Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 297..
Tuesday, 27 February 2001
MR SPEAKER (Mr Cornwell) took the chair at 10.30 am and asked members to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.
Justice and Community Safety-Standing Committee
Alteration to reporting date
Motion (by Mr Hargreaves, by leave) agreed to:
That the resolution of the Assembly of 31 August 2000, as amended on 30 November 2000, referring the Defamation Bill 1999 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety for inquiry and report, be amended by omitting "last sitting day of February 2001" and substituting "1 May 2001".
Scrutiny Report No 2 of 2001 and statement
MR HARGREAVES: I seek leave to present Scrutiny Report No 2 of 2001 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I thank members. I present the following report:
Justice and Community Safety-Standing Committee (incorporating the duties of a Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation Committee)-Scrutiny Report No 2 of 2001, dated 27 February 2001.
I ask for leave to make a statement.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, Scrutiny Report No 2 of 2001 contains the committee's comments on three bills and 67 subordinate laws and four government responses. I want to draw the Assembly's attention to two issues which arose out of consideration of Determination No 378 of 2000 regarding the Road Transport (General) Act and the Road Transport (Third Party Insurance Regulations) 2000. This determination was signed off by the minister, and it altered the provision of third party coverage during the Summernats. I want to advise members of the advice that we received, which I think would be useful for members, and it relates to the process of the disallowance of a subordinate law.
It was thought originally that, if a subordinate law was disallowed, it was regarded as having never existed. Our advice is that that is not so. The action of disallowance actually repeals a determination, and I think it us useful for members to be aware of that distinction. For example, where a charge has been levied by the government under regulation, there has been some discussion on what happens if that regulation is disallowed in terms of the refund of those charges where people have paid them. This