Page 2303 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the wearing of a licence is likely to be an inconvenience and likely to result in the licence being damaged, dirtied or lost. It is important to note that this amendment does not affect the requirements for bouncers or crowd controllers.
Minor amendments to the wording in the Security Industry Regulation 2003 clarify that a crowd controller’s ID number is unique to that person—rather than to the licensee who employs that person for crowd control activities. This clarifies that members of the security industry may work for more than one employer at more than one location, but do not need more than one ID number to carry out the same activity. There are also consequential amendments in this bill of a number of acts following the recent repeal of section 230 (2) of the Legislation Act 2001. The repealed provision stated that wherever a statutory authority existed, it came with an implied power to delegate that authority. The subsection was repealed because it was deemed unnecessary, as most acts now expressly include the power of delegation. Consequently, the bill reinstates the power of delegation for various statutory positions, including the Commissioner for Fair Trading, the Registrar of Liquor Licences, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, the Registrar of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, and some human rights commissioners.
Finally, there are consequential amendments to the Court Procedures Act 2005. The bill includes amendments to a range of legislation to make ancillary or consequential amendments necessary as part of the harmonisation of court rules project. The bill makes many minor amendments to ensure consistency of language and concepts between acts, as well as amendments to account for provisions that have been moved from one act to the other. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak) adjourned to the next sitting.
Supreme Court (Judges Pensions) Amendment Bill 2006
Mr Corbell, pursuant to notice, presented the bill, its explanatory statement and a Human Rights Act compatibility statement.
Title read by Clerk.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (10.55): I move:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
The Supreme Court (Judges Pensions) Amendment Bill removes uncertainty and inequality in the operation of the law that governs superannuation entitlements and allowances for ACT judges, and reaffirms the longstanding principle, enshrined in legislation, that places the remuneration and entitlements of ACT judges in lock step with Federal Court judges. Both ACT and commonwealth legislation give ACT judges a statutory entitlement to the same remuneration entitlements and allowances, including pension entitlements, as judges of the Federal Court. However, as a consequence of the commonwealth’s superannuation surcharge scheme for judges being placed in two pieces of commonwealth legislation, there exists a theoretical possibility that ACT judges could be subject to double taxation because of problems arising from the legislation. There is also some uncertainty about the application of the surcharge tax to the President of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .