Page 1223 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and the committee's recommendations. There was considerable press agitation about it. I recall doing media interviews and seeing reports in the Canberra Times and all the rest of it. So people interested in this area, people interested in social justice issues - - -
Mr Moore: That excludes the Liberals.
MR CONNOLLY: As Mr Moore says, that would exclude the Liberal Party. But I had hoped that there would be some members interested in social justice issues who would have been aware that this matter has been under consideration for some time. This model of legislative guarantee of essential services has been under active consideration and members should not have been too surprised at the proposal. Certainly, Mr Moore and Ms Szuty were able to canvass in considerable detail the issues surrounding it, as opposed to having a grizzle that we were bringing up reform proposals too fast.
This is landmark legislation. Perhaps if we were debating this in November or December, I would be quite comfortable about an adjournment for a couple of weeks; but we are debating this in June. It is a Canberra winter. The principal agent which will be affected by this, ACTEW, after discussion with me, has been gearing up with a view to being able to start implementing this measure as soon as it goes through the Assembly. I do not see why Canberra families in crisis should have to endure the threat of their power supply being cut off when we have it within our power to give them the benefit of this remarkable reform. It is in a form that I hope all members would be proud to implement as landmark legislative reform.
I should address a couple of specific points. Ms Szuty raised a concern that clause 18, which is the representation clause, could be interpreted restrictively so as to mean that people must choose between appearing themselves or having an agent. I assure Ms Szuty that that is not the intention of that provision. That is a fairly standard form of clause. It is meant to be interpreted widely. We have adopted the widest form of representation clause. We have not adopted the form occasionally found which specifically excludes certain types of representation. People could be represented by a solicitor if they, for example, called on the aid of the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre or the Legal Aid Office. Welfare Rights, one could well imagine, may be able to offer a service of advocacy before the Essential Services Review Committee.
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee report that Mrs Grassby tabled yesterday raised one issue. Whenever that committee raises concerns, we look at them extraordinarily seriously because of the respect we have for Professor Whalan and members of the committee. We note that he was concerned that a reading of the power of the review committee under clause 22, when compared with clause 26, could suggest that the committee can discharge liability only for a total amount rather than for partial amounts. I am advised that that is not the intention, as can be understood from a literal reading of clause 22. It talks about a specified amount. Therefore, if a bill is for, say, $200, the committee could discharge liability for the specified amount, say $150, leaving $50 to be paid.
It is, on balance, probably prudent to pick up Professor Whalan's comments and clarify that. I have circulated a brief amendment which I will be moving in the detail stage to subparagraph 22(a)(ii). It proposes to delete the phrase "all liability in respect of the account", which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee felt could give
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .