Page 1696 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 3 May 2005

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

competitiveness of the CISAC facility, which includes many of these facilities. Support for the idea is reflected in recommendation 4 of the committee’s report I table today. This recommendation emphasises the need for access to the leisure centre for persons with a disability to fully comply with the relevant standards and guidelines. I commend the report to the Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Statute Law Amendment Bill 2005

Debate resumed from 17 March 2005 on motion by Mr Stanhope:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (11.45): Initially, I had a five-page speech on this but, looking at the time, I think it is probably rather ridiculous to give that. This is one in a series of bills that: firstly, makes some minor non-controversial amendments initiated by agencies; secondly, makes structural amendments to the Legislation Act and the Legislation Regulation, as initiated by the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office; and, thirdly, makes some technical amendments, also initiated by the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office. I thank the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office for coming and giving me a briefing on this largely non-controversial legislation.

I note on this one that the Chief Minister is going to move one amendment in relation to the University of Canberra Act. That is going to be dealt with in a different bill and we are certainly supportive of that. Looking through this bill, it does make, as I said, some minor amendments. One that I note with interest, and which might interest some people here, is the amendment to the Domestic Animals Act 2000. That act currently provides that a cat curfew may operate between stated times. This amendment is to make it clear that a cat curfew can operate on a 24-hour basis. I would be interested in getting feedback on how the cat curfew is working—if it is working at all. It might be something that is virtually impossible to police but I would be interested in receiving some feedback on that. That does not seem to be a particularly problematic amendment so the opposition will be supporting this particular piece of legislation.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.47): Mr Speaker, I support this bill and acknowledge the importance of the technical amendments program. It is laudable to continue to improve the quality of the ACT statute book so that our laws are kept up to date and accessible to the public. I recognise that the integrity of the Statute Law Amendment Bill has been protected by the removal of proposed amendments to the University of Canberra Act 1989, after it was found that these amendments could be controversial. All other proposed amendments appear to be minor, technical and non-controversial and, as such, they have our support. I see particular benefit in the changes to the structural amendments of Legislation Act, which will potentially simplify the development and presentation of amendment bills.

MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (11.48), in reply: I thank members for their support. This bill carries on the technical amendments program that continues to develop a simpler, more coherent and accessible statute book for the

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