports. I want to be absolutely honest about this - these were the views of the first draft; not that the report was much changed, in my view.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .