Page 1066 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am grateful to all stakeholders who assist with the refinement of legislation, whether with its initial development or by subsequently providing commentary. Through this collaborative process this Assembly can be confident that matters that have arisen since the first drafting of the legislation are detected and corrected in order that various legislative schemes can operate as effectively as possible.
I make no apology for the fact that it is often not feasible to foresee all implementation eventualities associated with law reform. Once they have been identified, however, it is prudent—indeed, in some cases critical—that the government act promptly to address them to ensure that the Assembly’s intentions are enacted as effectively as possible. That is what this JACS bill does.
While few, if any, of the matters being addressed in this bill are fatal to the operation of any aspect of existing or pending legislation, it is important to prepare to have legislation working as effectively as possible from day one or as soon as practical after that time.
I will not go into the detail of the various acts and the changes to them. These are matters that have been discussed at some length already, except in relation to the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000. I am aware that the scrutiny committee has recommended a change in the provision that addresses how a magistrate should exercise his or her power in deciding whether or not to give police the power of arrest. I believe that the protections already in place in the legislation, together with the normal exercise of a magistrate’s discretion, afford sufficient protection to people who may be the subject of the orders.
However, I am aware of the amendment foreshadowed by Mr Rattenbury. While I believe that this amendment is unnecessary, as the amendment contained in the bill is inherently about reasonableness, it would not be inconsistent to include these words in the provision, and the government will have no objection to that amendment in the detail stage.
I would now like to turn to the issue of the appointments made under the Liquor Act 1975 and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal Act 1997. This bill, as members have pointed out, makes amendments to these acts to ensure the validity of the reappointment of members of the Liquor Licensing Board and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. I think I should first of all point out that these were reappointments. They were not new members being appointed. They were reappointments of existing members. The relevant portfolio committee of the Assembly had, in any event, already scrutinised the appropriateness of these people for appointment. I just make that point.
I made these reappointments last year consistent with the advice I received from my department and on the basis that these bodies needed to sit immediately after the election. I did not hide the fact that I was making these appointments in this manner. On 20 October I sent a letter to the secretary of the relevant standing committee outlining the circumstances affecting the reappointments and explaining that due to an administrative oversight on the part of my department the committee had not been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .