Page 4184 - Week 13 - Thursday, 25 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.21): Madam Speaker, normally in speaking to an amendment you would speak to what the amendment means, but it is clear from the Opposition speeches that this is purely a political stunt. None of them have attempted to explain what this means. It is obviously a piece of political rhetoric that has been drafted by the Opposition or some of their advisers for the purpose of doing their little deal with the Independents. We had a bit of a go at Michael the other day, but at least the Independents do have a certain view on increasing public education which is rather more consistent with what we do. How you Liberals can lie straight in bed and move these motions is beyond me.
Madam Speaker, the points that the Chief Minister made were extremely valid. You do not write an unprecedented amendment to an Appropriation Bill on the back of an envelope and expect it to make sense. You really should get this thing drafted properly. Mrs Carnell was smugly saying, "You should get better lawyers; it is simple enough". Madam Speaker, a very simple piece of language in the Australian Constitution says that trade, commerce and intercourse between the States shall be absolutely free. That is very simple, a little bit of layman's language, as Sir Henry Parkes described it. It has been the subject of - - -
Mr Moore: Yes, I know; but it was actually done by lawyers, was it not?
MR CONNOLLY: No, it was not. It was Sir Henry Parkes, who was not a lawyer, who referred to it as a little bit of layman's language for that reason. It is a simple phrase that has caused the High Court endless confusion. This amendment is totally confusing. What does "use money for the purposes of reducing" mean? We think that we could be at risk of being in breach of this section, and what does it mean if we are in breach of this section, if moneys that we appropriate to the non-government schools - - -
Mr De Domenico: Just ring up one day. We will tell you.
MR CONNOLLY: Mr De Domenico, that demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge. Let me see whether I understand this. The process is that officials, in future, in administering a law, ring up Mr Humphries and say, "Is this what you want, Gary?". Is that what we should do? A very sensible approach! Madam Speaker, say Mr Wood writes a cheque to the Catholic Education Office. If they, at the time, say that they are going to be reducing teacher numbers in this school or that school, does that put Mr Wood in breach of the Act? What does "reducing the number of persons employed as teachers in schools or colleges in the Territory" mean? Does it mean in any school or college? Does it mean globally and collectively across the board?
Mr Moore: Move an amendment.
MR CONNOLLY: Do you want the numbers to remain precisely as they are in each school or college, because that would be one - - -
Mrs Carnell: Obviously not.
MR CONNOLLY: Well, not obviously. It could be read either way. Mr Moore says that perhaps we should amend it to make it clear.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .