Page 1808 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
change in circumstances has been favourable and that information has not been made available to the court. Therefore the redress from the other party is considered to be the matter to be kept uppermost in mind. That also is in keeping with the spirit of the legislation as it has been drafted.
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee also drew attention to a possible incorrect cross-reference. The Minister has indicated to me that this will be picked up by a Clerk's amendment. A further Clerk's amendment will be made to clause 24 of the Bill, which also refers inadvertently to paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Bill rather than paragraph 19(1)(a). That is similar to the matter that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised. A further matter in the explanatory memorandum is to be picked up. In relation to clause 39, annulment of declaration, the Supreme Court has been referred to. It is certainly not the intention of the Bill that that clause apply only to the Supreme Court. The intention of the Bill is that it apply to the court. Certainly, the expectation as far as implementation of the Bill is concerned is that it will occur in that way.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, having gone through the process that I have gone through in considering this legislation, I am happy to support it at this time. Its passage will make a considerable difference to the lives of many people in the Territory, and I commend it to the Assembly.
MR DE DOMENICO (5.29): I also am happy to stand up and give my endorsement to the Bill. I do so because I think it is good legislation. It is not an endorsement or an erosion of any institution; it is a recognition that some people do wish to live in situations that do not reflect the traditional family model. I think that in the International Year of the Family it is very appropriate that we have provided this Bill.
I mentioned to Mr Connolly before that my concerns are organisations like L'Arche and Friends of the Brain Injured, who use a home on a full-time basis, most of the time, to look after other people. They make a magnificent contribution to our community. Their contribution, I dare say, can be seen as a personal commitment of support. That is exactly what it is. I am concerned as to how that sort of situation could be encapsulated within this legislation. I think the last thing we want is litigation between the two parties, or between third parties and either of the two parties involved. Even an organisation like Meals on Wheels involves a continued personal and committed contribution. Apart from those two questions, I think the Bill is excellent and we ought to get on with it.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (5.31), in reply: I rise to close the debate. At the outset I would like to thank members very sincerely for their contributions. About this time yesterday afternoon we were having a spat that arose over negativing the adjournment and carrying on for some period. There was a press comment that it resembled the sandpit of yesteryear, and perhaps we all deserve a collective rap over the knuckles for a bit of a slip. The way that the Assembly has dealt with this issue is a very pleasant contrast. This issue potentially could have been played in a divisive manner to split the community, to inspire fear and loathing, to divide community sector against community sector. It was all there for the picking. People could have gone off on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .