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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3792 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

a mechanism that puts in place potential discrimination against employees with regard to long service because clearly they are more costly to the employer than are employees with a shorter amount of service.

Those are the arguments why this Bill should proceed. It is a fair Bill. It is a Bill that places the burden fairly on employers and it makes sure that employees get the entitlements they deserve. I commend the majority recommendation to the Assembly.

MR RUGENDYKE (10.50): I rise to concur with my colleagues on the committee, particularly Mr Corbell, who succinctly gave a precis of our inquiry. I fully support his words. I also recognise Mr Hird's additional comments that were somewhat different from mine and Mr Corbell's. It highlights the strength of this committee that three people from sometimes different philosophical positions can prepare a good report without the need for a dissent. It is the way that committees ought to work, and that is the way that, increasingly, the Urban Services Committee does work.

I commend the Long Service Leave (Cleaning, Building and Property Services) Bill 1999 to the Assembly. It certainly resolves the issues that the inquiry covered and discussed. I fully support this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.


Scrutiny Report No. 16 of 1999 and Statement

MR OSBORNE: I present Scrutiny Report No. 16 of 1999 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety performing the duties of a scrutiny of Bills and subordinate legislation committee. I ask for leave to make a brief statement on the report.

Leave granted.

MR OSBORNE: Scrutiny Report No. 16 of 1999 contains the committee's comments on 10 Bills, three subordinate laws and one government response. Mr Speaker, I will take some time with my speech in relation to this report because it is very important.

The work of the scrutiny of Bills committee on the Supervised Injecting Place Trial Bill 1999 has shown it to be one of the shoddiest pieces of legislation ever put before this Assembly, at least in my time as chair. I should also note for those unfamiliar with the process of the committee that legal assessment is not made by me but by an expert in law employed to assist the committee. He is a reader of law at the Australian National University's Law Faculty and I personally have no idea whether he supports or opposes the ideas behind this Bill. Nor do I care to know. That is not his job. His job is to advise the committee on how Bills stack up as law in light of our civil rights and international obligations, and he is an expert in the field.

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