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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1140 ..

So, we have to recognise that, if there is going to be any kind of balance in that system, we have to preserve it. Let us not let Mr Berry upset that balance and provide for a winding back of the clock to the old-fashioned Labor ideology, which is discredited in today's Australia.

MR SPEAKER: Are you moving your amendment, Mr Humphries?

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes. The amendment is simply intended to add another consideration, explicitly for the committee to consider any economic or employment benefits, if any, that may come out of this proposal. I move:

After proposed subparagraph (1)(f) insert the following subparagraph:

"(fa) any economic or employment benefits of the new private hospital;".

Amendment agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Ms Tucker) adjourned.

MR WOOD (12.38): Mr Speaker, I present Report No. 4 of 1997 of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation. I move:

That the report be noted.

Mr Speaker, in the eight years of this Assembly, this is the most significant report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The consideration of Determination No. 227 and the resolution of the contrasting views of the committee and the Government demand the most serious consideration by this Assembly. This is an argument in the real tradition of parliaments. The committee asserts most strongly, indeed vehemently, that on this matter the Assembly must asserts its primacy over the Government. I might point out to members that this report was circulated out of session. The committee makes this report in its traditionally bipartisan nature.

Determination No. 227 retrospectively imposed a range of charges for health services as certain charges had been collected without legal authority. Determination No. 227 was designed to remedy the invalid determinations Nos 106 and 136. The committee disagreed with the Government's procedure, arguing that the determination was subordinate law by virtue of subsection 6(19) of the Subordinate Laws Act and that it was restricted from retrospective operation by section 7.

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