Page 904 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Before I refer directly to the matter at hand, I would like to welcome this evening in the chamber the representatives of the Majura Scout Group, who have come along to see democracy in action in the ACT. I particularly welcome the scout leader who has arranged the visit tonight. As one who has participated in that illustrious group, I think it appropriate that they come along to see democracy in action in the ACT, and I welcome them here.
I think most of the issues that have been raised in relation to the requirement for a legal affairs committee have been stated in debate this afternoon. I mention once again the difference between the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation and the legal affairs committee.
I recall that there was some discussion this afternoon about the splitting of the Standing Committee on Social Policy. When I look at the role or the areas of responsibility of the proposed legal affairs committee, a couple of aspects, I suggest, form part of the old terms of reference of the Social Policy Committee, particularly civil liberties, human rights, law reform and consumer affairs. All those sorts of things could be classified as being part of social policy.
I think it is appropriate that this committee be established so that it can play its role as a standing committee in looking at the types of situations and problems that face our community, rather than the detailed examination of Bills, which is the role of the other committee. On that basis, I commend the motion to the house. I am sure it will get its full support in view of the discussions that went on this afternoon.
MR STEFANIAK (8.06): I rise briefly to support my colleague Mr Jensen in relation to this motion. I will not say any more than I did this afternoon in relation to the setting up of this committee, but I think it is necessary that we have such a committee.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
CLINICAL WASTE BILL 1990
Debate resumed from 22 March 1990.
Detail Stage
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 5 (Crown not liable to prosecution).
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .