Page 288 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (12.09): I would like to support the notions that Mr Connolly has put and remind those Liberal members of the Alliance Government that, where it is possible to manage with a single piece of legislation, that is what we should be doing. I would add that the matter of status - the issue that the Chief Minister raised and to which I was listening - is an important issue, but I believe that that status would follow the work of the commissions rather than the notion of tending to establish status first.
We are still a very new Assembly - a new form of government. That is something that we have to earn; not something that we can simply demand, or have demanded of one of our own organisations. It is quite appropriate that we have a single piece of legislation. It is quite appropriate that the name suggested by Mr Connolly be used for a single piece of legislation, taking into account, of course, the removal of clause 6(1).
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (12.10): My short response is to endorse the comments made earlier on this side of the house. I say again to Messrs Connolly and Moore that, were they in government, and were they apprised of the issues and practical aspects of melding these two Acts together, they would understand how chalk and cheese they are in many respects.
Mr Connolly: What respects?
MR COLLAERY: For example, in the Royal Commissions Bill and the Inquiries Bill the procedures for tabling differ. As was drawn out by Mr Moore, the appointees are fundamentally different. The Bills provide different levels of empowerment for the two structures. What you are talking about means that you are going to have a salt and pepper Bill which goes from one thing to another and is not easy to read or work with. There are two short Bills here. Someone appointed as a royal commissioner can go and look at his or her empowerment - or an Inquiries Act. There is a simple, practical issue about the way these Bills were drafted. I can assure members that the issues raised now were considered, but it seems entirely appropriate that they be treated differently.
Indeed, we want the stature to attach to a royal commission if, regrettably, we ever have to appoint one in this Territory. The Royal Commissions Act, as it will become, will, in fact, stand out as such. There is no secret agenda. I think the matters raised on the other side of the house are arguable. However, on the best advice available to the Government we have gone this way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .