Page 2398 - Week 11 - Thursday, 2 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister) (12.17): I move:
Page 9, lines 5-31, omit the clause.
This amendment relates to annual reports in relation to consultants. It is consequential upon the deletion of part II of the Bill, which we have already voted upon, so it is just to tidy up that provision.
MR HUMPHRIES (12.18): Clearly, as the Chief Minister said, having deleted part II, the Assembly will have to also delete clause 20. But I want to use this opportunity to comment on a point made by the Chief Minister in the course of debate on part II which also relates to this. She said that she accepted the advice proffered to her - or rather proffered to Mr Stevenson - concerning section 65 of the ACT (Self-Government) Act. I want to preface my remarks by saying that I have got every respect for the people in the legislative counsel's office and would not happily tangle with them on matters of legal advice, although I also have worked as an adviser to the Administration on legal matters.
But I have to say I was initially disinclined to accept the view of the legislative counsel that section 65 prevented amendments such as that, and I found the scope that such a view would give to the Government to refuse to accept amendments very large and worrisome. It was pointed out that section 65 has the effect of preventing any amendment to money Bills, if the effect of that amendment was to increase the charge on public moneys of the Territory. It was argued that by consultants being employed, notwithstanding that they came from the same vote that has already been approved or will in future years be approved for the expansion of money on staff, this constitutes a charge on moneys of the Territory.
I must say that I am concerned by that interpretation and I am not sure that the strict application of that interpretation would not, in fact, make it very difficult for a great many Bills put up by this Government to be amended by this Assembly. I do support the remarks by Mr Collaery that this Assembly through its own processes and particularly through the operation of a scrutiny of Bills committee ought to be able to look at Bills, notwithstanding the view of the legislative counsel that they might be ultra vires of powers of this Assembly, and decide for itself whether or not that Bill or amendment ought to be passed.
I have been casting my mind back, on the request of Mrs Nolan, to previous Bills that have been carried by this Assembly and I recall that the Assembly moved certain amendments to the Pesticides Bill back in June or July. I recall also that at one point an amendment was moved from this side of the chamber to provide for additional reporting requirements by government or by the Minister
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .