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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2184 ..

Schedule 2.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for Women) (11.02): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move together amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 [see schedule 1 at page 2217].

Mr Speaker, I thank the opposition for supporting the bill. As Mr Stefaniak has indicated, this is an important piece of legislation. Statute law amendment bills are the vehicle traditionally utilised by governments everywhere to update and to make minor, non-controversial, non-major policy amendments to legislation. They are a very useful vehicle employed, as I say, by governments for the making of a range or raft of minor, non-technical, non-contentious amendments to the law. It is important, I think, that we recognise and continue to acknowledge that that is the essential function of statute law amendment bills, that we come to debates in relation to statute law amendment bills with a view or with an understanding that we will not be initiating major policy changes or technical changes to legislation through such bills. This bill certainly falls within that categorisation and that description.

Having said that, I note that Ms Tucker has given notice of her intention to make some amendments to the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act. They are amendments which, I am happy to foreshadow, the government will be supporting. I do have to say, though, that I do think that they skate on the border or boundary of significant policy change. I say that having indicated that we, nevertheless, are happy to support them. They are the sorts of amendments which we currently have under consideration in any event, but they do go to significant issues of policy in relation particularly to the rights of people in same-sex relationships and the need for us perhaps to reform a raft of laws in relation to same-sex partnerships. I just make the point that I think we do need, as a parliament, always to be mindful of the essential role of statute law amendment bills and not seek to introduce, through amendments to a statute law amendment bill, significant issues of policy.

In moving amendments Nos 1 and 2, I have simply picked up in one instance a minor oversight in relation to one of the provisions within the bill-it is non-contentious-and have put forward a couple of other amendments to overcome a minor error in relation to provisions of the University of Canberra Act which has been connected through this amendment. The amendments are of no great moment and are quite consistent with what we are seeking to achieve through this bill.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3.

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