Page 3743 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It was the last line which seemed to cause great agitation to Mr Humphries and Ms Szuty. They came to see me in my office a week or so ago about this. I said then, very clearly, that I meant no offence to the committee, but that I thought that it was an appropriate matter for the committee to have looked at. As it turns out, as was made clear in Ms Szuty's remarks, in fact there was an error in so far as the explanatory memorandum indicated that there was no change when in fact there was a change. People on a domestic violence order were automatically entitled to bail, whereas previously they had not been. I had not been aware that what I have described as a technical error translated into an explanatory memorandum error, but it was an error and it could have been picked up by the committee, though they did not do it - and that was no criticism of the committee, nor was it a criticism of me any more than it was a criticism of my advisers. I will accept the responsibility as Minister for the fact that I did not see the error.
Mr Humphries, it seems, is trying to escalate this into a suggestion that I am trying to charge the Scrutiny of Bills Committee with a role of picking up policy. That is not the case, Madam Speaker; but I think that it is appropriate for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, where it sees an unintended consequence as a result of a technical clause in a Bill, to draw it to members' attention.
I will put on the record in this place the argument I used. It is an argument in the extreme, I admit, but an argument which makes the point. Let us use minor amendments to the Lakes Act as an example. I recall some agitation a year or so ago in the First Assembly when we were fiddling around with amendments to the Lakes Act. Using a device which has been used from time to time, let us say that by way of a schedule we repealed Act No. 100 of 1991. The explanatory memorandum would say that the purpose of the Bill was to amend the Lakes Act and, as a consequence, repeal Acts that were no longer necessary. Act No. 100 of 1991 is the Land (Planning and Environment) Act, the key planning Act of the ACT. Would the Scrutiny of Bills Committee draw to the attention of this Assembly the fact that the Lakes Amendment Bill 1992 was throwing out the entire planning package? If the answer to that is yes, then my pointing out that something was missed by the committee is valid.
Mr Humphries: It was clearly unintended.
MR CONNOLLY: "Clearly" is a question of judgment, Mr Humphries. The point is that an amendment which, according to the explanatory memorandum, made no change to the law did change the law. None of us saw that. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee did not see it. I am not criticising the Scrutiny of Bills Committee for not seeing it, because, if the committee had to look at every Bill and check whether it had an effect on every other section of the law, it would never get anywhere. But the point remains that, if an unintended consequence of a technical provision in a Bill comes to the attention of the committee, the committee might legitimately point that out here. That did not happen in this case. That is not a criticism of the committee. I did not see it; my advisers did not see it. Mr Humphries is gracious enough to admit that he did not see it either. I really do not see what you are getting so excited about.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .