Page 1199 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: I am not panicking, but I am less than pleased at the fact that we are once again asked to pass legislation that appeared in the Assembly only a few days ago. I remain of the view - and I repeat that view - that that is not the best way of managing government business. It is not the best way of making laws. Making laws is our occupation. We should be doing it properly and to a high standard. We are not doing so by considering legislation such as this so quickly.
I understand that the Independents support this legislation going through today. As a result, it appears that we will have to consider this legislation today. As I said before, it is regrettable. I have written, for example, to the Law Society about this and the succeeding two Bills. I wrote as soon as I knew that the Government wished to advance this legislation prematurely through the house this week. I have not heard back from the Law Society. I can only assume that no problems will emerge from that process. If they do, I have no doubt that we will come back with an amendment Bill at some stage.
Madam Speaker, looking briefly, as I must, at the Protection Orders (Reciprocal Arrangements) Bill, it seems to me, on a cursory examination, to reveal a sensible provision which deals with the registration of interstate protection orders - domestic violence orders. A person who migrates to the ACT from, say, New South Wales will be able to have an order made in New South Wales translated into the ACT, so that if the person against whom the order has been taken out happens to come to the ACT that order is easily enforced here, in much the same way as an order made by an ACT court. As I understand it from the presentation speech, that has been made possible by a national agreement reached between Attorneys-General - or Attorney-Generals, as the Attorney-General is fond of saying. I think it appears to have the hallmarks of a sensible arrangement.
Some issues cross my mind. One is the question of the difficulties that an interstate respondent to an order might encounter in representing himself or herself - generally himself - before an ACT court. That is a problem if the person concerned wishes to bring a matter to the court's attention. For example, circumstances might have changed with respect to the order. The person taking out the order, for example, might not wish to go back to the original court and ask for variations, or the respondent to the order might in fact wish for variations to take place. Effectively, the jurisdiction of that matter transfers to the new court. It is obviously more difficult for some people to appear in that court and represent themselves in that court.
If they need to engage counsel to respond on their behalf in the ACT, of course they will have to incur the costs of instructing counsel from outside the ACT, and that would be expensive. But the emphasis in these matters at the present time is on the person seeking such orders, generally a woman, and it would be appropriate in those circumstances to maintain a high degree of protection. As I have indicated, I cannot see any good reason why we should not agree to this Bill.
The other Bill, the Protection Orders (Reciprocal Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill, appears to have nothing of substance in it. It merely flows from the amendments that have been made by the other Bill. If it were not for the fact that those opposite would undoubtedly seek to misrepresent my position, I would be recommending in the circumstances that my party not support these two Bills at all. But that would undoubtedly be misinterpreted by those opposite.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .