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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3835 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

things could be tidied up or done a little bit better. Where is the review mechanism in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill? Where was it? Do people remember? It was not in the regulations that we haven't seen. It was not in the draft instructions to the Parliamentary Counsel's Office that we looked at. It was in the body of the bill. Now it is in the body of the act. Put your sunset clause in it.

All Ms Tucker is asking for, on behalf of the Domestic Violence Prevention Council, is that they get involved; that they are inside the loop. The people that the government has appointed to advise us on the plight of these women want to be inside this loop. We men do not have the right to deny this sort of involvement in the loop. We just don't have that right. People can grin to themselves as much as they like, but I am not impressed with it at all, Mr Speaker.

Have a look at this amendment proposed by Ms Tucker. What is she saying? She wants the Domestic Violence Prevention Council to look at the relevant section of this act and see that it is consistent with the model domestic violence laws as soon as practicable. Okay, what have we got to be afraid of? Are we afraid that we might have cocked it up, Mr Speaker, and will be exposed? I might say to you, "So, what if we are?" These people are going to have a look at it and if it is good stuff they will say so. If we have made a mistake, then let us accept that and fix it. About 90 per cent of the people who suffer domestic violence are women. We are men. How many times do we have to say that?

What does the second half of this amendment say, Mr Speaker? It says that the minister must review the operations of the provision of this act as soon as practicable after six months and no later than 12 months. It's a heap of time. You have up to 10 months to do it. Where is the problem? Where is the threat? Why do people have to be frightened of this sort of amendment? They are frightened of this amendment, Mr Speaker, because they fear that it might be overly prescriptive. Well, in the interests of protecting people against domestic violence, how about we forget about being over prescriptive. I will tell you what is more over prescriptive, a black eye. That is more over prescriptive. All we have to do is to say, "Yes, fine, we will look at it." That is all this amendment is asking-that people look at the legislation and report back.

The third section of the amendment sunsets the whole lot inside 12 months. It does not say anywhere that if you don't do this sort of thing the whole act sort of implodes at 12 months. All it says is that this Assembly will have the benefit of the input from the Domestic Violence Prevention Council, and that the minister will review it and report back. That is basically all this says.

The reason why paragraphs 2 (a) and 2 (b) talk about the process of community consultation is that I believe Ms Tucker does not trust the community consultation process. I share that view. Why do you think that is, Mr Speaker? That is because this bill has been put on the table without the input of the Rape Crisis Centre and the Domestic Violence Prevention Council. It is because the consultation process on the creation of this bill was fundamentally flawed. What Ms Tucker is running, on our behalf, I have to say, is that she does not trust the consultation process and wants this put in the act. I think she is fully justified in doing so if the track record on this bill is anything to go by.

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