Page 2195 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We can see from the changes proposed in the bill today as a result of the consultation that the government undertook, and the minor changes they are proposing today, that we got the scheme right and that it will have a positive impact for the people it is supposed to protect.
Today, we are presented with an amendment bill to refine and further target support for those who may be being cared for, or held, in the various settings in the ACT such as the jail, in crisis refuges, in aged-care facilities, and ensure they are receiving fair treatment and quality care.
I acknowledge that the government, having accepted the will of the Assembly on this issue, did engage constructively. I am very pleased that having now taken the time to ask the people that the scheme is designed to protect they can see the merits in the scheme and all the benefits it has to offer for those who are to be covered by the new and strengthened official visitor roles.
Any amendments that we pass to the act must further assist official visitors to work productively and informally with detainees and residents to help them resolve their complaints, or to advocate on behalf of people who do not have the capacity to advocate for themselves.
We can all agree today that the official visitors are an important part of the ACT’s oversight groups and provide valuable service to not only their primary clients but also the whole community. The ability of the visitors to provide clear and impartial advice and present concerns directly to ministers is vital. I know in my role as the corrections minister that this advice and service is incredibly valuable.
Madam Speaker, the bill contains a range of what could best be described as minor and technical changes. The Greens agree with most of these. However, as Mr Seselja has alluded to, there are a number of areas where we feel some further adjustment may be warranted. Our proposal is to adjourn the debate at the end of the in-principle stage today once we move into the detail stage.
We have not circulated those amendments yet, as there is still advice being sought and some discussions ongoing. Mr Seselja is right to flag that we would not want to be tabling them today and seeking to debate them, and in fact the standing orders no longer allow for that. There is still discussion going on with a view to resolving that and finalising the debate on the bill on Thursday.
Turning to the substance of the various issues raised in the bill, firstly on the establishment of the board, I have to say that I was initially reluctant to add this new layer into the scheme. However, I am now of the view that as there is the potential that the expanded range of expertise on the board will assist the scheme and bring together the relevant other oversight bodies, we should, in fact, see how this works and support it in the legislation.
One thing that has occurred to me, though, is that perhaps rather than the Public Trustee it should, in fact, be the Ombudsman that is the chair of the board. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video