Page 1106 - Week 03 - Thursday, 18 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
“J” in the legislation register for “wills”. It would be looking under “W” for something that might be called the wills amendment bill.
Another example arises in the amendments to the ACAT Act, which have been extensively canvassed here today. These amendments, whilst in effect returning the law to its effect under the old AAT legislation, were nonetheless significant and created quite a lot of attention when we consulted with stakeholders. In the end, it was accepted in large part, but it should have come forward in a dedicated bill.
Another much starker example occurred last year when the government tried to hide amendments to the Security Industry Act in a JACS legislation amendment bill—an omnibus bill. Those amendments would require prospective employees to talk to unions about their employment rights and obligations. Worse, those amendments would have duplicated what is already required by commonwealth law.
By trying such a trick, the Labor government, supposedly the champion of the working class, actually tried to make it harder and potentially more expensive for people to find work. It tried to do it via the back door. It tried to bury it amongst a whole swag of other amendments that were, as fitting for omnibus legislation, minor and technical in nature. Worse still, the government told no-one about it. The only reason the security industry found out about it was that we, the Liberal opposition, told them.
Previously we have seen Minister Corbell try to cover up his bungled statutory appointments by slipping enabling provisions into a JACS bill. On that occasion the bungle was only found by the diligence of the secretary of the justice and community safety committee and the minister tried to cover his tracks through omnibus legislation.
The Attorney-General, in the opening paragraph of his presentation speech for the bill the Assembly passed today, said:
The bill I am introducing today will improve the quality of the statute book and make minor and technical amendments to portfolio legislation.
I agree with the purpose of the statement as it might apply generically to omnibus legislation. It is exactly for this purpose that we have omnibus bills. In the case of the JACS bill passed today, however, that has simply not been the case. The government, especially under Minister Corbell, has a track record in this place.
This motion is an alternative to voting down the JACS bill that has just been passed. It is a motion to send a message to this and future governments, including Liberal governments, and to provide them with some guidance on how omnibus legislation should be used. Omnibus legislation should not be used for making substantive changes. It should not be used to sneak through changes the government hopes will not be noticed under a false sense of purpose.
No, Madam Assistant Speaker, omnibus bills should be used for the very purpose the Attorney-General stated in his presentation speech. They should be used for making
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video