Page 1310 - Week 04 - Thursday, 5 May 2022
Amendments Nos 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
DR PATERSON (Murrumbidgee) (4.24), by leave: I move amendments Nos 4 to 7 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 1353].
Amendment No 4—a proposed new section 67(2)—omits the subsection to substitute with a proposed new subsection which creates clarity that the “same person” is the “accused person”. This amendment in language will avoid interpretive difficulties.
Amendments Nos 5 and 6 both create clarity for the purposes of section 67(3) that the “same person” is the “accused person”. This clarity of language will avoid any interpretive difficulties.
Amendment No 7 creates clarity and consistency in language for the purposes of section 67(4) that “a person” is “an accused person”.
Amendments Nos 4 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
DR PATERSON (Murrumbidgee) (4.26), by leave: I move amendments Nos 8 and 9 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 1354].
Amendment No 8 is a technical amendment which changes the heading of proposed new section 442D about the review of the provisions of the bill.
Amendment 9 affects proposed new section 442D(3) and requires that the minister must present a report of the review of the operation of this act to the Legislative Assembly within 12 months after the day the review is started. The bill, as tabled in February, had a six-month time frame. The government’s response to my bill recommended this be amended to 12 months to allow an appropriate amount of time to undertake the review, including any public consultation, meet cabinet deadlines and table the report, and allow for a more comprehensive review.
Amendments Nos 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.