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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1254 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: If Mr Stanhope wants to go away and check the facts, he can do so. The courts have made it quite clear to me as Attorney-General that they believe that they need that discretion-in very rare cases, we have to concede-to be able to exclude people from that right of personal appearance. The fundamental principle Mr Stanhope states, that people have a general entitlement to come before the courts and appear personally before the courts, is quite true. There is a general acceptance of a person's right to be able to do that. But it is not unqualified. The qualification is contained in my amendments. Mr Stanhope now seeks to exclude it altogether and to remove from the court that discretion to protect its own operations, the conduct of its own proceedings, through mechanisms such as this which give it that right to be able to exclude people in certain circumstances.

I note that Mr Stanhope's amendments are slightly different to the ones he moved last year. I understand that the amendments with respect to Mental Health Tribunal operations provide for a total prohibition on using audiovisual links for mental health proceedings. In the previous amendments Mr Stanhope moved, he proposed to do with respect to the Mental Health Tribunal what he was going to do with respect to all the other tribunals and courts, which was to give the person concerned a discretion to consent to the use of an audiovisual link. Under the amendments he is moving, a person appearing before that tribunal cannot even consent to appearance by audiovisual link. He is taking away the right of a person to use a audiovisual link. I would like him to explain to this place why he proposes to do that. The Mental Health Tribunal rarely, if ever, takes evidence otherwise than in person. It is extremely rare for it not to do so.

Mr Stanhope: I wonder why.

MR HUMPHRIES: Because it is a question of derogation of people's rights.

Mr Stanhope: No, it is not, Attorney. It is because you have not bothered to put an audiovisual link in, you goose.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr Stanhope, would you stop interjecting. You will have the chance to speak later.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I would ask Mr Stanhope to withdraw that reference to-

MR SPEAKER: Would you mind?

Mr Stanhope: What, "goose"?

MR SPEAKER: If the minister is offended, withdraw it.

Mr Stanhope: I am happy to withdraw "goose".

MR SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr Stanhope: You silly person.

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