Page 566 - Week 02 - Thursday, 16 February 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I rise today to speak to this motion that I think will provide some guidance to members of the Assembly about the importance of understanding the nature of amendment bills such as CLABs, SLABs, PABELABs et cetera. These omnibus pieces of legislation are a very useful tool to make minor policy and technical changes. But I refer back to 2011 and the introduction of the first PABLAB. Minister Barr, now the Chief Minister, introduced the PABLAB debate by saying:
… this PABLAB debate is an effective and flexible tool to consolidate minor, non-controversial amendments to the building and planning legislation and, in my view, provides a practical and expedient response to amend minor technical and typographical errors, to clarify uncertainties, to remove redundancies and to address minor policy challenges.
That was on 5 May 2011. I think this is the understanding that most of us have proceeded with: “Minor technical typographical errors, to clarify uncertainties, remove redundancies and to address minor policy challenges.” Certainly for us in the opposition, that is the basis upon which we have looked at these omnibus amendment bills when they have come through.
But there are instances where these omnibus bills contain more than what some may see as minor technical or typographical et cetera changes. In just the last Assembly alone the government often put legislation through the omnibus process that could have had significant consultation and debate associated with it, for example, changes to planning legislation, to statute law, to crimes legislation.
This can be complicated and can have a significant impact on the relevant sector and on the public of the ACT, even if they may appear at first blush to be minor. So it is important that the government consults all the stakeholders and the wider community before changes are made.
We have also had some instances where, in effect, some members have accused the government of trying to sneak through changes in an omnibus bill without proper consultation. We may have had 10 changes proposed in an omnibus amendment bill. Nine of them may well have been minor or technical in nature, but a 10th may have been far more comprehensive a change.
Some bills should not carry amendments of a substantive or controversial nature. Sometimes we have seen changes or amendments that are much more substantive than those made in other schedules. There is a risk that they may push the boundaries of the omnibus legislation.
I will repeat that the purpose of the omnibus bills is to make minor technical and non-controversial changes. In some cases it may be as simple as where there is an existing reference, for example, to section 2(c). Other changes may mean that 2(c) is incorrect and it should be 2(b). They are minor changes and they do not change the intent of the legislation.
I referred at the start of my speech today to the words that the present Chief Minister used to describe omnibus legislation back in 2011, “a practical and expedient response
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video