Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2670 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
could give an indication to the Assembly about that, because it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
If what Mr Berry has proposed can be improved, which is what Mr Humphries has basically said, then it would be sensible, in my view, to adjourn this debate. If Mr Berry does not want to do that, then I will have to oppose the bill, unless he has some stunning argument in response. I will listen to the debate, but I am concerned enough to consider not voting for this bill.
MR RUGENDYKE (4.25): I have advised Mr Berry that I support the bill. I am advised by Mr Berry that the intention of the bill and what the bill does is to allow a school as an entity, for example, to take out a restraining order. My practical policing experience is that that is a very necessary thing. The Attorney-General has outlined circumstances which seem to indicate that the bill is not quite as I believe Mr Berry intended. However, I believe it is important to have a piece of legislation that does what I had hoped the bill would do. Like Ms Tucker, I believe it would be appropriate to adjourn this debate, unless it can be shown that what the Attorney has told us is incorrect.
MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety): Ms Tucker asked me a question, and I can provide more information about the matter. I seek leave to speak again very briefly.
Leave granted.
MR HUMPHRIES: Ms Tucker asked me about the review timetable. I am advised that the aim is to complete the review in time to introduce an amendment to deal with the problem by the end of this year. I cannot immediately see it, but I am told it is in the legislative program. That is the timeframe the government is working to.
MR BERRY (4.27), in reply: I will deal first with support for the matter and who has been consulted. I have consulted a range of unions that represent employees. In that sense, representatives of employees have been consulted. I also took the time to write to the Bar Association. I have a letter from the Bar Association. It reads as follows:
Thank you for your letter of 15 May 2000 and the copy of the Bill.
The amendments proposed by you seem to the ACT Bar Association to be very sensible and to achieve the object intended. Accordingly, your proposal has the support of the ACT Bar Association and we thank you for bringing such a judicious amendment into existence.
I seek leave to table the following paper:
Magistrates Court (Amendment) Bill 2000-Copy of letter from President, The Australian Capital Territory Bar Association to Mr Wayne Berry MLA, Shadow Minister for Education, Employment, Industrial Relations and Tourism, dated 17 May 2000.
Leave granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .