Page 2746 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
disproportionate criminal penalties and significantly increases the duties of visitors, for little or no benefit, burdening a group who are already working in often difficult areas.
This government takes very seriously its duty to protect our most vulnerable people. While the government appreciates the intentions of the Greens towards people in closed environments, any proposal for change must demonstrate an understanding of the character, objectives and risks of the official visitor schemes. With this bill, essential protections for human beings are at risk, and that risk must not be dismissed or overlooked.
This government is not about creating barriers to reform. The government remains fully committed to genuine reform of an already effective and responsive scheme. Nor does the government doubt the sincerity of the Greens in proposing this bill. However, the risks posed by the scheme are far too great for the government to let them go unanswered. This bill does not present an effective and responsive scheme and should be opposed. I urge members to support the government in opposing this bill.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.08), in reply: I have to say, first, I do not know whether it is frustration or confusion that I have heard from the ministers today. I did think that they were perhaps given the letter and comments we received as we have been going through the consultation process on this. It appeared to me they were looking at the exposure draft legislation and not the new bill. That is clearly evident today from the comments that I have heard from both ministers. Also, I was somewhat confused by some of the comments that Dr Bourke made that do not seem to relate to either of the pieces of legislation.
The standardised processes and other issues have all been changed in the new legislation. That is, as I said, where my frustration comes through. We have been trying to get the government’s feedback on the current legislation, and that is not what we have got. We are continually getting comments which seem to relate to the exposure draft itself.
I will go to some of the comments on the reporting process. I do apologise if my comments are a bit all over the place here. Again, the comments seemed to relate to the exposure draft. Because of the concerns that were raised by some of the official visitors with the initial draft—and I will just say that it was only some of them—we actually took them into account and changed the processes in the new legislation. They will still report to the minister. That is not changing. It is just changing the processes through which they receive funding and through which they are able to go about their work.
I think the thing I should point out too is that what we are proposing here with our legislation is done in other jurisdictions. The primary ones we looked at, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, all have the official visitor either sitting within the public advocate or the ombudsman’s office. So what we are proposing here is not something radical, something we have just come up with, which often people like to portray our ideas as being. This is something which is done in other jurisdictions. We
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video