Page 3223 - Week 11 - Thursday, 12 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Children's Services (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1991 is a simple machinery Bill which amends the Children's Services Act 1986 to record that the youth advocate has merged with the community advocate. On commencement of the substantive provisions of the Community Advocate Act 1991, the community advocate absorbs the title and functions of the youth advocate. There is no change to the existing functions of youth advocacy apart from this change of name. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Collaery) adjourned.
CROWN SUITS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (10.56): Mr Speaker, I present the Crown Suits (Amendment) Bill 1991. I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
The preparation of this legislation amending the Crown Suits Act was agreed to by the previous Government. Mr Speaker, the purpose of the Crown Suits (Amendment) Bill 1991 is to modify section 8 of the Crown Suits Act 1989 to make it clear that the section does not change the substantive rights of the Territory and other parties to a suit, but only deals with matters of procedure.
Not all Acts enacted by the Territory are intended to apply to the Territory as Crown. When it is intended that an Act will apply to the Territory it will contain a clause which explicitly states that intention. The certainty of application of a statute which this drafting convention promotes has been undermined by two High Court decisions concerning a similar Commonwealth section, to the effect that all legislation applies to the Crown as it does to a subject.
The decisions of the High Court in Maguire v. Simpson in 1977 and Commonwealth v. Evans Deakin Industries Ltd in 1986 concerned section 64 of the Commonwealth's Judiciary Act 1903. Section 64 is similar to section 8 of the Territory's Crown Suits Act 1989 and, consequently, those decisions put the effect of the Territory provision into similar doubt.
These decisions result in the Crown in right of the Territory automatically becoming subject to all Territory statutes, even if this was not intended by the legislature when enacting a statute. The liability of the Territory to a statute will become a matter of implication and uncertainty, rather than requiring an express, and certain, term in the statute.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .