Page 2821 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES, by leave: I want to support the comments made by the chairperson of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is, perhaps, surprising that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, in its capacity as the body that reviews Bills, as opposed to subordinate legislation of the Assembly, should not generally have the capacity, through its terms of reference, to review the power under which legislation is made. Certainly, in respect of its capacity to review subordinate legislation, it can, and frequently does, consider the power of a Minister to make, for example, legislation under a particular Act of the parliament. But the committee does not have a similar, parallel capacity to examine the basis on which legislation is made. That might appear to be an omission of some kind; but Mrs Grassby makes the point, which we need to bear in mind, that there is a role for our courts in determining whether or not legislation is valid.
There is also the matter of the resources available to determine questions of this kind. Whether legislation is capable of being enacted by the Assembly is a matter of enormous, in some cases, constitutional debate. We have had some debate about this in respect of section 65 of our own constitution, the self-government Act. Unfortunately, it will be an ongoing issue in some cases. It is probably better for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee not to be part of that process. It is better for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to confine itself to the other matters - such as the efficacy of legislation, whether it trespasses on personal rights and so on - which are present in the Act, than also to consider matters of constitutional validity. To suggest that, because the committee has not looked at the question of the capacity to bind the Assembly to referendum results in Mr Stevenson's Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill, it has that capacity is quite fallacious, and the committee took no view on that subject. I have a personal view about that matter; but that, no doubt, will come out when the Bill itself is debated in this place.
MS SZUTY, by leave: I also would like to support the statements made by both of my colleagues on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Mrs Grassby and Mr Humphries. I refer to a media release issued by Mrs Grassby on 11 September to clarify the position of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in relation to the constitutionality of the Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill. Mrs Grassby has appropriately referred to the committee's terms of reference, which do not include jurisdiction for us in relation to this particular issue. I think it is important that the committee has clarified its position in relation to the issue, given the statements which have been made in the public arena and in this Assembly by Mr Stevenson, the proposer of the Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill. In conclusion, I think it is important that the committee has responded to the issues that Mr Stevenson has raised and has set the record straight, for the benefit of the Assembly.
Sitting suspended from 5.07 to 8.00 pm
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .