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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3199 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

variation and revocation of orders; the rules regarding ex parte orders; the court's role in making recommendations to a respondent to undertake counselling; restrictions on publication of proceedings; appeals; procedure at hearings; the impact of an order on a person who is licensed to possess a firearm; coronial proceedings in cases of domestic homicide; and the structure of the legislation.

Mr Speaker, since the tabling of the report my department has sought the views of relevant agencies and organisations concerning the full range of the committee's recommendations. Those views have informed the Government in arriving at a position on the various recommendations. In the next sitting of the Assembly I will table a formal Government response to the CLRC report, specifically addressing each and every one of the committee's recommendations. I can indicate to the Assembly, however, that I will be supporting the vast majority of the committee's recommendations. Some, relating to cancellation and suspension of a firearms licence where a protection order is made, have already, of course, been implemented.

There are a small number of recommendations which I am not convinced there is a need to implement to give effect to the objectives of the committee, or which would not give effect to the committee's purposes, in fact, if enacted. For example, there is a recommendation dealing with coronial jurisdiction in cases of domestic homicide and a number of recommendations relating to the structure of the legislation. However, they are, as I have said, relatively minor matters relative to the entire scheme that the CLRC was putting forward and are matters which, I think, will not detract generally from the support that we can offer to the CLRC's report.

Ms Tucker's Bill proposes to implement eight of the 62 recommendations made by the committee, and the Government will support her Bill. It makes relatively straightforward amendments to the Domestic Violence Act which, I believe, will have a beneficial impact. I should indicate that I am inclined to the view that the implementation of recommendation 10, which the committee identified as an alternative to recommendations 6 and 7, may be preferable. Ms Tucker's view in her Bill is that we should implement recommendations 6 and 7. The committee, in a sense, posed two alternatives. The Government's preference is for recommendation 10. However, I still propose to support the content of Ms Tucker's Bill today and to put before the Assembly, when we develop legislation, the alternative that is embodied in recommendation 10 and suggest that at that point the whole Assembly can have a debate about which of those two courses of action is preferable. But putting in place now a response to one of those issues, I think, is appropriate, to ensure that people who require orders and protection are appropriately covered.

I can understand the eagerness of members to see some of the committee's recommendations implemented, and it is tempting for members to take some of the more straightforward, less technical, more uncontentious recommendations, give them to Parliamentary Counsel and quickly produce a private members Bill. I suppose it would have been better to deal with the entire matter as a package; nonetheless, I did indicate to Ms Tucker when she approached me about the legislation that, given the very complex

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