Page 3443 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
procedures for the treatment of victims by the agencies involved in the administration of justice.
I think that essentially encapsulates what the government was nevertheless attempting to do, but it removes that ambiguity and perhaps that breadth of explanation of powers that was of concern to members.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.47): I thank the minister for bringing forward this amendment. I have a similar amendment which I now will not move, because I think that the minister’s approach creates sufficient clarity to address the issues. The Liberal opposition’s concern with this area, as I said in my opening remarks, was that there was a conflict between, in plain words, the role of an advisory body to advise. The plain words of this clause were that they were to develop policies, protocols and procedures.
There is ambiguity. The minister has recognised that, and I think that his approach at addressing it is probably clearer, more fundamental and more comprehensive than mine. I thank him for that. The Liberal opposition will be supporting this amendment which was motivated by the work originally done by us. I thank the minister for it.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.50): I briefly observe that the Greens think that Mrs Dunne had raised a good point here in her original amendment and we appreciate the discussion that has gone on in finding a clear way through. I think the attorney summed it up very well, and we will be supporting this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.51), by leave: I move amendments Nos 3 and 4 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 3450]. Amendments 3 and 4 arise from the comments of the scrutiny of bills committee in report No 25 in relation to section 29(4). In that report the committee noted that the bill, as presently drafted, may result in the denial of a fair trial if protected information is not divulged unless it is necessary for this act or a territory law, even though it may be necessary for a commonwealth law applying in the ACT.
Although the scrutiny report does not address subsection (2), similarly, nevertheless, it has the same effect. That section protects a person from an offence of divulging information if it is required by the act or a territory law, but does not provide the protection if a commonwealth law applying in the territory requires that the information be divulged.
Accordingly, taking the advice of the scrutiny of bills committee in relation to section 29(4), I propose that these two amendments 3 and 4, and the fifth amendment that will be moved later, all need to stand to create consistency in drafting across the entire legislation. It is a fairly standard provision that these protections apply not only to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video