Page 1607 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
last two or three days Mr Rattenbury’s office and my office have worked quite closely, quite collaboratively and in a very good spirit, I think, to come up with a consensus view about how this should go forward. This culminated this morning in a meeting with members of the legal fraternity, who gave some specialist advice on some of the wording.
I would have preferred to deal with this matter today. But as a result of a couple of issues that were raised in the meeting this morning, I thought that it would be inappropriate to rush through a few amendments to that. I thought it would be better to give everybody concerned time to look at it.
Mr Rattenbury also raised the question that, while my amendments have been through the scrutiny process, the final versions have not. By agreeing to take this to the in-principle stage, to agree to this bill in principle and then adjourn it, it gives the drafter more time, it gives members of the Legislative Assembly more time to consult and make sure that it is absolutely right, it gives scrutiny of bills an opportunity to look at the final version that I think everyone will agree upon, and it gives the legal fraternity an opportunity to comment as well. So in the course of the next week or so, a final set of amendments will be circulated widely for comment and consultation.
I want to thank Mr Rattenbury and his staff for the thoughtful and considered work that they did. I also want to thank them for their readiness to provide my office with information and material in a timely and ongoing fashion and for their willingness to discuss amendments.
I want to thank the ACT Bar Association for their contribution to making the amendments that we have before us much simpler. I would like to thank the ACT Law Society as well for their quite detailed input this morning. I particularly want to thank the parliamentary counsel’s office, who set about drafting a set of amendments that reflected the advice of the ACT Bar Association.
In conclusion, I have to go back to where we started. The bill that the government presented in its present form, in the way that it relates to indictable offences, is quite unacceptable to the Canberra Liberals. It is quite unacceptable, I understand, to the ACT Greens but Mr Rattenbury can speak on that matter, and it is quite unacceptable to the ACT Bar Association, the ACT Law Society and the ACT branch of Civil Liberties Australia.
It is interesting that the proposal that I will be proposing, and that Mr Rattenbury has worked on as well, reflects the concerted view of the Bar Association and Civil Liberties Australia. If both of those organisations are singing from one hymn sheet, we have probably hit a sweet point. I thank the legal fraternity for the very concerted assistance that I have received. In anticipation, I commend the amendments that we will deal with on a later day and say that we cannot support the major elements of this bill as proposed by the government.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.51): This is a significant bill that makes three important reforms to the justice system in the ACT. The Greens understand the reasons for each of the reforms and we agree today in principle with the need for the changes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video