Page 195 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
as well as it should. There can be no denying that significant measures need to be taken to address the array of problems currently being experienced.
In the last sitting of the Assembly, the best path to resolve the issues currently facing Bimberi and youth justice was decided upon. The decision to have the commissioner for children and young people and the human rights commissioner undertake an inquiry and audit I believe is still the best way forward and offers the greatest potential for meaningful change that will improve the workplace for staff and outcomes for children and young people who come into contact with the youth justice system. And that, of course, means a better outcome for the whole community.
The Greens do not support abandoning the current inquiry and therefore will not support Mrs Dunne’s motion.
It is important to clarify some of the misinformation about the current inquiry being conducted under the Human Rights Commission Act.
A comparison of the Inquiries Act and the Human Rights Commission Act shows that there is no significant benefit offered by the Inquiries Act. In fact, in the area Mrs Dunne is claiming the most concern about—that is, the protection of witnesses—the Human Rights Commission Act potentially offers better protections for witnesses. Instead of guaranteeing privacy, as the Human Rights Commission Act does, the Inquiries Act offers no guarantee that witnesses will not be compelled to give information in a public hearing.
Additionally, there is no protection for a witness once they have given evidence under the Inquiries Act. The Human Rights Commission Act, however, provides an explicit protection against victimisation that protects witnesses from any reprisals as a result of the information they provide to the inquiry. Section 100A of the Human Rights Commission Act also protects witnesses from any liability that may arise as a result of any evidence they give to the commission. Further, the two acts have exactly the same penalties—50 penalty units, imprisonment for six months, or both—for the disclosure of confidential information.
The only substantial difference between the two is the ability of the Inquiries Act to compel information. So far there is absolutely no evidence that there has been a need to compel anyone to give information or evidence.
It should, however, be noted that a move to an inquiry under the Inquiries Act would mean the loss of all the experience that the Children and Young People Commissioner and his team bring to the inquiry.
At this point, I would like to express my utmost confidence in both Mr Roy and Dr Watchirs. I would also like to express my confidence in the team that is working on the inquiry. They bring many years of experience and an exceptional depth of knowledge about the issues surrounding youth justice, youth detention and human rights. They all have extensive professional experience in dealing with these issues, and to throw that away would simply be foolish.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video