Page 2329 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 August 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (6.08): Mr Rattenbury has pointed out that the JACS committee went to a certain degree of requiring a fresher update than three years. Of course, I agree with that. But I am not here as the chair of the JACS committee. I am here as someone who has had an opportunity to reflect and review, post this inquiry, as well. And, really, I do not see what would be problematic with the government committing to a shorter statutory review—an update—as a commitment from the government.

Who knows what the government will be in a position to do in two years time, without the compulsion of a legislative review? Given the concerns that have been expressed from some parts of our community—and, again, this was during the inquiry—I think the community deserve an earlier review of these higher sanctions on these offences committed within a domestic situation.

I am trying not to take the Attorney-General’s comments about me and my view as a criticism, but I certainly am following on. To me, it is simply extrapolating to another degree what the JACS committee has supported. I am adding to that. I think that the two-year statutory review period is more appropriate for such a change in the legislation. Obviously, I support my amendments.

Question put:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Amendments negatived.

Bill, as a whole, agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022

Debate resumed from 2 June 2022, on motion by Mr Rattenbury:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (6.15): I will be brief. I note that this bill, the so-called “SLAB”, the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022, is intended to make technical

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video