Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 544 ..
MR STEFANIAK: Scrutiny Report No 4 contains the committee's comments on six bills, 24 pieces of subordinate legislation and one government response. I commend the report to the Assembly.
MR HARGREAVES: I ask for leave to make a statement on this report, as a member of the committee.
Leave granted.
MR HARGREAVES: I wish to draw the attention of the newer members of the Assembly to this report. It provides two examples of issues that were of concern to the last Assembly. The first one was the possibility of having a charge levied through subordinate legislation-and members who were here last time would remember the angst that we went through about that, concerning the difference between a tax and a charge. A charge, clearly, is an amount levied in direct relation to the service being received. A tax has no relationship at all to that, and there is an example in the scrutiny report of how a tax would be applied.
The other example is a Henry VIII clause. For new members, I recommend the report to you for a good example of what constitutes a Henry VIII clause. That was also discussed quite extensively during the last Assembly. Essentially, we have to be particularly careful not to become connected with other jurisdictions, and not have any control over laws in another jurisdiction that may apply automatically in the ACT.
The legal adviser has given quite a good example of this, and I would draw that matter to the attention of members. I wish I had had the benefit of such advice when I first attended this place.
Crimes Amendment Bill 2001 (No 2)
Debate resumed from 19 February 2002, on motion by Mr Stanhope:MR WOOD (Minister for Urban Services and Minister for the Arts) (10.35): I adjourned the debate, Mr Speaker, anticipating further speakers. If there are no further speakers on this issue, Mr Stanhope will be able to close the debate.
Ms Tucker: No, we want it adjourned.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Tucker?
Ms Tucker: Well, would you like me to move the adjournment?
MR WOOD: No, I think the matter should be debated.
Ms Tucker: Well, can I speak to that please, Mr Speaker?
MR SPEAKER: You can speak to the bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .