Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4750 ..

MR MOORE (4.01): Mr Speaker, I rise again to speak to Mr Osborne's amendment. Since the debate was adjourned I, along with Ms Tucker, have had the benefit of being briefed by Mr Humphries's department about the concern raised by Mr Osborne. Whilst I still consider that the issue raised by Mr Osborne is an important one, my understanding now is that it can be clarified in this way. There is no change at all to the register. So, provided that there is an appropriate person who is clearly identified in the legislation as being approved, they can go back and look at the register and follow the history through the register.

In terms of the birth certificate, Ms Tucker and I were informed that the birth certificate itself is changed quite commonly. It is my understanding that, if somebody changes their name by deed poll, that will be registered on the birth certificate, although that history will not be lost by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Mr Speaker, this clarifies for me the issue that Mr Osborne had raised. Then, in going back through the legislation, I recognised that this is the normal practice. There is no sense in which a record is falsified. The record remains exactly as it was on the register, and that history can be traced on the register by people who are approved to trace it, protecting appropriate privacy where it is necessary. So, Mr Speaker, in this case I shall be voting against the amendment.

I thank Mr Humphries once again for making his officers available to us, and I particularly thank those officers for being very forthright in their explanation and dealing with us, as they always are. It is probably the last opportunity I will get to thank Ministers for this service. That does not apply just to this Liberal Government; it was the same under the Labor Government. Mr Wood is the only member of the previous Cabinet who is in the chamber at the moment. On many occasions, he made available to me the same sorts of briefings.

It is a matter that has become part and parcel of this Assembly and that is always dealt with very carefully. Bureaucrats have easily been able to understand the difference between policy and matters of fact, and have provided advice accordingly. I think that it is one of the most positive elements of this parliament, in contrast with other parliaments. In fact, I am aware of a senior public servant who has gone to another State and who has been warned very clearly by the person's Minister that there is to be no discussion whatsoever with members of the opposition or other members in either the upper house or the lower house of that particular State. I think that we are very fortunate to be able to get to understand legislation better so that we can make more informed decisions when we vote on legislation such as this.

MS TUCKER (4.05): I rise to speak to this again as well. I would like to second what Mr Moore just said. I am very appreciative of the fact that we do get the opportunity to discuss the details of legislation generally with agents of the Government. I think, otherwise, the decisions would not be as well informed. On this particular one, my understanding initially was that it was not falsifying a record. That has been clarified for me. It is, as I had initially thought, correcting a changed situation. The register will contain the history of changes that are made to the birth certificate. So, it is not as if what has actually happened is being lost forever. I am quite happy with it as it is, and I will not be supporting Mr Osborne's amendment.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .