Page 851 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
could not find the owner. I cannot quite imagine such a situation. So I need to take some advice on that as well.
At this stage, I understand that there is a commitment to supporting the bill in principle. The government is happy to support a motion that the debate be adjourned to a later hour this day to allow the questions that have been raised in relation to clause 57 to be responded to appropriately. I thank members for their support of the bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clause 1.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stanhope) adjourned to a later hour.
Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2005
Debate resumed from 17 February 2005, on motion by Mr Stanhope:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (11.08): Mr Speaker, the opposition will be supporting the bill. I have just noticed that Dr Foskey has an amendment. I only just received it and I have had a quick look at it. We will listen with interest to her argument and what the government says in reply and decide accordingly.
The Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Bill is designed to amend various pieces of legislation. We are seeing quite a few bills consolidated in this way and, whilst it is a very good way of making minor amendments, a reasonably substantive or important amendment should be worthy of a separate bill. I do not think that any government of any persuasion should get too used to introducing a plethora of these bills. That being said, if it is only a matter of making amendments to a couple of areas of the act, tidying things up, working out problems that have arisen of a minor or technical nature that do not really justify a separate bill, these types of consolidated bills are quite a good way of making minor or technical amendments to legislation.
The bill will amend the Agents Act effectively to stop the government double dipping and agents needlessly having to pay twice. A licensed agent who operates more than one place of business must employ another agent to be responsible for the day-to-day management of that other place of business. As the government has indicated, it was not intended that a licensed travel agent working as an employee of another licensed agent would be required to meet the additional eligibility grounds for licensing and participate in travel compensation funds. The owner of that agency already would have contributed to that fund for the total operation of the business, and that would include the branch offices. This is a sensible amendment that will be of some assistance to those businesses.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .