Page 592 - Week 02 - Thursday, 16 February 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
marriage certificates, domestic violence orders, detention orders, ministerial appointments, intensive corrections orders. These are not just pieces of paper, but essential instruments which enable order in a free society. The bill before the Assembly today and the delegations it enables are not just pieces of paper but instruments that enable corrections officers to undertake their jobs with the appropriate authority, knowing that we are not leaving them liable.
The minister has recently been dismissive of other issues that have affected the JACS Directorate. I refer specifically to the assaults inflicted on certain corrections staff resulting in serious injuries and hospitalisation, affecting them and their families. The minister is now perhaps going to be dismissive of these delegations, but perhaps not. What else, I dare ask, is the minister dismissive of in his role? Perhaps this is why we now come to a situation where the women’s prison exceeds capacity.
The freedom afforded to citizens is not a small matter, and it is also not a small matter to remove these freedoms. Therefore, any legislation dealing with the removal of an individual’s freedom must be taken extremely seriously. Surely we could have had this bill tabled this week and passed in the next sitting. The issue of delegation was resolved in November, in fact. This bill resolves liability for a part of last year when delegations had not been made, so another one probably would not break the bank.
Why has the minister sought not to use the committee system appropriately? Why is the minister seeking to slide this bill through without proper scrutiny? The scrutiny committee, as I say, took extraordinary steps in seeking out out-of-session advice, and in meeting and coming in here at odd times to make sure that there was some advice to the Assembly. We take our role quite seriously. But that is not how it is meant to operate. The government has an obligation to the community and to those on intensive corrections orders to ensure that delegating authority is done right.
The government also has an obligation to ensure that any bill being brought to this place is put through the appropriate channels unless the matter is urgent. On reflection, this matter perhaps is not. I notice that we are looking at it through the prism of the minister’s reputation. Let us face it: that is why there is all the fuss. But the incompetence is still there for all to see; rushing it through does not actually avoid that. Staff have an expectation that the delegations that they are acting upon are current and provide the necessary levels of protections to the territory and afforded to them in exercising their delegations.
The logical questions that any functional government may ask in this situation are these: how long has the minister known about this monumental stuff-up? I understand that the minister has known about it since at least November last year. Why was the bill not tabled earlier? How many staff does this amendment apply to? There are up to 200 positions listed in the bill, but how many actual people does it cover, at least at present, and in November last year, when it was discovered? How many offenders on intensive corrections orders does the bill retrospectively affect? How many offenders have been subject to urine samples, drug tests and other tests by staff not appropriately authorised? Could any test results be potentially considered invalid as a result of the minister’s failure to manage the portfolio? What other delegations have been overlooked by the minister or the whole government?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video