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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4741 ..

Mrs Carnell: There are a few we could send.

MR HUMPHRIES: There are a few we could send to prison, for various reasons. I think there is a role for an Assembly committee, namely, the Legal Affairs Committee, in overviewing the operations of the Remand Centre and, for that matter, other correctional facilities in the ACT but also in examining the way in which the power in this Bill is being exercised. This particular amendment facilitates that, and I commend the amendment to the house.

MS FOLLETT (5.27): Mr Speaker, I certainly support the amendment that has been put forward by Mr Humphries. I also commend the discussion and negotiation process that took place last night, which led to what I believe is now an agreed outcome. There is no substitute for getting people around a table, discussing issues and coming up with an outcome which suits everybody, particularly on an issue like this where it seems to me that there is no particular political mileage to be made either way. I think that the Government understands full well that other parties in this Assembly are not totally sanguine about this step which we are taking today. We have some concerns about the circumstances, the number of times and so on, in which an ACT detainee might be sent into New South Wales, and we wish to keep that matter under very close scrutiny. I understand also the Government's point of view and I accept that the amendment which I moved and the amendment which Ms Tucker circulated would, in fact, create difficulties for the decision-makers in sending people interstate. Those difficulties, it seemed to me, were worth while addressing. If we are going to have the legislation, I cannot see why we would simply create a bonanza for the lawyers, who would then have any number of opportunities to reduce or alter the impact of the legislation on their particular clients.

We have adopted an agreed course of action. The Legal Affairs Committee will keep the matter under scrutiny. This is in no way to say that the Legal Affairs Committee will be making decisions for the Government. It will not. The decision-making will be entirely by the Government and in particular by the administrator. We will be looking to the administrator to report to the Government and the Government to report to the Legal Affairs Committee in sufficient detail and with sufficient sensitivity that the impact of the legislation can be thoroughly monitored and assessed. Obviously, we do not want to breach anybody's privacy or prejudice any legal arrangements; but, given the concern that has been expressed in the Assembly, it is important that that thorough assessment of the impact of the legislation continue.

MS TUCKER (5.30): Mr Speaker, I am also pleased with the outcome of the meeting last night. We had some amendments that we did not move. They showed a concern that we had about this proposal. As I said initially, it is a short-term solution to a longer-term problem, but under what we have come up with now the person who makes the decisions will be aware that an accountability mechanism exists through the Legal Affairs Committee and that we in this place can see clearly if things are going in a way that they should not be. I hope - and I expressed this concern at the meeting last night - that it will be widely communicated to people who advocate for people who are remanded that this accountability mechanism is in place. That would obviously be people like Legal Aid, Prisoners Aid and other groups who find themselves advocating for people who are brought into contact with the law in any way. We look forward to seeing how this is reported, and hopefully there will not be reason for concern.

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