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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3304 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

I think that is quite - - -

Mr Wood: Was the proposal on this occasion a review of the whole Bill or just one part of it?

Ms Tucker: The whole Bill - 200 pages.

MR STEFANIAK: Ms Tucker, I think that your committee has looked at a lot more than 200 pages in other areas. Ms Tucker also said that the task would involve an unrealistic amount of work in a short timeframe. I have no qualms with the response of that committee. I thought that it was understandable in the circumstances, especially the comment that the task would result in duplication as the community has already been consulted extensively and the comment that the community's expectation that the next step in the process would be the introduction of the Bill. I table those documents. I do not think I will bother to table the drafting instructions as that probably would cause a bit of an administrative problem.

Ms Tucker is proposing the referral of the therapeutic protection provisions to a committee. I have noted what other members have been saying and it would appear that she is not going to be successful on that. I do think that that is eminently sensible, given the extensive consultation we have had to date. I have also noted the secondary amendment she has foreshadowed in relation to that if the first one fails. Obviously, there are better ways of doing what she proposes than putting that in legislation.

I noted Mr Wood's comments in relation to keeping an eye on things such as resourcing. I think that that is a job that anyone in the Assembly who is interested in this area would want to be done just to see how it is operating, but putting that in legislation is a unique idea. It is something that I have not seen before. The operations of the Assembly clearly indicate that any concerns people might have can be met simply by way of monitoring how it all pans out. I would remind members who have concerns in relation to this matter of the terms of clause 414, as it is at this stage. I think that it will become section 414 because no-one seems to have a problem with it. It is the provision in relation to a review. Clause 414 says:

So, there will be a provision in the Act in relation to a review. Being an issue of importance to some of the vulnerable people in our community, I would think that people in this Assembly will, rightfully, have an interest in it and will be monitoring how it operates. The Government certainly will be doing so. The Government certainly will be monitoring things such as resources.

Ms Tucker and Mr Wood talked about resources. Members may not be aware that at present the Government funds child protection and substitute care to the tune of $10.38m. Since 1997 an extra $1m has been put into funding for child protection and substitute care, a not insignificant amount at a time when the Government was facing considerable funding pressures. We are all aware of that as the Chief Minister and others in this place have reminded Assembly members of it. This is an area where needs

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