Page 1649 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS DUNNE: Ms MacDonald interjects, “Blame Philip Ruddock.” But the commonwealth expressed concerns when this bill first landed on the table back in April, and at not quite the eleventh hour, but very late in the piece, we get the amendments—and I suspect that the amendments we have seen here tonight do not have the intention that the government really wants them to have.
Mr Corbell: Of course, you have no evidence for that.
MRS DUNNE: Yes, I disagree with them. The amendment in relation to the power of the Children’s Court is quite wrong. It is a significant departure for which there was no public consultation or discussion. Parents of 16 and 17-year-olds across the territory—caring, loving, responsible parents and guardians—would be quite horrified to know that this place has just passed a piece of legislation that could possibly take away their rights as the principal decision-maker for a minor. That was not foreshadowed in the original legislation when it was tabled in April, and the community has had no time to discuss it.
This is significant legislation, which has been brought forward for a variety of reasons, some of which are very noble and some of which are less so. But at the last minute there is an urgency that it has to be done, it has to be done now and it will be done at all costs. As a result, I think we will be back to fix up anomalies in this legislation. Again, we have seen the failure of this government to be open about its deliberations, about how it came to the conclusions for the model that it took, who it consulted with in any real sense and what the people that it consulted with really thought about this.
This is a failure of openness and a failure of process. It delivers to a constituency that which they desire—and for that well and good. But it has been done without enough reflection about the needs of the entire community. This is not to say that the majority should win. I take the point made by, I think, the attorney very early in the piece—that we should not shy away from making laws because they apply to only a small number of people, a minority of the people. That is not what democracy is about. I take that point, and I think it was well made by the attorney.
I would never stand here and speak against this bill because it affects only a small number of people, or a minority of people. That would be unjust, unreasonable and uncaring. But we have before us legislation that is flawed and that will have to be revisited so that once that it has passed it can work effectively for the people who enter into these relationships. There are issues about minors; I lay you bets that it will have to come back here for us to address the property matters that the attorney today, in his discomfort, calls a furphy. One day he—or his successor—will have to come back and fix it.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.30): I just want to be very brief here. I agree with Mrs Dunne that if there are problems that turn up in groundbreaking new legislation, as there may be, it should come back here. I would like to see us, as an Assembly that is now going to pass this landmark legislation, take a positive approach and make sure that if flaws appear we work to make sure it is as good as possible.
As I said, I have not had time to read every amendment today, and I am taking on trust that the government has the good intent of its original legislation, which was well
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .