Roy Heather: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9538] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise during the Committee stage of this bill to talk again about the lack of scrutiny—scrutiny that should exist with the select committee process. The Minister tries to tell us that there is no risk with these amendments and that they are all fine. If the changes are so good why is he is so reluctant to let this legislation go back to the Health Committee so that it can have the scrutiny and get the cross-party support that the original bill had? I was not on that select committee at the time but I understand there were no dissenting members. There was general agreement that the bill was a good thing. My reading of it shows that there are many positive changes in it. But I do worry about the facts. 
Something that is becoming increasingly common with this Government—despite the fact that select committees have come to general agreement about bills—is the throwing in of long Supplementary Order Papers at the last minute. This one is 44 pages long and other ones that we have seen in this urgency have also been long. The Gambling Bill a few weeks ago had a Supplementary Order Paper that was 65 pages long. This is clearly unacceptable. The Minister complimented the select committee on its work yet completely ignored part of its report that said that it did not agree with the fact that a Government can put in last-minute amendments many of them of a technical nature without scrutiny. The select committee said it was clearly against this. So the Minister compliments the select committee then completely ignores the advice that was given in the commentary on the bill. 
No doubt the Minister had a lot of advice when writing this Supplementary Order Paper but what about the advice of the legal profession that could be gained through the select committee process if this Supplementary Order Paper were taken back? What about the advice of the medical profession? I would have thought that they had the right to look at these amendments and comment on them at the very least and give their very good and thorough advice to the members of the select committee who might well in the final instance agree to what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. But none of us have had a chance to look properly at this. What about the doctors and the lawyers who should have been given an opportunity to look at the Supplementary Order Paper and its new provisions? They have not seen it either. No doubt the Ministry of Health has had a finger in the pie. Officials were probably involved in this. I would like to remind members of the fiasco we had with the smoke-free legislation and the contracts in that. We know that the lobby groups which the Government favours have been given funding specifically to go and lobby MPs. I would say that their judgment is seriously under question when the Government is allowing this sort of thing to happen. 
As I flicked through the Supplementary Order Paper—we have not had time to look at it thoroughly—I saw that on page 39 it talks about the Parole Act. There is an insertion under the definition of “secure facility” that states: “secure facility means a secure facility within the meaning of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003”. Now I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong but have I missed something here? If I look at the Order Paper I see that the next bill for debate is the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill. I thought that in fact we do not have at the moment an Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. At the moment it is in bill form. What the Minister expects us to do here is approve something that does not exist at the moment. We need royal assent for the next bill the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill before we can get royal assent for this Supplementary Order Paper that we are debating at the moment—the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill which the Minister wants to change the name of too. How can that be? I am not a lawyer. I would like the Minister to stand up and tell us how we can actually approve something that does not exist and is not to be debated until we get to the next item on the Order Paper. How are we supposed to pass this without having passed the legislation that the Minister is talking about? Have I missed something here? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yes. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Oh obviously I have. Perhaps the Minister could stand and point it out. I am not a lawyer and I know that the Minister previously was. That advice would be very much welcomed. I tell the Minister that perhaps this should have gone to the select committee to have proper scrutiny. That comment is from me just as a layperson looking through this Supplementary Order Paper and finding things that do not seem to add up. What else is hidden in this Supplementary Order Paper that we do not know about? We have not had the opportunity to debate this or the opportunity to take it back to select committee and look at it properly. The Minister may well laugh but it is not funny.