Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2017 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 11 May 2017) . . Page.. 1760 ..
mediator but not the cost of the applicant’s legal fees. Again this is a matter of clarification in keeping with the original intent of the new scheme. The amendments are straightforward. They are reasonable. They are practical. They will ensure that the operations of the new scheme are efficient, effective and manageable.
Taken as a package, this bill is yet another example of continuous improvement. It will help to achieve better outcomes for the Canberra community. It will improve access to justice for the survivors of child abuse and people in need of legal assistance, and it increases support for people with gambling problems. It reduces red tape for Canberra’s home owners and businesses and makes a wide range of legislative improvements to ensure that our laws are operating as effectively, efficiently and smoothly as possible. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Clause 1 agreed to.
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for Regulatory Services, Minister for the Arts and Community Events and Minister for Veterans and Seniors) (6.49), by leave: Pursuant to standing order 182A(b), I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 that are minor or technical in nature together [see schedule 7 at page 1793].
I table a supplementary explanatory statement to the amendments. The amendments correct a matter in the drafting to ensure that the amendments made to the Public Unleased Land Act 2013 do not commence before the Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 18, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (6.50): We will be opposing this clause, as I indicated. I will make a couple of brief comments. Firstly, I remind Mr Ramsay—and he may be unaware of this perhaps—that the Labor Party was dragged kicking and screaming to this point to get this FOI law up. It was a rare case of harmony back then, in 2016, just prior to an election when you can get things out of the Greens. It was the Greens and the Liberals that brought this forward and introduced this legislation. My suggestion would be: be careful of taking too much credit for something that the Labor Party fought against all the way.