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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 582 ..

Mr Humphries: That is just what I am saying.

MR STANHOPE: Yes, but it does not actually meet the test in relation to intention. The person's intention was not to engage in a legitimate political activity. The first mark that a person seeking exemption from this particular provision would have to get to is that they were engaged in some other activity, that they were not set on some design to deliberately alarm or cause anxiety. In your example, quite clearly the person seeking to gain an advantage of any so-called exemption would fall at the first hurdle.

Mr Humphries: So why?

MR STANHOPE: That their intention quite clearly is to cause alarm; that they had no other motive or motivation; that they went there with the determination to cause alarm and they did not have any other intention.

I think that point is made quite clearly. I apologise for the fact that the scrutiny of bills committee was presented with the government's response only today. I acknowledge that the time frame was short. We are determined to seek to overcome these sorts of time frames. I accept absolutely-and, as I say, I apologise to the Assembly-that this is not appropriate. It is extremely difficult for members to get across significant issues raised by the scrutiny of bills committee when the government's response is not presented in a timely way, and we will endeavour to overcome that issue.

If one then looks at the government's response to the scrutiny report, and then looks at the subsequent report of the scrutiny of bills committee, the second report that I tabled today-and I will read it for the sake of the Leader of the Opposition and for the sake of the committee's concerns-

Mr Humphries: I've read it, Jon.

MR STANHOPE: Well, what does it say? Ms Tucker points to the concerns raised by the scrutiny of bills committee. It may be that Ms Tucker has not read the second report of the scrutiny of bills committee, which says that the committee has accepted that the government's legislation, the original draft, was quite sound.

Mr Humphries: That's right, so why are you amending it?

MR STANHOPE: Because it clarifies the very point. It actually does not detract from the provision. It simply enhances the position.

Mr Humphries: That is all the report says?

MR STANHOPE: All it does is clarify-it does not change it one iota. And this is why I take issue with Ms Tucker. Ms Tucker suggests that she would not support this bill unless it were amended. The scrutiny of bills committee says the amendments really make no difference; they are just for the sake of clarification. It is interesting to look at what the scrutiny of bills committee wrote. The committee said:

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