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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3864 ..

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (3.35): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 3893]. This amendment is one of several that came about as a result of extensive consultations held with stakeholders. One of the consistent comments on this bill by members of the legal community was that perhaps it gave too much power to the Sentence Administration Board. Their view was that the bill should more clearly state that the board acts within the order of the court. In my view, that criticism was incorrect. In order to ensure that we have the best possible bill, that we have confidence in the bill and that the bill relies on a consensus model from stakeholders, parliamentary counsel formulated this amendment so as to leave no doubt about the respective roles of the board and the courts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (3.37): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 3 to 7 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR SMYTH: I move amendments Nos 3 to 7 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 3893]. Amendment No 3, like the second amendment, deals with specific issues mentioned in consultation relating to the proposal in sections 366C (1), (2) and (5). For example, there was concern about the use of the term “varying penalties” and the term “changed” was used instead. This matter is further clarified in the notes under new section 366C (3) (b) about the extended meaning of this term given by the Legislation Act.

In addition, the amendment will clarify the operation of the section by tagging the relevant orders as review orders, thus distinguishing them more readily than at present from other orders mentioned in the section and providing one clear source of power, that is, in section 366C (1), for the making of review orders. Amendment No 4 through to amendment No 7 are consequential on the tagging of review orders under amendment No 3. In the case of amendment No 5, it will more correctly identify the source of the board’s power to review and direct changes to penalties as being under the review rather than under section 366C.

MS TUCKER (3.38): I oppose this clause for the reasons I have already explained.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 5 negatived.

Clauses 6 to 14, by leave, taken together.

MS TUCKER (3.39): I oppose these clauses.

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