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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2948 ..

MR SPEAKER: Excuse me. We are dealing with clause 1. The in-principle debate is over-finito.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

MR OSBORNE (4.42): As I said earlier, I support in principle what Mr Berry is attempting to do, but I must admit to being somewhat nervous about supporting legislation which we may well have to come back and fix at a later stage. I understand that the legislation will go through. I support it. I support the principle behind it, but I think in the future we should resolve any problems before we allow legislation to pass.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.43): Mr Speaker, apparently I am now able to speak. I have been chipped three times in about a week for giving speeches at the wrong time in the debate. I apologise most humbly for that.

The Attorney-General is right in saying that an aggrieved person is not completely cocooned or insulated by Mr Berry's bill. The court has to be satisfied that a threat has been made and cannot issue an order without sufficient evidence. Witnesses have to be called, and in some cases the only witness could be the aggrieved person.

I note that Mr Purnell of the Bar Association has placed on record the Bar Association's agreement with this legislation. I have spoken further with Mr Purnell, who agreed that that the Attorney was correct on the extent of the privacy the bill would protect. As I said before, if it is found that this bill is not workable, I will be happy to bring amendments to rectify any deficiencies discovered in the future.

This is a step in the right direction. A school, for example, as an entity, can take out a restraining order against hoodlums they do not want hanging around the playground. It is my experience that that is important.

I support the legislation, and we will see how it works out.

MS TUCKER (4.44): The Greens will also be supporting this bill. The issue of the protection of teachers has been in the hands of the government for two years. We were advised in the Assembly last week that they were working on it; that something would happen soon. I am pleased to hear it.

It is true, too, as Mr Humphries pointed out, that an aggrieved person will not be entirely anonymous, despite the provisions of this bill. Evidently there is more that can be done at another time. The true effect of this bill will be to shift the opprobrium associated with taking action in this regard from the individual aggrieved person to the employer and allowing employers to take a more active role in ensuring health and safety in the workplace.

It is for these good reasons that I will be supporting the bill.

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