Page 2293 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 5 August 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The clear point today is that we have a choice before us as to whether the decision is
to take action and say, “Yes, we believe this is the way to go. There is clearly work to be done, there is a body of work that needs to be established, but we as an Assembly agree that we are going to do this.” That is one option, option A, which is what I am proposing. Option B is, “No, we will simply consider.”
Considering anything can result in one of two courses of action: you either do it or you do not. So what we are saying today is that we are not sure. We are not actually saying we are going to do this; we are just going to consider it. Maybe the government will consider it and decide not to do it. Maybe they will consider it and decide that they will do it. But if everybody is saying, “Look, we want to do this,” why is it that we are not prepared in this place today to say, “Let’s do it,” while accepting that there quite a bit of water that needs to flow under the bridge in terms of developing a model and implementing it in the courts?
I have circulated an amendment to one of Mr Corbell’s amendments. I have adopted the words that he put forward in his amendment. I have not tried to change any of his intent in terms of what he thinks should be achieved. What I have simply suggested, in essence, is to remove the word “consideration” and substitute the word “reform”.
With respect to the decision that is before us on these matters, I am very happy to adopt the government’s words, but the choice before us is about whether we are just going to consider this or whether we are going to implement the reform that those on the front line are considering.
I am doing what I can to work in the spirit of what the Assembly wants, and to adopt the words put forward by the government. The only nuance is about this: is this a place where we are going to lead; is this a place where we are going to implement the action and say, “Let’s do it”—pending, of course, the detail—or are we simply going to consider it? I know that those on the front line and, I am sure, those victims, would rather see reform in this area than simply more talk and more consideration, with ambiguous outcomes. If we do not have that word “reform”, there is nothing that says this will ever occur in the ACT, despite what they say.
In the spirit of bipartisanship I will accept the amendments moved by Mr Corbell, as long as they contain my simple amendment. With that in mind, I move the amendment to Mr Corbell’s amendment No (2) that has been circulated in my name:
Omit all words after “ACT Government to”, substitute “reform the Family Violence Court to include civil domestic violence orders, as well as a full-time, dedicated magistrate to domestic and family violence matters, as part of its broader legislative reform program.”.
Question put:
That Mr Hanson’s amendment to Mr Corbell’s proposed amendment be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video