Page 784 - Week 03 - Thursday, 2 April 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Chief Minister made an announcement at his press conference this afternoon that there is nothing explicitly within this piece of legislation which provides guidance or imposes any limitations. We are totally trusting the goodwill of the government, be they ministers or public servants. Furthermore, these provisions extend past the current crisis. They can be extended for an additional three months by the minister after the crisis ends, meaning property owners could be without their rights for a further quarter after this is all over.
There are also very real questions that need to be answered about what happens to any tenancy agreement that is made during this period and what standing it has after this period. For example, if a long-term tenancy is entered into during this period under these rules, what will be the impact in several years time? There are all sorts of questions here and, unfortunately, because of this rushed process, we are unable to get answers to them all.
We are supporting the government on this legislation. I will keep reiterating that. But these questions are worthy of answers and they highlight the need for an appropriate, measured and proportionate response to these powers. We are very much of the view that tenants need to be given absolute security in these times. We just need to make sure that throughout this process everyone is being reasonable, including the government.
With regard to the serious concerns that we have about judge-alone trials, the proposed amendment to the Supreme Court Act 1933 means that the human rights of the defendant are potentially critically compromised. Once again, legislation that was the hallmark of a past Labor administration has now been tossed out the window.
In our legal system the defendant can choose whether to exercise their right to have their case heard by a jury of their peers. The effect of the proposed amendments would mean that the judge would have sole discretion as to whether someone received a judge-alone or a jury trial. We have consulted with the legal profession in the limited time that we have had, and we know that there are many concerns amongst advocates, lawyers, barristers and many others about the inclusion of this provision in the legislation. My colleagues Mr Hanson and Mr Parton will also, I gather, be addressing some of these issues later on.
We have real concerns about the potential application of this legislation. I think everybody in this place should have concerns about the potential application of this legislation. I am not saying for one minute that all these powers are going to be abused, but they could be abused. That is why, as I have said numerous times, transparency and scrutiny are absolutely vital throughout this process. So I urge all members of this place to support the amendment that we are putting forward. At the very least that will give members of this place and the public at large some visibility as to how the government are exercising these powers that we are about to grant them.
It is a significant decision for all of us to make, but I reiterate that we are supportive of the general principle of this bill. We are supportive of taking steps to ensure that the government can react quickly and effectively to emerging issues, many of which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video