Page 5217 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Jackson concluded that the Ainslie Waste Transfer Station Bill and the Royal Canberra Hospital Bill would necessarily involve the expenditure of Government funds and section 65 would apply in relation to the Schools Authority (Amendment) Bill. In that regard, Mr Jackson says:
The effect of the Schools Authority (Amendment) Act 1990 would be to provide that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority might not close any primary school, high school or secondary college established or conducted by it in accordance with s.6(1)(a). As I understand the position the continued conduct of such schools and colleges would again inevitably involve the expenditure of public funds of the Territory and in my view falls within s.65(1).
In relation to the second question asked of Mr Jackson - that is, could the validity of a Bill introduced contrary to section 65 be challenged in court? - Mr Jackson has concluded, and I am sure that Mr Connolly will note this, that:
... non-compliance with s.65 does not result in invalidity of the enactment.
While I accept, as Attorney, that this is so, I would take the view that the Assembly should not disregard its obligation to properly comply with the procedural requirements imposed on us by section 65 of the Act simply because the issue would not be justiciable and, in that sense, I should say that Mr Jackson has agreed with the view put forward tentatively or certainly, I am not sure, by my colleague, Mr Connolly.
On the third question, Mr Jackson has advised that he thinks there is sufficient doubt about the operation of section 65 and its justiciability to request the Commonwealth to amend the self-government legislation to clarify the situation. He said in his conclusion:
The terms of s.65 are such that their application to particular circumstances will give rise to questions of degree, and it seems undesirable that members of the Assembly, Ministers and the Presiding Officer of the Assembly should be required to deal with the issue by reference to criteria which are expressed with unnecessary generality.
I am aware that the Assembly Standing Committee on Administration and Procedures has requested the Chief Minister to seek the views of the Commonwealth Attorney-General on this matter. The committee may now wish to consider Mr Jackson's advice, which supports the Government Law Office advice, and, in particular, what amendments to section 65 the ACT Assembly should request the Commonwealth to make.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .