Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 13 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 3956..
Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak ) adjourned to the next sitting.
Review of the Children and Young People Act 1999
Report on key findings
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Minister for Health, Minister for Disability and Community Services and Minister for Women) (11.00): For the information of members, I present the following paper:
Children and Young People Act—Review of the operation of the Children and Young People Act 1999—Second report on key findings, dated December 2006.
That the Assembly takes note of the paper.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Ms Gallagher, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly of 19 October 2005, as amended 9 March 2006, presented the following paper:
Poverty and employment creation strategies—Government response—Tabling statement.
Court Legislation Amendment Bill 2006
Debate resumed from 23 November 2006, on motion by Mr Corbell:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (11.01): The Court Legislation Amendment Bill does three things. There are three different amendments, two of which relate to contempt of court. Contempt of court is something that one would think is fairly well defined, but it seems that there is some vagueness, in relation to the Magistrates Court at least. In the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal there is no such vagueness.
Contempt of court relates to acts by persons within the court precincts, but also relates to persons disobeying and basically snubbing their nose at the court outside the court precincts in relation to court orders. It is that second point that there is some vagueness about in relation to the Magistrates Court. It is rather timely that it is fixed up. It is more likely that problems occur through orders of the court not being adhered to, and possible contempt proceedings arising, than in other circumstances.
The more significant contempts are quite obvious. Luckily, this is not something that is used very often. On a couple of occasions I think it probably should have been used. I was somewhat appalled back in the early 1990s to hear of David Harold Eastman,