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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2221 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

buildings that are not accessible by wheelchair and that there are citizens who are denied their full rights as citizens as a result of their inability to access certain rooms. Of course, there are particular difficulties in relation to, say, a jury room or a court, but one would have hoped that by now we had managed to overcome all of those problems in government controlled buildings. It is a wake-up call, I think, to the Government to have had to suffer the embarrassment of having to concede that the Supreme Court does not allow access by people who require wheelchairs for their mobility.

Some other issues that I wish to touch on in the context of a discussion about this appropriation for Justice and Community Safety relate to the victims of crime legislation. This is an issue that I know Mr Osborne has raised and I understand the point that he makes: That, in advance of the standing committee's report on the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the Government to some extent staked its position on an appropriate criminal injuries compensation scheme regime. I think the report was tabled yesterday. It recommends that the Government's preferred scheme be adjusted. There are a number of recommendations in that report that I think the Government must take note of. I think there is a significant range of issues in relation to the Government's preferred criminal injuries compensation scheme that it will now need to adjust in order to meet the recommendations of that committee. I think some of those recommendations deserve the support of the Government and we, of course, look forward to the Minister's response to that report from the standing committee.

Some other issues that were discussed in the estimates process are ongoing issues. There are some very difficult issues in relation to the management of our court systems. Significant delays affect listings in the Magistrates Court and the work of that court, and also, to some extent, the work of the Supreme Court.

I have a continuing interest, as does the Assembly, I think, in relation to the need to ensure that the new arrangements in relation to the Children's Court magistracy are fully supported by the Government. It is important that we ensure that the Assembly's desire to see a specialist Children's Court magistrate is supported by the Government. The Assembly, on behalf of the community, has expressed a desire for a specialist Children's Court magistrate. I am not sure that that initiative has received the support of the Government that it deserves. It has been resisted every step of the way.

I think the extent to which the Government resisted the introduction of that initiative and that legislation does raise some questions about the extent to which the Minister was appropriately briefed by his department in the lead-up to the debate on the legislation in the Assembly. The initial proposal was around for some considerable time. I recall that at the time of the debate the Minister insisted that, as a result of some of his concerns at the last minute, the matter should not proceed. I still do not quite understand what role his department played in advising him on some of the implications of that legislation. I cannot help but think that it was a result of a philosophical opposition to the idea. The resistance that we saw then to the legislation has persisted and continues, I think, to exist, perhaps not only in the Government but also, I fear, in the court as well, which does raise another interesting question, having regard to the fact that the Chief Magistrate has found it necessary to take on that particular role.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you taking the extra 10 minutes?

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