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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 278 ..

Question put:

That Mr Stanhope's amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted-

	 Ayes 7  				Noes 8

 Mr Berry  		Ms Tucker  		Mrs Burke  	Mr Rugendyke
 Mr Hargreaves  	Mr Wood  		Mr Cornwell  	Mr Smyth
 Mr Kaine    					Mr Hird  	Mr Stefaniak
 Mr Quinlan    					Mr Moore
 Mr Stanhope    				Mr Osborne
Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill, as a whole, agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Justice and Community Safety Amendment Bill 2000 (No 2)

Debate resumed from 7 December 2000, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.13): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will support most of this bill which amends a number of bills. Most of the amendments are sensible, for example, the overhaul of the Contractors' Debts Act 1897. It modernises the language of the act and changes the drafting style to make the act much more readable. I look forward to debating with the Attorney the minute detail of the Contractors' Debts Act of 1897 over the next hour or two.

The amendment to the Partnership Act is similarly sensible, particularly in a small place like Canberra where the number of people available to serve the community as directors of private companies and public sector agencies is limited.

I note that the Attorney has tacitly admitted that the drafting of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Bill was not as good as it might have been. It is a pity he did not take the opportunity to correct the other drafting error that caused such heated debate last year. That particular error leaves the door open to inappropriate use of the bill against persons who have committed or are accused of committing minor crimes. The Attorney also said in his presentation speech that the amendment of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act is a technical amendment correcting an error, and the explanatory memorandum says that the words being deleted are meaningless in terms of defining in the section what constitutes excluded forensic material.

Mr Speaker, a close examination of the deleted phrase in its context shows that it is not a technical amendment to delete a meaningless word. I am sorry, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I did not realise that the Speaker had vacated the chair.

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