Page 778 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
therefore, incapable of sexual assault or abuse. Of course I also support this. This fits with previous amendments that repeal time limits on prosecutions for child sexual offences. I also note that there is no attempt to include any offences retrospectively, merely that the disclosure of an alleged offence should be reported to police regardless of when the offence took place. I am pleased, too, that the amendment bill allows for special measures to be extended to victim impact statements from victim witnesses in legal proceedings. The court experience of a victim can be harrowing and any measures that make the process less intimidating and traumatic are welcome.
I acknowledge that the attorney has been systemically reviewing and informing various legislation insofar as it is related to the outcomes of the royal commission, and I applaud him for that work because it will contribute to making Canberra a safer place for all of us. I look forward to working together with him on developing a positive definition of “consent” in the Crimes Act during the remaining period of the Ninth Assembly as this work, too, is important in ensuring that we live in a safer community. The Greens support this Royal Commission Criminal Justice Legislation Amendment Bill.
MRS JONES (Murrumbidgee) (5.02): I stand to speak on this bill today because it exercises my personal conscience, and I accept that we, the Canberra Liberals, are supporting the bill. Because this bill touches on personal religious practice, it concerns me greatly. Just today—this morning, in fact—we discussed at length the damage done by the spreading of division on the basis of religion. The government should not be seeking out and detailing in public debate the details of religious practice, picking them apart and publicising the government’s opinion on details of their internal practices—not for Muslims, not for Jews, not for Catholics, not for Sikhs, not for Evangelicals, not for Hindus and not for any other religious group.
It is divisive the way that this bill, in this week of all weeks, and the one that came before it—I was on leave when it was presented and debated—pick apart the detail of someone’s religious practice. The fact that lawyers’ professional privilege has been preserved by the bill makes people of faith call into question why this is not being applied across the board if, in fact, the intention is to be, as it is claimed, about vulnerable children. The same outcome could have been achieved with a broadbrush provision for mandatory reporting without exception.
Confession is an anonymous practice unless the participants identify themselves. So this law will also be, as Ms Le Couteur has mentioned, an ineffective, unpoliceable and unnecessary public targeting of people of faith. Picking apart how particular religions facilitate conversations with the Almighty is an unnecessary and demonising act, and it is unnecessary in relation to those good-willed people who serve our community as Catholic priests. Religious practice does not have to be the focus of these provisions and the good people of faith who will be drawn into this are unnecessarily being demonised. It is a very bad precedent at a time when we have all been reminded how the targeting of particular religious communities can have devastating consequences.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.05): Back in June 2018 I spoke about the Catholic’s view of confession—that is, that it is sacred, sacramental and sacrosanct—and how
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video