Page 1440 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
opportunity for members of the Assembly to abuse the procedures needlessly by giving notices to disallow in respect of large numbers of subordinate instruments, thereby obstructing both government and Assembly business. I would, however, trust that members would take a more responsible approach to Assembly time.
At this juncture, I want to draw attention to the move today by Mr Berry to disallow Determination No. 8 of 1991, purportedly because it deals with matters done by Mr Bissett when he was functus officio or something to that effect. I am not clear as to the arguments. I do not want to jump the gun on those issues, other than to say that there was a clear bell sounding on the front bench of the Opposition just as we introduced this deemed disallowance provision. Frankly, I am worried. We know Mr Berry. We understand the hard manner in which he plays the game in this Assembly and his very astute use of the rules and standing orders. There is a warning to us here that Determination No. 8 of 1991 - from a glance at 11.30 last night with Mr Humphries - covers some matters that should not be disallowed frivolously and capriciously, simply because Mr Berry wishes to take a political point off Mr Humphries, or the then Minister's administration.
I warn the Opposition and, in particular, Mr Berry that we have entered this process put forward by Mr Connolly in good faith. I have discussed with the entire Alliance Government, in our joint party room, what our response will be. I say to Mr Berry, as I believe he has already intimated his intent, that if he brings forward needless point scoring disallowances of determinations to secure other purposes, such as to add political odium to someone in the Assembly, he will subvert the process. If you look at Determination No. 8 of 1991, you will see that it deals with matters profoundly in the public interest; it deals with community and people's rights, and those rights should not be overthrown simply to make a whimsical political statement in this Assembly.
Mr Speaker, there may be members of the public who do not understand what constitutes subordinate legislation. For the benefit of those people, I would like to explain briefly that subordinate legislation is legislation or instruments made by some body or person other than the Assembly. It is usually the Executive or a Minister and it is done under authority given to that person, or body, by statute. A good example is Determination No. 8 of 1991 purportedly made by the Chief Executive of the Board of Health, Mr Bissett, which was spoken to in the Assembly earlier today.
Subordinate legislation, in its widest sense, comprises a wide variety of instruments such as regulations, rules, determinations, directions or orders. I anticipate some crafty debate in this Assembly as to the nature of what some of us may perceive to be subordinate legislation. I say again to this house: All of this is a boomerang. It
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .