Page 4169 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The policy of the majority of the states and the Northern Territory also supports that view, and the work of the UK Law Commission and the Irish Law Reform Commission further supports that view. For that reason, I urge the Assembly to pass the bill in its current form.
I know that the Liberal Party has raised the issue of the DPP’s advice to me on this matter. The DPP’s advice is, in whole, contained in the government response. Nevertheless, I am happy to make that advice public, and I will table that later in the debate.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.03): The Liberal opposition will be supporting the bill as it currently stands and it does so after considerable reflection on the matters. It is interesting that today and on Tuesday the attorney gave a lengthy exposition on why this bill should be passed in this form. I compliment the minister; I did write to him earlier in the day, saying that I would make these comments. I thought that the paper that he presented the other day in response to recommendation 5 of the committee’s report was a substantial one. It addressed the issues that were of concern to me, and again today the attorney has dwelt on those matters at some length.
I said in my correspondence with the attorney earlier in the day that it would have been helpful if these matters had been brought to the Assembly’s attention and to the committee’s attention a lot earlier in the piece. We have to remember that when the attorney introduced the bill back in December last year—I think Ms Porter was a bit horrified that I had done a word count—he used 244 words to introduce this change to the Crimes Act, and had almost no arguments for it. What we have seen here today and what we heard on Tuesday was a cogent and coherent argument for why we should be doing this.
The trouble is that we did not hear it in December last year. Perhaps if we had heard it in December last year this bill may have been passed a lot earlier. Perhaps if we had heard it in December last year there may not have been an inquiry. I cannot tell. Perhaps we should not go back and re-prosecute; I have criticised people in this debate for trying to re-prosecute cases that are passed, so I should be consistent like Mr Rattenbury has said that he is being consistent.
I welcome the comments and the government’s response to recommendation 5 that were tabled the other day, which give a clear way forward. The recommendation of the standing committee in a sense had two bob each way. It asked the government to consider a form of words, and I think that the minister has considered that form of words and has given a considered response. I accept his response and, on the basis of that, the Liberal opposition will be supporting the bill as it currently stands.
I also welcome the attorney’s undertaking to make public the advice of the DPP. I also realise that most of that is already contained in the response, but for completeness sake and for the sense of openness and accountability it is a good way to go. It was raised with me yesterday, and I know it was raised with other members as well, that Civil Liberties Australia had actually asked for that advice and the minister had declined to provide it. On the basis of that, I have asked the minister and he has now agreed to do that and I welcome that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .