Page 707 - Week 03 - Thursday, 21 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My party, I might indicate, opposes the concept of omnibus legislation such as this. Our party policy - ours is the only party with a clear legislative affairs policy, I might point out - clearly states that we believe that legislation to amend an Act of parliament should be contained in a single Act. So, you have a Bill to amend an Act, and only one Act, rather than having some 40 or 50 pieces of legislation amended by the one Act. Because we are passing this Bill today, we are going to make the Statute Law Revision (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act a best-seller in the ACT. Every time you walk into the Government Bookshop and want to buy a copy of the Children's Services Act, the Consumer Affairs Act, the Credit Act, the Disability Services Act, the Limitation Act, the Magistrates Court Act or whatever other Act is mentioned here, you also have to buy a copy of this Act, because this also amends the Act that you are buying. At $1.50 or whatever it might cost to buy in the bookshop, you are going to be making a lot from sales of this Act.
Mr Kaine: It is a revenue measure; now we know.
MR HUMPHRIES: It is a revenue measure, I suppose you could say. I think that is unfortunate. Despite the comments that I have made, I acknowledge that we have a problem with the Crimes Act, and I acknowledge that it would be undesirable to let those who offend against provisions dealing with computer crime escape from that because the clause that they have seen in the Bill is different from the one under which they have been charged. I therefore accept that we should pass this Bill into law today. I have not been able to find any serious flaws in the Bill which would make it inoperative, and therefore I am recommending to the Assembly that it pass this law today.
But I must say that it is an unfortunate state of affairs when this happens. I sincerely hope that this is the last time we have to consider rushed legislation which needs to amend a whole series of Bills in this fashion. I hope that the Attorney considers that perhaps on this occasion the policy of my party might be a good one to adopt for the making of good law in the Territory in the future.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.44), in reply: I will be closing the debate. I should ask whether anyone else wishes to speak, to avoid the situation that we had earlier. I take it that nobody does. The first point that I should take up from Mr Humphries's remarks is his criticism of rushing through this type of Bill. I take that on board. I would say to the Assembly that I really addressed that criticism in introducing this Bill by saying that the Government intends to introduce this type of Bill in future in the ordinary way, by letting it sit on the table. Normally, there would be no urgency because this type of omnibus Bill is very much an exercise of tidying up the law.
Unfortunately, because of the situation that the Assembly was in late last year, when we had a flurry of private members' amendments to the Crimes Act, a matter slipped through all the advisers then, which, as of next week when the Act comes into force as a result of the automatic introduction into law provision, the six-month commencement provision, would result in sections of the Crimes Act having the same number but dealing with vastly different matters; and that would be very undesirable. So, we seek to pass this today. Although, as Mr Humphries said, that urgency was not referred to in the explanatory
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .