Page 291 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, given that the Government did not see fit to take that sensible course of action and have a single Inquiries Bill, we would have to concede that as you have established a Royal Commissions Bill it would be pointless of us to suggest that we do not have an Inquiries Bill because a royal commission into a very minor and trivial matter of administration, given particularly that you have retained the provision that it can be headed only by a judge or a senior legal practitioner, would be a hammer cracking an egg shell.
We proposed the course of efficiency and economy. It has been rejected by the Government and, therefore, we would propose not to vote against this Bill. As you have not seen fit to adopt our more efficient, economical and sensible provision, we will have to inflict two Bills on the people of the Territory; otherwise we would be requiring a royal commission into every minor matter of administration.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND INQUIRIES (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1990
Debate resumed from 13 December 1990, on motion by Mr Collaery:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR CONNOLLY (12.22): Amendments have been circulated in my name to amend this consequential provisions Bill. They were amendments which would have been necessary had the Assembly adopted our amendments to the principal Bill, that being the Royal Commissions Bill. Given that the Assembly has retained the title "Royal Commissions Bill" and that we have passed the Inquiries Bill, I will not move those amendments as circulated in my name. They have been overtaken by events.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .