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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1735 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

I was also pleased to see further improvements in relation to what is occurring in the ACT courts, and that also is necessary. I do have, however, significant concerns in relation to other areas of that portfolio and perhaps I could turn to those. Specifically, Mr Speaker, I have a number of concerns in relation to the proposed human rights legislation.

At page 170 of budget paper 3, it shows resources for proposed human rights legislation for this financial year of $200,000. For the following years it is $204,000, $208,000 and $212,000. It says:

This initiative provides for the implementation of the proposed Human Rights Act. It will provide advice to the Attorney-General, promote provisions of the Act, and support an information campaign to raise public sector and community awareness of the act.

I am trying to think whether, in any budget, we have had a situation where money is put in over a four-year period for an act of this parliament which we have not yet seen in the form of a bill. It presupposes that we are going to have it. It presupposes debate in the Assembly. It has a name. It is going to be called the Human Rights Act.

I thought the government was not yet at a stage where it would go down this path. It may well be that it gets its legislation through. It certainly will need money, if it gets it through, to raise public awareness, in both the public and the community sectors, because there is absolutely no call-and there never has been-in this community for such an act.

A maximum of about 120 people went to the six public meetings, which were probably used to try to drum up support. The lowest attendance was about four, and the highest about 40. Even the trumpeted event at Old Parliament House last year did not have the completely satisfactory result that the government would expect.

There is absolutely no demand for this act. I think that is an area of the budget where we would see extra money being spent. I predict that, if this act does get up, it is going to cause Mr Quinlan, or whoever in future years is Treasurer, a great deal of further angst, because I do not think there is any way it is going to be of benefit to the community. Additional expenses in many unpredictable ways may well flow from that. With regard to the Attorney-General's area, that is of real concern to me.

There is another area of concern in this portfolio. The government has talked a hell of a lot about early intervention. the government and the opposition differ on how best to fight crime in this community. I have no doubt who is right-that is us, and it aint them. Yet we agree that early intervention is important-I think this is very much a central plank of this government's justice policy. I was amazed to see the 14 community crime prevention programs and initiatives which existed this year drop to 10 for the year 2003-2004.

It is interesting to see how much this is costing. The target for 2002-2003-remember this year is not yet finished-is $1.075 million. The anticipated estimated outcome has blown out to $1.125 million-an extra $50,000. For next year-2003-2004-it is

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