Page 5512 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They accord exactly with those that I was told that the Bill would contain. As a lawyer, I can see no problems with this. It ensures that the BYO restaurants are covered. The sidewalk tables and chairs that some of those restaurants use are also adequately covered.
Accordingly, as the proponent, I support Mr Connolly's proposed amendment. It is by consent, and that means that it also has the support of my party and, I trust, everyone else in this house.
MR DUBY (12.37): Mr Speaker, I rise as a non-legal layman, not versed in matters of law, to express my absolute amazement that this particular amendment is required. First of all, I say that I supported the original legislation. That legislation, of course, was drafted by Mr Stefaniak and, indeed, by the ACT drafting office.
I would just like to let the record show my disquiet with the fact that, in a piece of legislation which has been mooted for some months - not a matter of days as was made out - this obvious anomaly was not picked up by those whose job it is to pick it up. I would like to have an explanation as to why this glaring anomaly was not picked up. Frankly, if I had not trusted in the good offices of the people who proposed the Bill and assumed that it had passed through the Government Law Office for vetting for these matters, I dare say that some non-legal members of this Assembly would have picked it up, if we had analysed the wording of the legislation to that degree.
Naturally, I support the amendment. No-one would want to see a situation which is doubtful at law not be resolved; and, of course, we would hate to see it be resolved in the manner of a prosecution. But I would just like the record to show my absolute disquiet at this. This is not the first time that anomalies of a similarly simple nature have appeared in ACT legislation in the last 2 years, and I think it behoves the Attorney to ask the appropriate questions.
MRS NOLAN (12.39): Mr Speaker, I was not going to speak on this amendment Bill. Obviously, I support it. This matter was, however, something that I discussed with Mr Stefaniak at the very beginning of the process of formulating his amendment Bill. Originally, there were some changes that needed to be made. I can recall, on at least a couple of occasions, actually making sure that restaurants would be able to serve liquor on tables outside. I was given the undertaking that that was covered, and I assumed that he had sought and got the necessary advice. It is unfortunate that that necessary advice was wrong.
It is a little embarrassing, I think, that we pass the Bill and a week later we are making an amendment to cover something that all of us thought had been covered and was quite okay. So, I have to say that I am a little concerned as well. Obviously, I do not have any legal training
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .