Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4428 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

that would be significantly better than that of the Government Solicitor! Unfortunately, I made this horrible mistake of going to the Government Solicitor and asking the Government Solicitor for an opinion, instead of Mr Berry! I will certainly know better next time, Mr Speaker! No, I will not, I can promise.

Mr Speaker, the Government Solicitor gave us a legal opinion which suggested that we go down the path of the instrument No. 227 and retrospectively validate the fees and charges that were already in place, the fees and charges that had been determined in the June decision. This legal opinion, as I understand it, was actually provided to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, so the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and Ms Follett are very well aware that the approach we took all the way through was based upon legal advice from the Government Solicitor, not from Mr Berry.

When Ms Follett tabled her Report No. 17 in the house yesterday or the day before, she rightly said:

... the committee has sought and obtained advice from the Government on that question of retrospectivity and on the subsequent question of whether or not those fees and charges were valid.

The committee suggested that section 7 of the Subordinate Laws Act may be a concern. Ms Follett suggested that the Government might like to get further advice to determine whether the legal opinion that Professor Whalan gave the committee or the legal opinion that the Government Solicitor gave is the appropriate way to go.

We have two opinions. The opinion from the Government Solicitor says that this is the appropriate way to go and that section 7 of the Subordinate Laws Act 1989 does not affect this determination, simply because the fees and charges that were paid by the people involved from 1 July were the fees and charges that had been determined. They have been paid, the services have been given and so on. On the other hand, the opinion of Professor Whalan suggests that there may be a problem. Ms Follett, appropriately, went on to say that the committee would like the Government to get back to the committee after getting further advice. The moment that report was tabled in the Assembly, my department sought further advice, not from Mr Berry LLB, not from Master Berry of the Supreme Court, but from somebody who actually does have legal qualifications. Obviously, that was another extreme mistake! We should have gone straight to Mr Berry and asked for the legal opinion!

We are talking about 24 hours ago; but rather than allowing the continuation of the process that was put in place by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, that has been part of the whole approach all the way through, Mr Berry today moves for disallowance. He moves for disallowance of millions of health dollars. Interestingly, apart from coming from the community, a lot of these dollars come from private health funds and those sorts of entities. Those dollars actually keep our health system running. Mr Berry moves for disallowance because he wants to engage in a political stunt this morning in the Assembly.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .