Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2947 ..
Question put:
That the bill be agreed to in principle.
Ayes, 8 Noes, 9 Mr Berry Ms Carnell Mr Corbell Mr Cornwell Mr Hargreaves Mr Hird Mr Kaine Mr Humphries Mr Quinlan Mr Moore Mr Stanhope Mr Osborne Ms Tucker Mr Rugendyke Mr Wood Mr Smyth Mr Stefaniak
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clause 1.
Debate resumed from 30 August 2000.
MR RUGENDYKE (4.40): As I stated during the debate on this bill last week, I support the intention of Mr Berry's legislation. The uncertainty which crept into the debate last week was a result of the government's claim that Mr Berry's bill would not achieve the intended purpose. I have taken the opportunity during the period of adjournment to gain further advice. I have assessed the government's opinion. Yesterday Mr Berry circulated a copy of an explanation from Parliamentary Counsel. I have also obtained my own advice. Point 5 of Mr Berry's letter from Parliamentary Counsel says the following:
Proposed new subsection 198B(3) provides that an affidavit in which the only matter sworn is the consent of an aggrieved person to the making of an application by the person's employer is not to be served on another party. This provision would ... distance the person aggrieved from the application.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Rugendyke I think you are making an in-principle speech. We are on the detail stage at the moment.
MR RUGENDYKE: I am sorry. In that case I support the bill. If it does turn out that it needs amendment at some other stage, I will be happy to amend it.
MR OSBORNE (4.41): I support in principle what Mr Berry is attempting to do, but I must admit to being somewhat-
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .