Page 4673 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, I mentioned earlier that there are some definitional problems with the Bill, and I would like to give members some indication of what they are. Under the definition of "contract", I consider that the definition that Mr Humphries's Bill provides is very vague. In fact, it may well lead to disputes as to whether a contract exists. The next definition is of "due date". I think that, where Mr Humphries has used the term that the account is "taken to be payable", you should also look at clause 6 of his Bill, because clause 6 does not actually say what "payable" means, and you have to ask: Can an amount be payable if it is not yet due, and what if the account is, say, partly payable? So, there is a definitional problem there.
Further on, at clause 4 of Mr Humphries's Bill, he says:
This Act applies to a contract entered into by the Territory or a Territory authority, whether before or after the commencement of this Act ...
That is clearly a retrospective approach, and I know that, from time to time, other members have found great difficulty with retrospectivity of legislation. Madam Speaker, in subclause 5(2) of Mr Humphries's Bill, he has a definition of "administrative head". Under the Public Sector Management Act we do not have administrative heads. The terminology is "chief executive officer". So, Mr Humphries's Bill has not picked up that later legislation. In clause 6 he has again used the term "payable", but has not included in that clause of his Bill any provision for disputes. Madam Speaker, as I said before, "payable" does not necessarily mean "due". There is a definitional problem there, and you have to ask again: What if the account is partly payable? Do you have no interest if it is partly payable, or what is the arrangement there?
Madam Speaker, on the final clause of Mr Humphries's Bill - clause 10 - I have to say again that the proposed legislation is unnecessary, because the whole of that clause is already covered by purchasing policy and by Treasury directions, and I do not consider that Mr Humphries has shown that those mechanisms have proved to be defective or that his Bill is in any way superior. So, Mr Humphries has not addressed the fundamental concerns that the Government has with his legislation, although I accept his good intentions and, indeed, I share fully his intentions in drawing this matter to attention.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.58): Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed in the Chief Minister's comments, because they indicate, I think, to be frank, a desire not to take this matter seriously and to deal with these matters in a less than forthright fashion. I was criticised earlier today for dealing with amendments to the proportional representation Bill, which is on the program today, without giving a great deal of notice to the Chief Minister. This Bill has been on the table for some months.
Mr Moore: Since 20 April.
MR HUMPHRIES: From 20 April, in fact. I have indicated in previous debates that I am very happy to discuss my Bill with the Chief Minister. She raised a couple of matters in the debate on the last occasion, a couple of months ago. I have addressed those matters. Today she comes back and raises other matters which she says should have been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .