Sio Hon Aupito WilliamSTATUTES AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I move That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a second time.The bill as reported back amends 46 Acts administered by various Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill have received unanimous cross-party support. The bill and the process undertaken is a good demonstration of all parties working together.The bill was reported back by the Governance and Administration Committee on 24 May 2019. I thank the committee and the chair Brett Hudson for the careful consideration of the bill. The committee received and considered eight submissions on the bill with seven submissions supporting the intent of the respective amendments. One submission was received from an interested member of the public which did not relate to any part of the bill. The committee did not recommend making any changes to the bill following the submission. The committee's report recommended a number of changes to amendments in the bill as it was introduced. I support these recommendations and will now detail some of the changes to the bill.Many of the recommendations were designed to correct drafting errors and incorrect references—for example the recommendations made to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 and the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 will correct their cross-reference errors. Some recommendations reflect the legislative programme as a whole—for example the recommendations the committee made to remove Part 9 relating to the Coroners Act 2006 and clause 50 relating to the District Court Act 2016 of the bill—reflect the provisions contained in the Contempt of Court Bill which is currently before the House and will when passed restore the full power of coroners to punish for contempt occurring in the courtroom and replace the old contempt provisions for judicial officers with new ones.Some recommendations make non-controversial and supported improvements to the way some Acts work in practice such as the recommended change to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The Act currently requires infringement fees to be paid at a specified address. The recommended change would clarify that the requirement that payment of an infringement fee may be made at a specified address need not involve payment in person at a physical address. It means that legislating governing infringement regimes can explicitly authorise payment by any method the agency offers.The committee also recommended inserting a new provision to clarify that infringement and reminder notices can specify more than one method of payment. This would reflect modern methods of payment such as online banking and legitimise the wide range of payment methods currently being used.Another example is the recommended amendment to the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 which would replace the reference to 28 days" with "20 working days". Different time frames have inadvertently been prescribed for applying for a rehearing of a disputes tribunal decision: the Disputes Tribunal Rules 1989 prescribe the time frame as "20 working days" while the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 still prescribes the time frame as "28 days". The recommendations will replace the reference of "28 days" with "20 working days".These examples mentioned demonstrate the value of a statutes amendment bill as a vehicle for advancing minor technical non-controversial legislation. I endorse the recommendation of the committee thank the committee for their work and commend this bill to the House."