Page 3609 - Week 08 - Thursday, 19 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.22): This is the sixth JACS bill presented and debated since the current Assembly commenced in 2008 and, by that number alone, it is clear that JACS bills form an important role in continually updating and improving our laws. Earlier this year, the Assembly passed a motion that dealt with the accepted practice of using omnibus bills to only deal with amendments that are minor, technical and non-controversial. I am pleased to say that the Greens have analysed this particular bill and agree that it does conform to that understanding.
The changes made in this JACS bill break into two subsets. The first subset of amendments updates the ACT statute book to ensure consistency of language. There are amendments to ensure internal consistency of language within the ACT statute book, just as there are amendments to align the legislative wording with contemporary language.
A good example of this JACS bill catching up with accepted modern language is the change in the Prostitution Act which Mr Seselja has just referred to. As he noted, the current legislative language refers to “sexually transmitted disease” which is an outdated term and has been for some time now. Current terminology refers to “sexually transmissible infection” and the act is updated to reflect this. This is a change in language that reflects current norms and it is entirely appropriate that the statute book catch up.
The second subset of amendments is designed to ensure the legislation operates in practice as was originally intended. The key example of this approach is the amendments to the Magistrates Court Act relating to issuing arrest warrants for non-appearance at court. A loophole has emerged in the legislation for defendants who attend court at the first hearing but fail to attend a second hearing. An arrest warrant can be issued by the court for a defendant who fails to show for their first court date. However, for someone who fails to show for a second date, there is a more complex and lengthy process of issuing an arrest warrant. This is an unnecessary duplication of court time and money and the Greens are pleased to support this rectification.
Finally, there has been a late amendment presented by the government that relates to the Firearms Act 1996. The amendment relates to the time frame in which temporary international firearm licences are issued to security staff travelling with internationally protected people. Under international law, this term essentially refers to a head of state. The current legislation would require the applicant to wait 28 days before being able to carry a firearm in the ACT when travelling with a head of state. The amendment gives the ACT Attorney-General the ability to grant an international licence earlier than the 28-day period. My office did seek further information from the ACT attorney’s office and I thank them and the department for providing that.
What we are now clear on is that before a diplomatic contingent travels to Australia they must first be granted an authority to import a firearm. This authority is granted by the federal Attorney-General and there are stringent criteria to be satisfied. However, the federal Attorney-General cannot grant an import authorisation until satisfied they have a licence from the states and territories they are travelling to. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video