Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 2793 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
invested with the power and the discretion to decide what to include in the information, if anything at all. The pages that Mr Stefaniak quoted from Hansard actually go to this very point, and this point was raised in debate.
This is where I think Mr Moore's letter is so self-contradictory. He acknowledged that the advisory panel, the expert panel, was acting strictly within its legal powers, but then went on to say that it was obviously intended by the Assembly - Mr Moore used the phrase "by the Assembly", not "by individual members of the Assembly", speaking for all of us - that there be pictures. The Assembly made no such decision. The Assembly invested a discretion in the advisory panel. In the debate on that particular clause, Mr Moore, responding to advice we had received that very day from Mr Richard Refshauge, the DPP, acknowledged the fact that we were investing a discretion in the advisory panel. Mr Moore, when talking about clause 15, the clause of the Bill that dealt with the powers of the advisory panel, said this:
Clause 15 deals with putting the panel together in order to get the information. That is where the real concern of the DPP comes out. His concern is the way that my amendments have been constructed. It is actually "may" rather than "shall". As members would be aware, "shall" demands, "may" is facilitative.
(Extension of time granted)
Mr Moore: Hey, Jon, I am on your side. I am voting for disallowance.
MR STANHOPE: I am responding to Mr Stefaniak's comments in the debate, Mr Moore. I am making the point that Mr Moore quite clearly pointed out in that debate that the advisory panel was to be given a discretion. I go to the point that Mr Stefaniak made - that it was the clear intention of the Assembly that there be pictures in the information. It quite clearly was not. The only member other than Mr Moore to address this question of "shall" and "may" was my colleague Mr Hargreaves. Mr Hargreaves followed Mr Moore in the debate. Mr Hargreaves addressed the issue directly in debate for the information of all members of the Assembly, and he said this:
Mr Speaker, I take up the point that Mr Moore has just made on the presence of the word "may" instead of "shall". The reason I have sat quietly and listened to most of the people that have spoken so far is that I wanted to satisfy myself that the word "may" did actually apply.
Mr Hargreaves stood up in this place during the debate and said he needed to satisfy himself that the word "may" applied in relation to the powers of the advisory panel. So this bunkum that has been put about that it was always intended that there be pictures can be put to bed just through these two contributions by Mr Moore and Mr Hargreaves. There were speeches in this place applauding the fact that the advisory panel was to be given a discretion and was not to be dictated to in relation to the content of the material.
Mr Hargreaves addressed the issue further and talked about how important it was that there be discretion. In the context of that he foreshadowed the amendments that he proposed to move so that there would be at least some women on the advisory panel.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .