Page 2204 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
SO FOR INSTANCE, SECTION 2 OF THE COTTER RIVER ACT MAKES IT AN OFFENCE TO TAKE FISH FROM THE COTTER RIVER RESERVOIR. CROWN OFFICERS ARE OF COURSE REQUIRED TO TAKE FISH FROM THAT AREA FOR SCIENTIFIC MONITORING AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, THAT PROVISION SHOULD NOT BIND THE CROWN.
MOST OF THE AMENDMENTS IN THE ACTS REVISION (POSITION OF CROWN) BILL ARE OF A MINOR NATURE SIMILAR TO THE COTTER RIVER ACT AMENDMENT. HOWEVER, THE AMENDMENTS IN RELATION TO THE BUILDING ACT AND THE WEAPONS ACT ARE A LITTLE MORE SUBSTANTIAL.
ORIGINALLY, BOTH THE BUILDING ACT AND THE WEAPONS ACT WERE DRAFTED ON THE BASIS THAT THE CROWN WOULD NOT BE BOUND BY MOST PROVISIONS OF THOSE ACTS. THEREFORE, FOR THE NEW RULE TO WORK EFFECTIVELY IN RELATION TO THOSE ACTS, IT WAS NECESSARY TO REDRAFT A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS IN THOSE ACTS TO RECOGNISE THAT THE CROWN WOULD BE BOUND BY THOSE LAWS IN THE FUTURE. IN THE CASE OF THE BUILDING ACT TT WAS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS NO DUPLICATION OF SUPERVISION BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AFTER THE CROWN BECAME BOUND BY THAT ACT.
IN THE CASE OF THE WEAPONS ACT, IT WAS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE
FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO BE GRANTED LICENCES AS IF THEY
WERE A BODY CORPORATE. A NUMBER OF CHANGES TO THE ACT
HAD TO BE MADE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.
2204
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .