Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 1 Hansard (10 February) . . Page.. 156..
Mr Stefaniak: They were given to me by counsel, Mr Speaker.
Mr Stanhope: Yes. I am not disputing that, Bill. I am advised that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel's draft does not quite equate to the government bill.
MS DUNDAS: Perhaps the simple explanation is that there is some confusion between the square brackets and the parts. We have part 2.3, which is the Discrimination Act, and then under that we have [2.4], [2.5], [2.6] and [2.7] so, when I looked at this amendment, I thought it took in the whole part of 2.3 from page 27 through to page 30. That was my understanding of this amendment.
Mr Stefaniak: That is right, that is not the intention. If there is any confusion there, I will not proceed with it.
MR SPEAKER: Is it the case that we are still considering parts 2.3 to 2.5?
Mr Stefaniak: Yes, just go ahead and do that.
Schedule 2 parts 2.3 to 2.5 agreed to.
Schedule 2 part 2.6 agreed to.
Schedule 2 part 2.7
MR STEFANIAK (11.40): I move amendment No 4 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 164].
This amendment relates to 2.15, which actually corresponds both in my amendments and the government's bill. We are on the public bathing act now. I was given these amendments and I am sure that everyone, even the parliamentary counsel, makes errors occasionally and I am sure it was done in good faith.
Might I just say that, in relation to that part, there was one other little area about which some concern was expressed by Mr Ken Hubert, a very experienced solicitor, which I would commend to the attorney. That related to the issue of uplifting the evidence provisions from the Commonwealth Evidence Act and putting them in this act. He has some significant concerns, which I want the government to take on board. He believes this change will have some unintended consequences and that it goes considerably further than I was led to believe, which was simply that it transfers the Commonwealth Evidence Act provisions into this act, with the additions to this act to make it consistent with anti-discrimination legislation. That point relates to some of those missed numbers which we have on the amendment sheet.
Now to the final amendment here, which relates to the bathing act. Mr Speaker, what I have done here, in relation to this particular amendment, is bring back what Mr Stanhope would seek to take out. I do not accept his argument here in relation to this act. It is an act that has served the test of time. Yes, he states that it is an act that prevents you prosecuting someone who is under 10. That has been the law for decades, even before this public baths act indicated you could not prosecute anyone under the age of