Page 4500 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 31 October 2018

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

a very collaborative way. I think members will find, when they read the report, that it is very focused on the policy content. I welcome the process which we went through.

Finally, I should thank our committee secretary, Hamish Finlay. In my earlier comments I said that this was a very complex piece of work to work through, and Hamish did an excellent job in supporting the committee to identify the areas that we needed to focus on and was very patient in redrafting and working with us as we sought to resolve matters that were quite detailed. With that, I commend the report to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barr) adjourned to the next sitting.

Justice and Community Safety—Standing Committee

Correction to record

MS LEE (Kurrajong) (10.12), by leave: I want to correct the record on something that I said yesterday. In speaking in my role as a committee member on the extension of the CTP inquiry, I said there were more than 60 submissions from organisations and more than 15 from individuals. I got the numbers confused; it should be more than 15 from organisations and 60 from individuals.

Report 3

MS LEE (Kurrajong) (10.12): I present the following report:

Justice and Community Safety—Standing Committee—Report 3—Report on inquiry into the Crimes (Consent) Amendment Bill 2018, dated 31 October 2018, together with a copy of the extracts of the relevant minutes of proceedings.

This is the first bill in this term referred by the scrutiny of bills committee to a standing committee for inquiry. I acknowledge Ms Le Couteur, who tabled this bill, and the Human Rights Commission, in the first instance, who raised some issues which formed a big part of the scrutiny of bills committee’s comments on this bill. It became clear very early on that the referral for committee inquiry was the right way to proceed with debate on this bill.

The issue of consent is one that is currently very topical, with a lot of public debate around the world. And it is no different in the ACT. Given the topical and technical nature of the inquiry, the committee commenced with obtaining in-camera evidence from Ms Le Couteur and the ACT Bar Association to assist in formulating the terms of inquiry. I thank Ms Le Couteur and Mr Archer of the ACT Bar Association for assisting the committee with this task.

The committee received 28 submissions and held three public hearings at which 19 witnesses appeared. In terms of the evidence, the report broadly categorised them into the legal practitioner bodies and the community organisations. For ease of structure in the report, we did include the Human Rights Commission in the legal practitioner bodies, although, of course, we acknowledge that the Human Rights Commission is much more than that.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video