Page 1283 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.28): The opposition will be giving in-principle support to the Statute Law Amendment Bill. However, in the detail stage we will be proposing two amendments, and I will comment on those a little later.
This bill, organised into four schedules, makes minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a range of acts and regulations. Schedule 1 outlines minor, non-controversial amendments initiated by government agencies. Three acts are amended, which I will come back to in a moment. Schedule 2 makes minor, non-controversial amendments to the Legislation Act 2001. This bill adds to the act a definition of “coroner”. It does so because the term is used in a number of acts. A single, central definition ensures consistent interpretation across the statute book. Schedule 3 makes routine amendments to 26 acts and regulations. They correct minor errors, update language and drafting, improve syntax, make minor consequential amendments, provide for minor transitional arrangements and make other minor changes.
These so-called SLAB bills can also include a fourth schedule allowing for routine repeals of legislation. No legislation is repealed in this bill.
Many of these amendments are made on the initiative of the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office. The PCO has a strong commitment to ensuring the ACT statute book is one of the most successful, logical and easy to read in the country. The PCO can be justifiably proud of their efforts, and we in this place are very appreciative of the good work that they do.
I return briefly to the amendments made in schedule 1 of the bill. These amendments are more substantive than those made in the other schedules, and there is often a risk that they might push the boundaries of the purpose of omnibus legislation. The purpose of so-called omnibus bills is to make minor technical and non-controversial amendments to legislation. They should not be used, as this government has done in the past, to sneak through substantive policy changes.
Let me dwell briefly on the amendments made to the three acts in schedule 1 of this bill. The Corrections Management Act 2007 is amended to expand the field from which a minister may appoint an adjudicator under the act. The adjudicator reviews disciplinary matters and segregation decisions. Currently only a magistrate can be appointed. The amendment allows the minister to choose between a judge, a magistrate, a retired judge, a retired magistrate or a legal practitioner with five years or more experience.
The expansion of the field to cover practising and retired members of the judiciary seems pragmatic. However, to put legal practitioners into the class of the judiciary seems to me an illogical mixing of professional disciplines, roles and expertise. This is particularly so given decisions of the adjudicator are subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989.
This amendment borders on being one of a substantive change to policy. I foreshadow that in the detail stage my colleague the shadow minister for corrections, Mr Wall,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video