Page 4307 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
No-one has alluded to that yet. Perhaps Mr Stefaniak is not aware of it, because I do not recall it being publicly mentioned. It is not an issue that is a matter for media release in government. I would enjoin Mr Stefaniak to look at that annual report tabled yesterday. He will see there that a quite effective interdepartmental interdisciplinary committee has been set up involving the police - specifically involving the police - to deal with these situations. That is a more sophisticated instrument than what is proposed and what has lain in the statute book unproclaimed since 1986. I believe that we should let that interdisciplinary group settle down, work its way and report and liaise, as it will, during the Law Reform Committee's inquiry, before we pre-empt the issue.
Nothing I have said makes light of child abuse, and you well know the Rally's concerns. We have introduced legislation in recent weeks to deal with that. I believe that it is very commendable to see in this Assembly such an agreement on the principles of the need to protect children.
I say through you, Mr Speaker, to Mr Stefaniak that the part author of this, Mark O'Neill, on Mr Stefaniak's behalf, is a most eminently informed person - a person at the coalface, at the courthouse, a lawyer, a court official. If he has suggested this to Mr Stefaniak, as Mr Stefaniak indicates, then we should take this extremely seriously. But I believe, in the context of a reference to the Law Reform Committee's report, that it would be better if the committee reads this Hansard, makes its own inquiries of Mr O'Neill, and satisfies itself that Mr O'Neill's recommendations are sound, that there are safeguards, checks and balances. I believe that then, if we do receive a positive response from the committee, we will probably have little hesitation in following the appropriate course recommended as a result of an effective inquiry and safeguards.
MR STEFANIAK (5.01): Yes, I note what Mr Connolly and Mr Collaery have said. I think I probably agree more with Mr Connolly than Mr Collaery in some respects. I point out to Mr Collaery that this particular amendment is indeed all about checks and balances. I neglected to mention, apart from Mr Mark O'Neill, that the problem initially was brought to my attention by the Juvenile Aid Bureau and the child sexual abuse unit of the police force. Accordingly, I think it is a most sensible amendment.
However, I note Mr Connolly's comments and have some understanding of them, given that this has not been gazetted yet. What I would say to Mr Connolly - again I can see the numbers stacking up against this particular amendment - is that he at least should undertake to take this on board and give this amendment, together with a transcript of this debate on this issue, to the Community Law Reform Committee to look at in the context of other matters it is looking at in relation to sections 103 and 105.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .