Page 3306 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012

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

the minister has outlined the logic for that and the reasons for doing it. They are reasons that we entirely agree with. It is unfortunate that these clauses were not included in the original bill. That said, they have been picked up now. I think that these are commonsense inclusions. We certainly want to ensure that we have the capability of recognising that if somebody moves to the ACT and they have an existing relationship status in another jurisdiction, that carries forward into the ACT and they do not suddenly arrive here and find themselves somehow in some parallel universe. It is entirely appropriate that we insert these amendments.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.27): The attorney’s continuing to repeat that these are merely technical in nature does not make them so. This is a new aspect of the legislation that was not envisaged in the original legislation. It goes to extend the scheme by recognition of other relationships from other jurisdictions. This was not part of the original scheme. If the minister was so intent on getting this done, why could he not have gone through the process of referring this to the scrutiny of bills committee and having it dealt with in an appropriate way according to the standing orders. It is an important matter. This is an important piece of legislation. For the minister to pass it off as purely technical is—

Mr Corbell: Minor and technical.

MRS DUNNE: It is not minor and it is not technical. This is, as I have said before, if anyone cares to—

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Mrs Dunne, you do not need to raise your voice. I am in the middle of asking the government to come to order. I ask both of you to keep the volume down, please. Mrs Dunne, you have the floor.

MRS DUNNE: If members would care to actually read the amendments, and read them into the context of the bill that was introduced, they will see for themselves that these are new matters which are not envisaged in the original legislation. This is not a fix-up. This is not to substitute a word that was misspelt, insert commas or clarify anything. It is new material. On the basis that this has not been scrutinised, the Canberra Liberals cannot support this eleventh-hour introduction of new material into this legislation.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Human Rights Amendment Bill 2012

Debate resumed from 29 March 2012, on motion by Mr Corbell:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.29): When the government first announced that it would be making this change to the Human Rights

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