Page 3389 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: Dressing first, of course. I think it is generally agreed, even by the Liberals, through Robyn Nolan, but not by the Leader of the Opposition, that we need to move to reduce the water allowance. The sensible proposal, we would argue, is that it be done by the authority having the power to set the allowance, which means that we do not have to come back to this Assembly from time to time. It can be done flexibly; it can be introduced. The Minister, I think, ought to retain the power to overrule that if the authority is proposing something preposterous, but at the end of the day I think the Assembly should have the final say.
Interestingly, both Mr Duby, in his remarks, and I in my original remarks assumed that the Assembly would have the ultimate control. When I checked with the Law Office and asked whether this determination was a disallowable instrument, the answer was, "Well, it is somewhat unclear; it probably is not". I think it is sensible that this Assembly make it abundantly clear that at the end of the day the Assembly can overturn such a variation. That is a proper and fair and democratic proposal, and I think it should answer Mr Moore's concern that we are abdicating responsibility.
Mr Moore says that it is not as satisfactory, if it is a disallowable instrument, as if the Assembly had to initiate debate on the subject. I would remind the Assembly that last year the Alliance Government accepted a private member's Bill which was moved from the Labor Opposition and which provided for the deemed disallowance of subordinate legislation unless there is an affirmative vote of the Assembly supporting the move. What that means is that if ACTEW proposed a silly reduction in water allowance, if ACTEW proposed as a dastardly revenue measure to reduce the allowance to - - -
Mr Duby: Or an irresponsible government proposed an increase.
MR CONNOLLY: Or an irresponsible government proposed an increase. Let us take it the other way, that ACTEW proposes to reduce it to 20 kilolitres; the Minister thinks there is some revenue in this, so the Minister agrees, and it is tabled. All that has to happen is that one member moves disallowance. Then, unless the Assembly affirmatively votes to support that subordinate law, it will be disallowed. It would be then incumbent upon the government that wants to keep the silly regulation to bring the debate on, find time for the debate and marshal support to get the subordinate legislation through. So, given the way that we have reversed the subordinate laws disallowance provision, I would say to the Assembly that a disallowance provision in this legislation would satisfy the legitimate concerns of members of this Assembly that we are otherwise abdicating a power to an arm of the Executive Government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .