Page 275 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Bill provides for a board to hold hearings which are to be held in public, subject to a direction of the board that because of the confidential nature of evidence before it, or whatever other reason might seem appropriate, a hearing is to be held in private.
The Inquiries Bill is legislation which is essential to good government in the ACT. I am pleased to see that there has been no suggestion from the Opposition that this kind of capacity - whether it is called a royal commission or an inquiry - ought not to devolve to government.
Mr Speaker, the legislation has sat on the table for some two months now. I would hope that it was possible to deal with it quickly. I see that the amendments to be moved by Mr Connolly have arrived. I will look at them with interest. I would hope that they do not cause the Bill to be delayed, because it is important that we have - - -
Mr Wood: You might apologise for what you said before.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am supposed to apologise for something; I am not sure what.
Mr Wood: You were being very caustic and he was right up with you mob.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I have to say that it is entirely appropriate to be caustic about amendments as important as these which are circulated a matter of minutes before the Government is expected to respond - in fact, after the Government is expected to respond to proposals from the Opposition.
I commend these Bills to the Assembly because they do add significantly to the powers of the ACT Government and are important in establishing a basis upon which to deal with difficult and complex situations as they arise in the future.
MR MOORE (11.26): Mr Speaker, it is quite surprising to me that we actually have the two Bills - from this perspective really more than any other: I have understood that Liberal philosophy is to work with minimal legislation where possible. Therefore, if there is a way to create one Bill rather than two, I would have thought that the Liberal Party would be very keen to ensure that that would be the case.
Certainly, one's attitude to royalty must come through in a debate such as this. Whether one actually supports the notion of the constitutional monarchy for Australia and the relationship it bears to this Assembly, of course, does have some bearing on whether or not one would like to call this Inquiries Bill a Royal Commissions Bill. For myself, I would favour dropping of the term "royal".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .