Page 3164 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 11 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY: The leader of government business is sitting there, muttering away into his fireguard, as he usually does. We do not know what is in their minds. They offer no guidance to the house. They have no idea of running the business. Mr Speaker, may I remind the house that the High Court recently said in the - - -
Mr Berry: You take a long time to get up. He is a rabbit.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Berry!
MR COLLAERY: Mr Berry appears to be afraid of a bite. He thinks someone in the house is rabid, Mr Speaker.
The High Court has recently said of similar provisions, in Brown v. West, reported in 91 ALR at page 202, that an appropriation made by a valid law is the necessary authority for the executive government to take moneys out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. What we have here is the question whether Mr Moore's law would be a valid law. If it is not a valid law, I would hate to be the Treasurer taking money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to support it, even though that Treasurer, as Chief Minister, has turned her back on section 65 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act and allowed an invalid law to pass.
I do not doubt that the Labor Party will oppose Mr Moore's Bill. We, the Rally, will support his Bill. But I do point out, very clearly, as Mr Kaine indicated, that to move a motion to suspend standing order 200 is, in effect, to start the process of setting up an invalid law and a situation where there cannot be a valid appropriation of funds to support the law.
Mr Speaker, clearly the Attorney needs to guide this house. The Attorney is on the spot at the moment. He must indicate to us how he sees his duties and the duties of his party under section 65 of the self-government Act. As the Attorney well knows, this Assembly should not act improperly. That injunction or enjoiner is elsewhere in the self-government Act. In fact, it is one of the precursor conditions to dismissing this Assembly. I think the Attorney and his party, who made such lightness of section 65 when we were in government, are now on the rack. I want to see what their view is. I stress that we should have the debate on Mr Moore's Bill. The Rally will support any attempt Mr Moore can make to get a valid Bill through this Assembly.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.28): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party on this as on other issues is in the unique position in this house of having a consistent and principled approach. We stand alone in that position. In opposition the Labor Party vigorously opposed the opportunistic use by the Government of section 65 of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .