Page 800 - Week 03 - Thursday, 2 April 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (4.10): I rise to speak to the aspects in this bill regarding Attorney-General issues. But I note that this bill does cover off a whole range of issues that have been canvassed. These are extraordinary times and I accept that this does then lead to extraordinary measures. I thank the Attorney-General at the outset. I agree with him that the discussions we have been having have been cooperative and collegiate, and certainly that reflects the way that we have been dealing with this issue from the outset. The Attorney-General and I have had a number of conversations and we are here to support the government in these difficult times, whilst also providing the important functions that we do as an opposition.
I thank the Attorney-General and his staff, in particular Amy, for the briefing that we received. But I note that that briefing was only about 24 hours in advance of the debate, which makes it difficult when we are considering significant changes to our legal system. And it is leading, there is no question, to less than ideal levels of consultation and scrutiny on what are very important matters.
It is my desire to be supportive of the government as they navigate these complex and difficult situations, to the extent that we will give them the benefit of the doubt, where we can, to implement the changes that they deem are necessary. But, as the Attorney-General has foreshadowed in his speech and I will discuss further, there is an issue, in that, while I accept that there are legitimate arguments both for and against when it comes to judge-only trials, we have come down on different sides of that debate, on balance. I will talk further on that both now and in the detail stage.
Just covering off on other changes though, there are changes to the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 which introduce changes to how evidence may be given, including pre-recorded evidence. We discussed with the Attorney-General’s office how these changes would operate and we, based on those initial discussions—and again I iterate the fact that we have not had the detailed consultation and deliberative discussions that we would anticipate we would normally have—will be supporting them.
The changes to the Supreme Court Act 1993 have prompted, however, widespread and, in my view, legitimate concerns. Those concerns have been expressed to me directly in conversations with the Human Rights Commissioner, the Bar Association, Legal Aid, the Law Society and others. The Law Society has outlined its position on these changes, which has been sent to the Attorney-General and me. I believe Mr Rattenbury has been given a copy as well. I think it is a very thoughtful and well-considered letter. So that I am not talking too long, I seek leave to table that letter because I think it does cover off the issues that we are discussing in good detail.
Leave granted.
MR HANSON: Thank you. I present the following paper:
Judge Alone Reforms—Fundamental Rights at Stake—Copy of letter to the Attorney-General from the Chief Executive Officer, ACT Law Society, dated 1 April 2020.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video