Page 4357 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 21 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, even if the Government were to accept Mr Connolly's advice, I could not accept that, just because the matter was not justiciable, the Assembly could disregard its obligation to properly comply with the procedural requirements imposed on us by section 65 of the Federal Act. To do so would be quite improper. In my view, it is incumbent upon the Assembly to come to a conclusion as to the correct interpretation of section 65 and, once that has been decided, to consistently abide by that interpretation. I remind the Assembly, and particularly the Opposition, that it cannot have two-bob each way.
While the Opposition wants to accept Mr Brazil's opinion, it will not accept his further advice in his covering letter addressed to the Clerk of Legislative Assembly, which I will read into the record:
Your letter of 4 October asked whether in my view further advice should be sought from a Queen's Counsel on the matter. I think that would be an appropriate course in the circumstances, but the final decision on the matter is one for the Committee.
This Government having accepted Mr Brazil's advice, I have no doubt that the Opposition will go out and say, again, that we have gagged debate for our own purposes. Certainly, for these reasons, the Government has decided that the proper and prudent course of action is to refer the issue to queen's counsel with experience in the area of constitutional law for a final opinion. To this end, the ACT Government Solicitor has engaged Mr Jackson of queen's counsel, a former Federal Court judge, to provide a further opinion on the matter. The questions which I have requested should be put to Mr Jackson are the following: Do private members' Bills dealing with the Ainslie Transfer Station and school closures infringe section 65? If so, were those Bills to be passed by the Assembly and to become enactments, could the validity of those enactments be legally challenged? That is the justiciable issue that I have been debating with Mr Connolly. And, finally, is there sufficient doubt as to the operation of section 65, and its justiciability, to make it prudent for the ACT Government to seek to have section 65 amended to more closely reflect section 56 of the Australian Constitution and to put the matter beyond doubt?
I now wish to respond to Mr Berry's comments that the Government, and particularly the Residents Rally, is afraid to debate these issues. On today's notice paper, I point out, there are a number of motions relating to school closures. They will, no doubt, be debated. So, the Government is not at all afraid to debate those issues.
If members look at the notice paper, they will notice a matter of public importance set down for this afternoon that covers the health debate. So it is absolute fiction
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .