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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4434 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I have looked at the opinion of Professor Whalan and I have looked at the opinion of Mr Jarvis of the Government Solicitor's Office. Although I am a lawyer myself, I do not indicate any preference for either view. Mr Berry has a very clear view of what is the right view, but I, as a humble trained lawyer and Attorney-General, do not express a view about it. I really would not like to guess which of those two gentlemen, both of them learned in the law, is correct. In fact, I should point out that even as late as today Mr Jarvis, a principal legal officer in the Government Solicitor's Office, has confirmed - - -

MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 77.

Motion (by Mr Humphries) agreed to:

That the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Jarvis, as late as today, has confirmed his view that the determination made by the Chief Minister is, in fact, a valid way of effecting this change. I quote his advice:

Finally, if there is a problem it can be dealt with by legislation - but we need - - -

Ms Follett: Hear, hear! Do it.

MR HUMPHRIES: Let me read what he goes on to say:

but we need to await the legal advice to see whether that is really necessary. My preliminary advice is that it is not.

Mr Speaker, I pose the question to the Assembly: What is the point of the Government employing a small army of lawyers if we choose to disregard their advice on the basis of what the Chief Minister has accurately called a political stunt on the floor of the Assembly from the Labor Party? Our advice says that the course of action we have taken is the right one. Professor Whalan does not say that the course of action we have taken is certainly wrong. He says, and I quote from his report:

The Committee respectfully suggests that the validity of the retrospective effect of Determination No. 227 be reconsidered.

That is what he says. He does not say that it is certainly wrong. I know from service on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee that Professor Whalan very rarely says that the Government or a particular piece of legislation is certainly wrong. He says, "I suggest that there be reconsideration". Sometimes Professor Whalan has suggested reconsideration, has been told that the reconsideration has resulted in an affirmation of the original course of action and has accepted that point of view. This may be the case here. The point is that I do not know. I do not know which it is. I do not think the Assembly should be asked to sit as a court of appeal and decide between two different legal opinions. The appropriate course of action - - -

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