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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 6 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1533 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

informing the Assembly, and the community at large, of the workings of the coroner in each financial year.

The current system, which takes 15 sitting days, could mean that reports are held from the Assembly for up to four calendar months, with no reason being provided to the Assembly. By changing it to within six sitting days, it will provide for a range of two to six calendar weeks, which I believe is an adequate amount of time for tabling an annual report.

This amendment also brings the tabling of the coroner's annual report into line with the tabling, by the Chief Minister, of annual reports for government agencies under the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 1995, section 14 (1). I believe that the current situation of the coroner's report taking 15 days is only an anomaly, and seek the support of the Assembly to change it.

MR STEFANIAK (11.23): Mr Speaker, the opposition will be supporting Ms Dundas' amendment. As she says, it brings this into line with the practice in other areas, which is six sitting days for the tabling of reports. We think it is a sensible provision and worthy of support.

Amendment agreed to.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for Women) (11.24): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No 2 on the purple paper circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 1593]. This is the amendment I mistakenly spoke to earlier.

This reinserts into the bill sections 11A and 11B of the Interpretation Act. It ensures that the status quo will be maintained, consequent upon the decision the Assembly took a little while ago to remove chapter 14-the intended replacement provisions relating to the use of extrinsic aids. So we will maintain the status quo-the use of sections 11A and 11B-whilst we give further consideration to the concerns raised, particularly by the Bar Association, in relation to the new chapter 14 provisions.

I will respond to the point made by Mr Stefaniak about the desirability of consulting. The government accepts that absolutely. We also accept the importance of the Bar Association and the Law Society in the context of the need to consult on technical legal legislation such as this.

This government has continued the practice of the previous government of not directly approaching the Bar Association but acknowledging that, once a draft bill is tabled, it is put on the Internet and is available for everyone to see. We are operating on the same basis that I understand the previous government operated on-that the draft bill is on the net for all to see, that the Bar Association knows that, and that, if the Bar Association feels inclined to comment on a particular piece of legislation, it is encouraged to do so.

Mr Stefaniak pointed out that the Bar Association expressed regret that they had not been consulted at an earlier stage-I noticed that myself. We have continued the position the previous government took in relation to consultation with the Bar Association-namely, that every bill is there, and we would welcome the comments of the Bar Association on

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