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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3314 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

quite often the case in the explanatory memorandum. People in my office in five minutes found two pieces of legislation very quickly that had such information in the explanatory memorandum.

The first one is the Motor Traffic Amendment Bill. Financial implications are quite clearly outlined there. The second was the Land Planning and Environment (Amendment) Bill No 2 1999. The financial implications are in there as well. There are plenty of other pieces of legislation that have that. The reason I seek to have this referred to my committee is that there is grave concern in the community - and I have already outlined this - about the fact that we have not seen a strong commitment from the Government to acknowledge the resource implications of this particular piece of legislation, particularly the therapeutic protection orders.

I want to - I did state this before too - clarify something Mr Wood was saying. We probably will see these therapeutic protection orders supported by good treatment programs. As I said, they will be under the spotlight because this is controversial and there are civil liberty issues there. I have expressed concern on behalf of the community sector that there may not be appropriate resourcing; that there has not been adequate work done with the providers about how these therapeutic protection orders will be managed within existing facilities; and that the resources may come to the support of the therapeutic protection orders.

They will be at the expense of other areas in the sector. That is more likely. As I have already expressed very clearly in this place, in the in-principle debate and previously in the Assembly as a private member and as chair of the Social Policy Committee in the last Assembly, we do see the sector under stress. We do see inadequate support for workers and young people struggling in this area.

Mr Stefaniak and Mrs Carnell have misunderstood my concerns and why I am seeking to have it brought to the committee. I will not even bother responding to comments about me not liking to do hard work. I could suggest Mrs Carnell check Hansard over the last four years and see how many times I rose to speak and on how many subjects. I do take slight offence at that, not for my own part but because it is a reflection on the people with whom I work in my office. The work I do in this place is a reflection of the work they do in my office. I do not like to see it diminished or demeaned by the Chief Minister in an attempt to score political points.

It is perfectly legitimate to allow the community sector to have an opportunity to work with a committee to inform government of their concerns about these protection orders; what it will mean for them; what the resource implications are. Then we could have that discussion before the budget in an informed way. Hopefully we would see government respond positively to these concerns, because everybody wants to see this legislation work.

I am not entirely opposed to the concept of therapeutic protection orders. There is a place for them for particularly troubled children. Although I stand by my comments in the in-principle stage that it can be seen as a failure of the system that we get to the point where children have to be locked up before they have even committed a crime because they have got so dysfunctional and so chaotic in their own living skills, the

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