Page 1057 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
would have some discomfort, as I do, in extending the definition quite so broadly. But I take the advice of the department and the minister’s office that this has been a widely consulted-on extension. We will be watching this closely because I am concerned that it has the capacity to diminish the importance of domestic violence legislation by so broadening the definition of “relevant person”.
The amendments to the forensic evidence act are important but fix-up measures that make it absolutely clear that if an order is given to take a forensic sample the police have the capacity to bring somebody into custody. It fills in an essential gap that was overlooked. I think again that if we workshop some of these things more carefully before they get into operation this could be avoided.
The principal problem the ACT Canberra Liberals have with this bill relates to the validation of appointments under the Liquor Act and the Residential Tenancies Act. When this issue was brought to me in the first instance, I asked the minister’s office when they were going to introduce validating legislation and I said to the minister’s office—although the minister’s staff say they do not recall this—that I wanted it dealt with quickly and that I wanted it dealt with in stand-alone legislation. I said at the time that, if the minister thought that it was necessary, which I did, that it be introduced on the Tuesday and debated that week, I would ensure that my colleagues would agree to a quick passage because I thought it needed to be dealt with expeditiously. So it is unfortunate that we got this in a piece of omnibus legislation.
My colleagues and I are extremely unhappy that this was sort of slid in under the radar. The minister probably hoped that it would not be noticed. The comments in the introductory speech were simply that this was to remove all doubt about an appointment. But let us go back to what we are removing doubt about. What happened was that on the day before the election, on 17 October, the Attorney-General made three illegal appointments to two boards or tribunals that could have been easily avoided.
The provisions in the Legislation Act at section 228 are blindingly clear. Anyone who has worked on government appointments in this place over the last number of years—and Mr Corbell is no newbie in this place; he has been a minister for a long time and he has dealt with the statutory appointment provisions in the Legislation Act—knows how the system works. It is very simple. The cabinet decides to make an appointment, the minister responsible has to write to the relevant committee and ask for feedback, input, from the relevant committee and the relevant committee have 30 days to respond. The minister may not make an appointment within those 30 days unless the committee has got back to him with their comments, and he must take their comments into consideration. If after 30 days the committee has not got back to him, he is free to make his appointments.
What happened here was at least an unforgivable stuff-up—at the very least an unforgivable stuff-up and at worst just a complete intention to flout the law. I have had officials come and brief me on this and I have had officials nobly falling on their swords saying: “Mrs Dunne, don’t blame the minister. It is the department’s fault.” That was very noble of them. But the point is that the buck stops with the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General’s Department makes a fundamental flaw
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .