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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3495 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Nos 4, 6, 17, 21 and 26, private members business, relating to Mandatory Reporting, a proposed Government inquiry into Sport and PE Programs, authorisation of publication of Woden Plaza Car Park documents, the Territory Plan Variation Bill 1997 and the Liquor Trading Restrictions, respectively.

This motion is designed to remove from the notice paper a large number of orders of the day which are redundant and which clearly will not be dealt with by the end of this year. Obviously, at the end of this year the notice paper will be purged anyway, before the beginning of the Fourth Assembly; but in order to save a little on paper it would be appropriate to reduce now the number of redundant matters which lie on the notice paper. The list which is before the Assembly is a compilation of matters suggested by members of the Opposition and crossbenchers and Government matters which are also no longer relevant. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

MR WOOD: Mr Speaker, I present Report No. 15 of 1997 of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation, and I ask for leave to make a brief statement on that report.

Leave granted.

MR WOOD: Mr Speaker, the committee reports on a number of Bills which will soon come before the Assembly. Indeed, one - the University of Canberra (Transfer) Bill 1997 - is the first order of the day on our daily program. The committee comments that there may be problems with the approach taken; that only a legislative statute made by the university will be disallowable by the Assembly. The Minister, I trust, will be able to respond during the debate, though I acknowledge that he does not have much time in which to do that.

The committee raises a number of concerns about aspects of the Crimes (Assisted Suicide) Bill, including the concern that it appears to permit public officers to dispense with the operation of the law in favour of particular individuals. In commenting on other Bills, the committee again raises questions about the provisions for the review of decisions. This matter of review provisions generally is one which may require some further broad consideration.

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