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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2815 ..

MS TUCKER (1.43 am): You would have to bring out the whole force. You would have wake up the troops and get them out of bed because "The neighbours will be expecting it. It's in the law. You've just got to do it boys. Get your friends". It is ridiculous.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (1.44 am): Mr Speaker, I move my amendment No 15 [see schedule 4 at page 2871].

Clause 41 relates to the review process. I note the very interesting comments of the scrutiny of bills committee on this part of the bill. Along with the committee, I am concerned about the process of law reform in the territory that is encapsulated in this proposal. The scrutiny of bills committee was quite critical of the lack of process followed in this piece of law reform.

The bill demonstrates the need for more formal processes to ensure that critical issues that affect the rights of all citizens are fully canvassed and debated before being passed into law. In that context-and I guess this is a digression-we note that the ACT Law Reform Commission is under-resourced and virtually at a standstill because of that. It really does need to be revitalised.

The scrutiny of bills committee made a number of other observations, including pointing out that there are different models in other jurisdictions for post-conviction review-for instance, in New South Wales and the United Kingdom. They are, of course, much larger jurisdictions with a greater history of miscarriage of justice than has been the case here in the ACT. I am not sure it would be appropriate to adopt those models for the ACT. Indeed, the Attorney has not adopted those models in the proposals that he has included.

While noting the concerns of the scrutiny of bills committee, the Labor Party will support this part of the legislation, but with some amendments, to clarify an existing power to hold inquiries into what are known as or regarded as unsafe convictions. The new part is certainly clearer than the old provision.

If I may use the example of the Eastman case, having observed Mr Eastman's efforts to obtain an inquiry, I am not sure in any event if it was easier to get an inquiry under the old provisions. Mr Eastman's inquiry has been granted under the old provisions, and presumably he will have to take his chances on the uncertain extent of those provisions.

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