Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3364 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Should the response be unsatisfactory and the person wishes to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court, there is a fee of $300. However, this fee can be waived in circumstances of financial hardship. Of course, other avenues of review, such as the Ombudsman's Office, are available. They were our main concerns, and we are comfortable with the situation as it is now; so we will be supporting this Bill.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Minister for Health and Community Care) (6.24), in reply: I thank members for their support and also for accepting the Government's approach to the comments by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I do not think it is the Government's response; I think we all came to the same view on Part III, the part that refers to the Crimes Act. Taking into account the comments of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report and comments by the AIDS Action Council, the appropriate approach would be to consider the clauses leading up to Part III, pass those, then vote against Part III and consider the clauses following Part III.

Mr Speaker, the Government will be looking at the issues with regard to the Crimes Act separately and will use the same process as we have used with this Bill to ensure that all members of the Assembly have input. Obviously, the approach that we have taken in that area up to date will not be acceptable, but we will be discussing it with the AIDS Action Council and others. Mr Moore made the comment that the AIDS Action Council had been consulted before. They had and they had signed off on the Bill. But, as often happens, there is new leadership in the AIDS Action Council with different points of view, which they have every right to have. We will certainly be working with them.

Again, I would like to thank members for their support for this important piece of legislation. The consequential provisions are just that. They really put in place the Bill that we have already passed today, so it is sensible for both pieces of legislation to go through.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Clauses 1 to 19, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 20 and 21, by leave, taken together

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (6.26): I want to respond to Mr Moore's spite-filled vitriol that we had to put up with a little while ago in relation to the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation Committee report which was tabled in this Assembly late this morning. Mr Speaker, I would like to draw Mr Moore's attention to the usual procedures of this place again, so that he is well reminded of some of the things he has probably supported in the past. It is usual for the Government to respond to committee reports in writing so that members can be better informed and the record is set straight in relation to the recommendations of committees.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .