Page 2196 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
human rights compatibility statement, where there was the standard, bland statement that this bill complies with the Human Rights Act. The other is the Attorney-General’s presentation speech, where he claims that the bill serves to correct the human rights deficiencies of the current legislation. The explanatory statement is completely devoid of even a single mention of the implications of these changes in relation to the Human Rights Act. Indeed, the explanatory statement provides scant narrative on the purpose and construct of the bill—barely half a page in all.
For such an important change in policy and for a matter that has such a significant impact on human rights one would expect that an explanatory statement narrative—and I am not talking about the clause-by-clause detail—would carry discussion about matters such as: the history of this initiative; why the current law is deficient; how the new law will address that deficiency; how it will benefit the people of the ACT; and what administrative and legal implications there might be for this law.
The attorney’s explanatory statement and his presentation speech address few, if any, of these matters. They certainly provided no answers. In fact, they were so scant on in their discussion of this matter that the scrutiny of bills committee was moved to devote fully 17 pages of commentary on this important bill in its report No 22.
Arising from that commentary were: one recommendation that the minister provide further advice to the Assembly; four recommendations that the explanatory statement provide further explanation; five recommendations that the bill be amended in some manner; and 18 recommendations that the minister respond to particular issues raised. In addition, the committee raised nine issues as matters for attention but which did not require the attorney to respond.
The attorney’s response to those 17 pages ran to four pages but, like the explanatory statement and his presentation speech, was scant on substance but excessive on rhetoric and arrogance. It prompted the committee in response to make a further six pages of discussion on the attorney’s response. The committee’s assessment of the attorney’s response can be summed up by its comment—and I quote—“In some parts, the Attorney-General’s response is deficient in accuracy and courtesy.”
The attorney’s disdain for the importance of explanatory statements and presentation speeches and for the due diligence of the scrutiny committee process is shameful. This disdain is underscored by the fact that this attorney has failed to provide any further substantive response to the committee’s further commentary. I note that circulated to me in the chamber today was a copy of a two-paragraph letter from the attorney saying that he has provided a response which was timely and detailed. He believes it was a thoughtful response and really he is not going to do anything more about the issue. This was on the back of me writing to the attorney well over a week ago asking him to address the issues that were raised in scrutiny report No 23, which was circulated to members last Monday and tabled in this place today.
The inadequacy of the attorney’s explanatory statement, his presentation speech and his response motivated 23 pages of commentary from the committee. It is a testament to his lack of respect for our process of democracy. It is a testament to his disregard for the right of the people of the ACT to be fully and properly informed about such major policy changes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video