Page 3739 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Indeed, we are still waiting for Mr Humphries to call the important meeting that will once again change the direction of the Liberal Party in this Assembly. That cannot be far away now, whether it is this week or next week or before Christmas, which seems to be the typical time to do it. Like all your arguments here, this is based on prejudices, misconceptions and absolutely no logic.
MADAM SPEAKER: The time for the matter of public importance has concluded.
SCRUTINY OF BILLS AND SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION -
STANDING COMMITTEE
Report
MRS GRASSBY (4.21): I present report No. 19 of 1992 of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation. I move:
That the report be noted.
Report No. 19 contains the committee's comments on two Bills, four pieces of subordinate legislation, a government response and comments relating to the Bail Act 1992. I commend the report to the Assembly.
MS SZUTY (4.21): I wish to draw members' attention to some statements in report No. 19 of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation. I understand that the report is being delivered to members at the moment. I refer to the second last page and the following statement on the Bail Act 1992:
The Committee noted the comments in The Canberra Times by the Attorney-General in relation to the Bail Act 1992. The Attorney was reported as saying in relation to an oversight in the Act that it "was missed by the Labor Government, the Opposition and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee".
As all members are aware, the committee does not make any comments on the policy aspects of the legislation that it examines. The committee considers that this matter is not one on which the committee would comment. The reason for the inclusion of these statements in the report arises from the statements made by the Attorney-General in the Canberra Times. The Attorney-General has every right to refer to the oversight in the new Bail Act 1992 as a mistake that was missed by the Labor Government, the Opposition and, for that matter, Independent members, including me.
What is questionable is his comment that the mistake was missed by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Since the Attorney-General's statements appeared in the Canberra Times, committee members - along with our adviser, Professor Douglas Whalan - have gone over our reports, the Bail Act, the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Act and the explanatory memorandums provided, to see whether we could detect where the mistake or oversight occurred. Three statements in the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1992 explanatory memorandum are relevant to note here. I quote from page 2, the outline:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .