Turner Judy: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16200] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to take an unusual position on the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. We will support the bill’s second reading although we are unlikely to support it any further. The reason we have taken this particular stand which is an unusual stand to take is that we believe that this bill and its sponsor have been given extremely shoddy treatment by this House. 
Our concerns about the bill were signalled in the first reading debate. What amazes us is that despite the fact that the bill’s sponsor willingly drafted substantial amendments to change the bill in the direction that its submitters had requested there was no will or effort shown in response. Given that there was such willingness to improve a lot of the concerns that people had I would like to label the response that was dished up to the bill as plain laziness. Let me draw a comparison. When the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill was put before Parliament it was very dysfunctional and poorly drafted legislation—everybody understood that. But because the sponsor of the bill was willing to have it worked on to negotiate and to consult interested people around the community and within this House a considerable amount of time and effort was put into helping him get it into a much more acceptable format to be returned to the House for the second reading. But this bill has never been afforded that luxury. 
Let me give members another example. When the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill was introduced into this House it scraped through to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and then considerable work was done. The sponsor allowed the bill to be parked. The Department of Labour jumped on board and for 12 months behind the scenes in consultation with the sponsor it worked vigorously on that bill to bring it back into a completely redrafted state where it could be introduced into the House at the second reading reconsidered. I could name a lot of legislation that has turned up in the House for a second reading looking markedly different from how it looked when it entered the House for its first reading. 
We all understand that getting a member’s bill balloted and taken through the process is a very precious thing to members and I think that Ron Mark has been served a very raw deal in regard to his bill. I have explained to Mr Mark that some of his amendments could not be supported by United Future but that is not the point I am making here. The point I am making is that every bill is deserving of good process and I do not believe that this bill has been given that. For that reason and that reason alone United Future is prepared to support the bill’s second reading. I feel critical even of the Government in this regard because the Green Party whose bills I mentioned before has a deal with the Government whereby it abstains on issues of supply and confidence. It does not put its vote forward and support this Government yet the Government will bend itself over backwards to do additional work on any of the Green Party’s bills in order to get them into a fit state to return them for a second reading. The Government will not give the same courtesy to a bill from a support party. 
If a bill has been given a fair chance to improve in a select committee as much as it is capable of being improved and is then rejected that is a different matter. In that case one chooses to reject it on the basis of its potential and what has been worked on. I think Ron Mark has been given a very shoddy deal here and for that reason and that reason alone United Future is supporting the second reading of the bill so that it can come to the floor of the House and the amendments that he wanted to have made at the select committee can be given the chance to be considered by the Committee of the whole House.