Page 5216 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: No, read them into the record. It is such an important matter.
Mr Wood: Yes, just to see what they are.
MR COLLAERY: My Law Office has had a short time to look at the opinion and this is the Government's response at this stage. Mr Jackson was asked to provide advice to the Government on the following matters:
1. What types of bills, if introduced by members other than Ministers, would infringe s.65? In particular, are the Ainslie Waste Transfer Station Bill 1990, the Royal Canberra Hospital Bill 1990 and the Schools Authority (Amendment) Bill 1990 such bills?
2. If a bill introduced contrary to the provisions of s.65 becomes an Act, can its validity be challenged in a Court on the grounds of non-compliance with s.65?
3. If there is sufficient doubt as to the operation of s.65 and its justiciability to make it prudent for the ACT Government to request that the Commonwealth amend the ACT self government legislation to clarify the situation, if it is desired that the provision operates in the same manner as s.56 of the Constitution.
In short, Mr Speaker, Mr Jackson has advised that in his opinion the text of section 65 ought not to be read down and it is necessary to examine whether the object or effect of the proposals, not the proposer, if implemented, is to dispose of or charge public money of the Territory. Mr Jackson said, in particular:
I regard the issue as one on which different minds may well take different views, and I do not think that there are any considerations of constitutional history, or of the legislative history of s.65, which are decisive either way. My view in the end is that the provision should be given its natural meaning, a meaning not restricted to proposals of a kind which would fall within a provision such as s.56.
So, in short, Mr Speaker, he differs from the opinion of Mr Brazil.
On this basis, Mr Jackson advised that a provision which merely prescribed or regulated conduct could not be characterised as having the object or effect stated in section 65(1). However, Mr Jackson has pointed out that there are questions of degree involved and I draw members' attention to paragraph 12 of the opinion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .