Page 1429 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not referring to the Parliamentary Counsel, as they are now known, in this context. They are a separate entity from this enterprise. In strict confidence, they take instructions from backbenchers and other members and they prepare private members' Bills. I knew nothing about Mr Berry's Bill, I can assure the house, until it had been done and was presented here.
Mrs Grassby: It got a clean bill of health from the Bills committee. What are you talking about? Obviously, you do not have any faith in your Law Office or the Bills committee.
MR COLLAERY: Mrs Grassby interjects and says that she does not have faith in the Law Office.
Mrs Grassby: You do not. I am saying that you do not, obviously; nor do you have it in the Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation Committee, which gave it a clean bill of health.
MR COLLAERY: The Scrutiny of Bills Committee - through you, Mr Speaker - does not examine government policy. Mr Speaker, I will move on to my topics, and they are, firstly, that the suggested amendment will require a complete rewrite. My advice is that the Bill contravenes the privacy Act in respect of the recommended record keeping practices. That is one issue we need to look at. It also offers the police immunity from civil litigation, and it ascribes powers of custody to authorised persons and also accords them immunity from civil litigation. I think, and I am sure that Mr Connolly will agree when we get into a dialogue after this debate is over and during this adjournment, that this is contrary to current legislative procedure and practice.
Mr Speaker, there are other issues that we need to consider in the context of how we would make a more modernised provision and they are, for example: What will be the sex ratio for which a "place" caters; would it be for males and females; do we need to consider the age aspects of it and whether we are building in discrimination matters subconsciously? We need to deal with what is the minimum age - and I go back to the existing legislation - for a person in the Crimes Act; and, as members are well aware, a person includes any natural living soul.
So, in effect, are we going to allow young people and infants in law to go into this place? Should the Bill be expressed, as Mr Berry has put it, to include "persons" as broadly and as widely as that? Should we not restrict the Act to ensure that we have in place other provisions for children that more reflect the existing divisions of responsibility under the children's services legislation where, as you know, we have repatriated many of the - Ms Follett finds this amusing, Mr Speaker.
Ms Follett: I do not. I said that it is rubbish.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .