Page 2742 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Finally, it is worth noting that a number of official visitors have expressed serious concerns about this bill and do not support it. Therefore, the bill before the Assembly today worsens rather than improves the territory’s official visitor framework, and the government cannot support it.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (3.51): The Canberra Liberals will be supporting this bill today, and we have put in a process of considerable consideration in making this decision. In supporting this bill today, we do so with reservations. I believe many of the points made by the Attorney-General about changing the fundamental relationship of the official visitor are valid and are worthy of consideration. I think there are some policy concerns about the notion of an official visitor being in a corrections or mental health facility or a youth justice environment—that is, a visitor who deals with complaints and grievances—in an area where people do not have a right to liberty and someone has made a choice for them that they will be there. The role of an official visitor in that place is very important. The issues that give me most concern about this bill are the blurring of that distinction and the extension of the official visitor scheme into areas where people have more autonomy than is the case with the current official visitor scheme in the corrections, mental health and youth justice systems.
This bill will create the appointment of seven official visitors across five distinct areas, including the three existing positions in youth justice, corrections and mental health. Under the bill, youth justice and corrections will each have two official visitors. In each case, one of the officials must be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. The three remaining will be in mental health, disability and homelessness. I note that being an official visitor to homeless people provides some real challenges, but I think these are issues that are worthy of consideration.
On balance, the Canberra Liberals have decided that they will support this bill because there has been a substantial outcry and support from the community. When we went out and talked to the community about this, we got nothing but positive feedback. This is an indication that although our initial policy approach was to think that this may not be a very good idea and that there were significant flaws with the bill—I believe there are significant flaws with the bill—the overall response from the wider community is that the people involved—especially disability services—are crying out for a complaints mechanism. The message is that they do not trust this government to provide them with a complaints mechanism.
The very strong message is that they do not trust the community visitor system funded in the budget that was brought down yesterday. They do not trust the minister; they do not trust the department; therefore, they are calling on the Legislative Assembly to adopt this as a better approach. On the basis of that and that alone, the Canberra Liberals have decided that we will support this bill here today.
In saying that, I think there are flaws with the bill. I am not absolutely convinced that we need a legislative scheme for complaints mechanisms for disability housing, and the fact that we have got to the situation where there is so little trust in the community that we have to legislate a scheme, that the scheme cannot rely upon goodwill, is a sorry indictment of this government and this minister in particular.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video