Page 3636 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Bill that was exposed in March differs from the Bill introduced to this house in nine clauses. Fundamentally, they relate to opening up access to information, which Mr Moore has called for. Again I give Mr Moore credit for taking an interest in an important issue of public administration and expressing his viewpoint. As we have opened it up we are reflecting in the ACT the position that the New South Wales Liberal Government adopted some two-and-a-half years ago. So, that is the fundamental change.
The other change that we introduced is to do away with what was a statutory age bar, which, coincidentally, Ms Sutinen, who was a candidate for the Liberal Party, called upon us to do during the election campaign. So, Madam Speaker, these stealthy changes that we are accused of introducing reflect the community demands and also, incidentally, a statement that was expressed by Mr Moore some months ago and the statement of the then Liberal Party spokesperson, who at least should be given credit for commenting on this issue, which Mrs Carnell has not done up until now when she now says, "Let us adjourn it; let us not debate it".
Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that we have taken this course of events. We could have advanced this law fully through to passage, if not tonight, over the next few days. In the week or so since it was formally introduced there has been an offer, not accepted, for full access to my departmental officers to brief opposition members on any queries they have about it. If there were substantial issues that the Opposition had, they could have raised them with me. The other issue that Mrs Carnell raised was review rights. There are no review rights, says Mrs Carnell.
Mrs Carnell: No independent - - -
MR CONNOLLY: Well, no review rights apart from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, apart from internal review, apart, of course, from the Ombudsman who can also review it, and, of course, apart from the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, which gives a right of review to the Supreme Court and the Federal Court. So, apart from internal review, Administrative Appeals Tribunal review, Ombudsman review, and Supreme Court review and Federal Court review, there is no review. For heaven's sake, Madam Speaker, what other form of review is there? Decisions under this Act will be as accountable as any form of decision making in ACT administration. I think Mrs Carnell said, "Oh, there should be some sort of independent complaints ombudsman". So, what does she want - a separate ombudsman for this Act as opposed to other Acts? Nonsense! It is mealy-mouthed nonsense, Madam Speaker, in an attempt to justify to the community groups the delay of this Bill. The only substantial problem that the Liberal Party can come up with is overseas adoptions and I reiterate the offer, "Let us put the rest of the Bill through and deal with overseas adoptions separately".
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed this evening that members opposite have decided to play this game with this Bill; but my disappointment, I think, is as nothing compared to the disappointment of community groups that have been working on this legislation right back to six years ago when the review was first announced and when hope was offered that the ACT then would lead the country in open adoption. Tragically, we are probably now going to be last in the country. The responsibility for that, again, sadly - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .