Page 32 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I will leave my comments on the substantive bill at that, except to say that I am looking forward to seeing how the restructured commission and agencies operate. I look forward to seeing more of the good and valuable work that they perform.
I will just briefly note that the Attorney-General has circulated some technical amendments which remove the proposal to give the Disability and Community Services Commissioner a complaints handling function in relation to the advocacy work of the Victims of Crime Commissioner. Essentially, this function is removed because complaints about the Victims of Crime Commissioner can be dealt with less formally and a complaints function might disrupt the advocacy ability of the Victims of Crime Commissioner. This is a change that I am satisfied with for now.
However, I am also mindful of the comments that Mr Hanson made this morning and his desire to move this to committee. I will not be supporting that today. I think there has been a long process to bring this bill to this point. There have been extensive discussions. I spoke earlier about some of the consultation processes that have gone on.
I think it is fair to say in an area like this that it does remain contested. There are different views on whether this has landed in exactly the right place. For the reasons I have touched on in my comments, I think there are quite a few positive reforms in this legislation. I think it does make for a better Human Rights Commission. That said, I am mindful that there is that debate out there and that there is not total agreement on what the reforms should be.
I had not understood that Mr Hanson had those complaints until he stood up in the chamber this morning. I think that, rather than defer this bill today, we should proceed. We should bring these positive changes into effect. If members wish to, I would certainly support inserting into this legislation at a later time—we can do it through another bill this year—a review point in this legislation. It is not uncommon to have a legislated review point. Often the period is three or four years down the track. The time frame is something we can discuss. I think it is quite valid for us to put a review point into this legislation given that this is a contested area. I would be happy to talk with my Assembly colleagues about how this might be achieved, but I think we should proceed with this bill today and bring about the positive changes that it proposes.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (11.44), in reply: I am little disappointed that we will not refer this to committee. Mr Corbell’s main argument seems to be that he had not thought of that. I guess he wants to rush this through. Mr Rattenbury at least acknowledges that there are some real concerns out there about this legislation which are evident by the fact that the government is rushing through amendments at the last minute to try and patch it up. So Mr Rattenbury and I seem to have a different approach. We seem to have come to a similar conclusion that there are some significant problems. My view is that there is not a great rush, or there should not be. I know the government has advertised the jobs, but that should not have happened.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video