Page 2449 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
circumstance in any other jurisdiction where such a wide-ranging piece of legislation would not be referred to a committee. I take the example of the New Zealand parliament, which is also a unicameral parliament. The standing orders for the House of Representatives in New Zealand, which acts pretty much like the Legislative Assembly does, require that all legislation be referred to the relevant select committee unless they are declared urgent for some reason.
It is only appropriate for this parliament to have legislation of this nature, which deals with the most fundamental responsibilities we have as a legislature and as a community—the protection of young people—openly examined by a committee that has received submissions from people with an interest in the area, so that there can be a report to the Assembly on this matter. This is a fundamental role of the legislature, and this fundamental role has been usurped by the arrogant Stanhope government.
There are more transparent ways of proceeding than having consultations prior to the preparing of legislation and then presenting the bill as a fait accompli. I do not have a problem with the consultation process. I would just have liked the Assembly to have the opportunity to review that consultation process. If, as the minister said, everything was fine in the dairy and everyone was happy with the consultation process, that would have emerged and it would have given greater strength and greater support to the minister’s process.
In relation to the content, the Children and Young People Bill 2008 is a rewrite of the 1999 act. The explanatory statement says that this bill “once enacted, will become the primary law in the ACT which provides for the protection, care and wellbeing of children and young people in the Australian Capital Territory”. In the reviewing of this legislation, everything was supposed to be on the table. However, there are some notable exceptions where the government has dropped the ball, most principally in relation to the question of age of criminal intent and at what stage a child becomes capable of forming the intention to commit a crime.
By way of an aside, I do want to compliment the government on their attempts to brief members and their openness to briefing. I was given a very good hearing and the minister was quite assiduous in coming back with answers to my questions. However, I have to say that, in answering my questions, it was pretty much a rehash of what was in the explanatory statement. It was pretty much a take-it-or-leave-it approach.
I raised this issue in the briefings, and I was quite simply told, “We didn’t look at it because there’s a national approach and we’re looking at it in terms of the national approach and what’s happening in Europe and other places.” I do not think it is sufficient to say this. If this is supposed to be a from-the-roots-up, complete review of the legislation, this is a fundamental issue. The issue of when a child is able to form a criminal intent is a fundamental issue, and the government has dropped the ball.
I note that Dr Foskey has circulated amendments in relation to this matter, but the Liberal opposition will not at this stage be supporting them, simply because Dr Foskey is in the same position that the government is in. She has a view about what is an appropriate age of forming criminal consent, but that has not been tested in the community. I think it behoves Dr Foskey to demonstrate that there has been active
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .