Page 3199 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
parliamentary counsel. Eighty acts and regulations are amended. Schedule 4 provides for routine repeals.
I will briefly address the amendments covered in each of the four schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Environment Protection Act 1997 to enable the repeal of expired notifiable instruments. Undated instruments will be considered to have expired six months after the date of notification. Repealed instruments will be listed in the legislation register under the “repealed” heading. Schedule 1 also amends the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 to provide that particular officials—the chief psychiatrist, the care coordinator, a mental health officer or the official visitor—are not civilly liable for conduct under the act engaged in honestly and without recklessness.
Schedule 2 amends section 60 of the Legislation Act to provide that statutory instruments added to the register under section 19(3), which deals with the contents of the register—that is, “additional material”—should be named correctly, as is the case with legislative instruments. This will apply to “additional material” entered in the register because the PCO considers it is likely to be useful to users of the register—for example, appointments of public servants to statutory bodies. Schedule 2 also makes a number of other minor, non-controversial amendments, some of which are consequential on the amendment I have just discussed; others of which serve to clarify, provide consistency or introduce new definitions, some of which are consequential on other previous legislative amendments.
Schedule 3 provides for a range of minor technical amendments that are non-controversial. They involve the correction of minor errors, updating language, improving syntax—something I am always in favour of—minor consequential amendments, and other changes.
Schedule 4 lists a large number of notifiable instruments issued under the Environment Protection Act 1997 that have served their purpose and are no longer needed. They will be transferred from the “current” list in the legislation register to the “repealed” list.
This bill is another example of the fine work of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The people there take great care to ensure that the ACT’s statute book is contemporary, accessible and consistent. I am pleased to have the opportunity once again to congratulate the parliamentary counsel for their dedication to the achievement of these qualities. Their close eye on the ACT’s statute book is an important and valued service. The opposition is pleased to support the bill.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.04): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this bill, and I wish to make a few brief comments. The bill is described as making minor or technical amendments that are non-controversial, and I believe that is an accurate description of it. And this is also a case where the sum total of the bill is greater than its individual parts. By that, I mean that the broad policy reasons underlying this amendment bill are of public importance which would not be evident if you were to read the clauses in isolation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .