Page 53 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 16 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The need for these amendments arises from the Assembly's failure to pass the Adoption Bill 1992 last year and, instead, to defer consideration of that Bill. Among the numerous technical amendments to a range of Acts included in the Statute Law Revision Bill are a number of amendments consequential upon the provisions of the Adoption Bill. The amendments alter references in other Territory legislation which, had the Adoption Bill been passed, would have been incorrect. As the Adoption Bill is yet to be debated and passed by the Assembly, the consequential amendments to the Artificial Conception Act 1985, the Birth (Equality of Status) Act 1988, the Children's Services Act 1986 and the Testamentary Guardianship Act 1984 relating to that Bill which are included in the Statute Law Revision Bill require removal. I commend the amendments to the Assembly.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
[COGNATE BILL:
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 4) 1992]
Debate resumed from 16 December 1992, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MADAM SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 4) 1992? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 2 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 3.
MR HUMPHRIES (8.23): The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, which we are now considering, was presented in the Assembly late last year. It constitutes what could be described as a reasonably controversial piece of legislation. It is a Bill which, I would argue, is in need of very careful thought and reflection by the Assembly before it passes it into law, if indeed it does at all. One aspect which especially presents difficulty for me, Madam Speaker, is the proposal to abolish the longstanding rule against the unsworn, uncorroborated evidence of children being admitted into court.
Mr Lamont: Are you supporting this Bill?
MR HUMPHRIES: Be patient, Mr Lamont. Madam Speaker, the timing and the handling of this Bill have been a bit disturbing. The Bill was presented by Mr Connolly in the Assembly in December as a very important Bill, a very vital Bill and a very urgent Bill. It was a Bill, apparently, of such importance that it could not wait for two months until the Assembly returned today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .