Mattie McGrath urges longer enactment period for sexual crime laws

I too want to support Deputy Penguins Amendment and you know the Minister's response of a year, days is a long time in policy, the week is a long time in policy, but a year in the court service could be minuscule because I have personal experience myself of being in the court, if it's the second court and take temporary, it only sits three times a year and it sits for eight days in a fortnight and you know I saw at that time where each court sitting this court couldn't be, this case couldn't be dealt with in eight days, so I was put off to the next one, the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and it could have went on for five years in that case and I've already demanded and I was fortunate to get it, a special hearing, I said that's so far, so a year in that context is nonsensical, but we're dealing with, as I said sexual crime, really heinous crimes, you know, we all support the bill and what it aims to do, but I'm shocked to hear, I was not surprised what Deputy Bengal found when he went inquiring about, about, and I'm listening to Deputy Howland as well, what they have garnered, you know, as a result of checking, legislation is enacted here in good faith and people make amendments a lot, Hank was incident, P-Leaders of Scrutiny, and you know this morning, Count Kohler, at our business meeting, and every business meeting we have had in the last, this year particularly, there's a request for, to waive P-Leaders of Scrutiny, and how important P-Leaders of Scrutiny is, but we have no post-Leaders of Scrutiny, as far as I can see, and it was this past, and past might never be enacted, I'm aware of that also, long before today, that the Minister of Parliament officials mightn't like certain parts of it, and mightn't be happy, but we're never enacted, never signed a statutory instrument or whatever to enact it, and Gaird, you know, I meant to understand the legislation, and we're having an understanding of what we, what was passed, but yes, mightn't be enacted, after the due process, and after going through all stages of the House, and then adjudicated on by the President, and ready for it to be, to be, the enactments, orders made, so certainly, a year is, is, is, is a way, and definitely, Murphy made a very important point this year, look at the years gone, exactly a year, yesterday or today, and another six months are going to be gone, and, and the courts aren't even sitting, they are sitting, I assume, limited time, but very limited, so, I mean, when you can take a trial, that length of time, could go on for five, six, could go on for eight years, ten years, might never be heard, and, you say then, a year, like, certainly when it has to go to the doctor, and it has to go to, to be, to be, then, signed in, we've no idea, we've no tracing, as to when it's, it's, it, anybody's enacted, or paths, or segments are enacted, or whatever, so we certainly need at least three years, and I, the Minister's reference to five years is too long, I don't believe it is, because, as I said, there are cases, not many of them, that are languishing in the courts, and, uh, if the, um, the wise, um, you know, judgments of the barristers, and the judge asks, how long will this take, and they'll say, maybe, ten days, or, on an eight day, sitting, in several regions, uh, three times a year, it'll never be heard, in my own case, it was 17 and a half days, so, it would never have been heard, it'd be in and out of court, and the cost of it, and the delay for justice, and the cost to, personally to me, in that case, but the cost to everybody that hadn't fully regulated, it's enormous, so, costly justice system, but, um, I tend to be suggesting, uh, for the executive to be suggesting, that we have parliamentary questions, we get ridiculed, by, uh, sections of the media, for asking, uh, frivolous, uh, where they see it, frivolous, um, parliamentary questions, and there's a cost to them, as well, you know, to take checker, and there are pride owners for the partners to answer, so, to suggest go that role, is a, is a nonsense, there must be somebody, and, goodness knows, we have so many bodies, and, and, uh, quank goes, I call it, but, we need some oversight, of legislation, when it's passed here, and trace it to the president, either signs or doesn't, and then, how it's, the old focus of that, and how, and to be told, and to be aware, if segments of the, of the legislation, aren't enacted, and to be given a reason why, and there needs to be some kind of an annual report, or some, something, it's a big drop of work, but we need, uh, an oversight, of what happened to the legislation, when it leaves, uh, here, and, uh, you know, how is it bedding in, has it been used, and, um, uh, the productivity rates of it, and what happens, so, there's enormous challenges, so, a year is totally inadequate, totally, and wholly inadequate, because, as I said, it might have even been tested, in the year, in the, in the court system, any case might not be heard under it, in the year, so, that, it's, that's, that's a weak argument, Minister, and, um, as I said, I know, personally, how, how, how, how a case can go on, and go on, and go on, and go on, and, you know, it, it, there's a possibility, it could go on 10 years, and never be heard, and there are cases, and, there's, there, so, we definitely need some oversight, and some, uh, whether it's go back to the Justice Committee, or wherever, because I'm not too interested in none of the quangos, but we need some oversight, as to how it's spreading in, was it all enacted, it has every many cases, every case history, have a good president, set up bad, and, uh, a review, go back to Deputy Howell, and again, he mentioned the 2001 Children's Act, and we're, we're, we're remitting it today, you know, 20 years later, that is just too slow, when you're dealing with children's crimes, or, or heinous crimes, or dealing with sexual crimes, or any crimes, for that matter, justice delayed, justice denied, and I am very fearful that, that if this amendment is not accepted, it'll be just, go on there, gathering dust, paths that might be permitted, paths that are not, you know, not suited to officialdom, or whatever, we are the elected people to make the legislation, and we are accountable to the people. Thank you.