Page 5776 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The commission, quite rightly in my view, is concerned about the government’s response to this recommendation because the “critical friend” approach, firstly, may not have the same level of transparency or accountability as an advisory panel and, secondly, may not be sufficient for the amount of work expected to be achieved within the blueprint. Accordingly, I agree with Ms Hunter’s proposal that the advisory group be asked to do this work. I agree also with the government’s view that the assessment tools should be incorporated as an element of the blueprint being developed by the task force. Having the advisory panel develop these tools will provide a pathway for a positive and ongoing interaction between the advisory panel and the task force. I see this as most beneficial for all concerned, and it should enhance the overall outcome of the work of the task force and the overall outcome for youth justice in the ACT.
I will address my proposed amendment a little later, but I now want to address the amendments proposed by Ms Burch. The first amendment is probably unexceptional in that it is a different way of saying some of the things that have been said in Ms Hunter’s motion. But her second amendment, to respond to the Human Rights Commission’s response to the government’s response addressing the concerns about the establishment of the youth panel, is not sufficient. It is a cop-out; it is an attempt by the government to try and minimise these issues. It would have been better for Ms Burch to consult with Ms Hunter and me, as vitally interested parties in this issue, about an appropriate way forward, rather than having a constant restating of a position which is clearly unacceptable to the majority in this Assembly and to the authors of the report in the first instance. While I do not have a very strong view about the merits or demerits of Ms Burch’s amendment No 1, her amendment No 2, which is the vital one, is completely unacceptable, and the Canberra Liberals will not be supporting it.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (10.56): As Mrs Dunne has pointed out with Ms Burch’s amendments, the first amendment really is a reworking of words that I had in my original amendment. The replacement (b) gives more information from the government response; it adds some more explanation there. I am happy with those amendments; they are, as was said, a bit of a reworking of what was in the original motion.
The Greens will not be supporting amendment No 2. As I said in my speech, we have probably had a new approach to government responses, in the Human Rights Commission deciding that it was important to put out its own response to that because there was a view that some of the recommendations had been misunderstood and there were some concerns raised by the government response. I do not think we need to get into the situation of responding again and again. What I am pleased to see is that this may indicate that there is ongoing dialogue. It is important to have dialogue between stakeholders within this debate—between CSD and the minister and the Human Rights Commission and others. We will not be supporting that amendment. We do not see the need for the government to respond to this latest document from the Human Rights Commission.
Ordered that the question be divided.
Ms Burch’s amendment No 1 agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video