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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3823 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Because this statement created an implication in my mind that there had been community consultation and a report highlighting deficiencies of the current legislation, I wrote to the Attorney on 3 July 2001 asking for a copy of the report, details of the person who conducted the review and details of any public consultation. The Attorney responded to me on 1 August 2001. On that date he replied that there was no report, that there had been no public consultation and that the review was an internal one conducted by his department. I think it is relevant for members to examine the Attorney's letter. In his letter he said:

As you have noted, the Bill is the end product of a technical review of the current legislation rather than a substantive law reform exercise.

Mr Speaker, I noted no such thing. All these words belong to the Attorney. The slightest perusal of this bill would reveal it is not the result of "a substantive law reform exercise". Calling it "the end product of a technical review of the current legislation" does not improve things.

Most significantly, and in the context of the response the Attorney gave to me, it is relevant to note that the Attorney did not consult the community about this legislation. The only stakeholders consulted were the Magistrates Court, the DPP, the Victims of Crime Coordinator, the Legal Aid Office and the Community Advocate. We do not know what comments they made or what input they had into the drafting instructions.

I would be surprised, in terms of the stakeholders which the Attorney acknowledges he consulted, if they all supported the bill in this form. I really would be interested in knowing whether the Community Advocate supports this legislation in this form. I would be interested in knowing whether the Legal Aid Office supports this legislation. I would be interested in knowing what the Victims of Crime Coordinator said about this new arrangement for these issues. What is also interesting is the names that are missing from the list. There are no groups of people representing the specific interests of women, no domestic violence group, no victims group, and no members of the legal profession.

Most amazing of all, Mr Speaker, is that the statutory authority established to promote collaboration and advise the minister in relation to domestic violence was not listed by him as having been consulted. The Domestic Violence Prevention Council has been working with an inter-governmental working party and examining the law in this area. The group reported on what should be contained in the model bill in 1999. No jurisdiction has enacted a model bill as yet, and there is no evidence that this bill takes cognisance of that 1999 report.

The council has been doing further work on how the model bill could be adapted for local conditions and will report later this year. Their work has been delayed because the bill has cut across what they have been doing. Although the council was sent a copy of this bill it was not invited by the Attorney to comment on it because he keeps saying it is only a technical rewrite of the existing law. If that is so, why has the council not been recreated in this bill? Why did the attorney not transfer the provisions creating the council from the Domestic Violence Act to this bill?

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