Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 692 ..

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (11.47): I move the following amendment to Mr Moore's amendment:

Proposed new clause 8, omit "9", substitute "12".

My amendment deletes the figure 9 and inserts in its place 12, so it becomes a 12 months trial. If there is to be a trial, which I think is obvious, it needs to encompass the summer months as well. The Government, I think, would have preferred any sort of sunset clause to be in the regulation which the Minister issues; but we certainly can count, and we appreciate that there seems to be a mood in the Assembly that Mr Moore's amendment will succeed. Accordingly, we feel that the 12 months would be a much more appropriate timeframe than the nine months. I would certainly be surprised if a trial were not needed, Mr Moore; but at least we feel that 12 months is an appropriate timeframe. It will enable the trial to continue over summer, which I think is quite crucial, as everyone realises, and it is a more realistic timeframe than the nine months initially proposed by Mr Moore.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (11.48): A number of concerns about the trial have been raised in the Assembly this morning. I just want to give a commitment to the Assembly about the protocols for the trial. After the literature search is done, after all of the work has been done to determine whether a trial is appropriate, if it is determined that a trial is appropriate those protocols will be tabled in this Assembly to give all Assembly members an opportunity to determine whether or not they use their power of disallowance, with all of the information in front of them. Certainly, the Institute of Criminology will be one of the interested parties that will be spoken to in putting together those protocols.

MS TUCKER (11.49): I will support the amendment because I think it is bringing in something that is important, in terms of the summer months being covered and so on. However, I have to say that we were not able to vote for the whole Bill because, although Mrs Carnell has made a sort of commitment to information and she has said that they will talk to the Institute of Criminology, that is not what we want. We want to have a much tighter commitment than that, because we have seen before these sorts of reviews that come up with an opinion that is not necessarily a balanced opinion. We hope that we can work constructively with members here to ensure that it is an informed decision that we make about this issue because, I repeat, it is about people's lives, and we cannot enter these sorts of trials without really understanding the consequences.

MR OSBORNE (11.49): I will be supporting Mr Moore's amendments because I have no choice, really. But I would just like to give Ms Tucker a reassurance as well. I believe, as she does, that the Institute of Criminology needs to be heavily involved in this, and I will ensure that it is, from my point of view. I will include her in any meetings or conversations that I have with the institute in the future.

Amendment (Mr Stefaniak's) agreed to.

Amendments (Mr Moore's), as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .