Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2187 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
bills to update laws in a technical way, but not about using them to introduce substantial changes to legislation. That is better done with a separate bill. It does more justice to the issue as well.
The Chief Minister has alluded to, in his opinion, the need to reform a raft of laws in relation to this issue of same-sex couples. No doubt he will bring forward a particular bill which will seek to amend a raft of laws to change the situation. That, in terms of procedure, is a far more preferable way to proceed than to have what is an ad hoc amendment. Ms Tucker has referred to a matter on the notice paper. She feels that that has to happen now. because this bill is being dealt with now. Again, the item on the notice paper is more substantive and perhaps there is no real need for this change to happen now if the government is actually going to bring forward a detailed bill dealing with a raft of reforms which cover all bits of legislation that may need amending if it is the wish of the Assembly to go down this particular path.
I note that only last sitting the government, as a result of concerns raised by the opposition and the Bar Association, quite rightly withdrew part of a legislation amendment bill that would not simply replicate a very important piece of legislation in the interpretation that the courts give to legislation from this place, but would change in a substantive way the manner in which courts would actually look at legislation. That, if it is to occur, is much more within the purview of a separate piece of legislation that can be looked at and debated thoroughly, rather than putting it in with general catch-up legislation such as a legislation amendment bill. It was for a very different purpose from what bills such as that bill and this bill, the Statute Law Amendment Bill, are introduced.
On that procedural point, I think that it is important that substantial amendments to legislation be made through a separate bill. That does justice to the issue, enables a proper and full debate, and no-one can then be accused of hiding these things in a legislation amendment bill or this bill. I think that it is far more preferable to do so in that way.
I note that Ms Tucker actually circulated her amendment in this regard and we have had time to look at it, which is probably not like the next situation that I will refer to. From time to time there have been lots of ad hoc amendments in this place. The worst probably were the amendments to various land and planning acts in 1991. You would remember them, Mr Speaker. There were close to 100 amendments on the floor.
Mr Wood: Yes, I remember.
MR STEFANIAK: You were probably the minister then. I think that I was the shadow minister at that stage, Mr Wood. There was chaos. The amendments were coming from the Residents Rally, I seem to recall.
MR SPEAKER: I think we were all scarred by that experience.
MR STEFANIAK
: I think we were. One of the departmental officers then-I do not know whether he is still there-still bears the scars today and occasionally mentions the occasion. I think he wanted to thump a few people at the time but, because he was a half-back, he was probably a bit small for that. At any rate, I can remember that officer and his colleague being absolutely ropeable about what happened. That was a classic case of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .