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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1142 ..

MR SPEAKER (continuing):

The Government's major argument is that Determination No. 227, as an instrument of an administrative nature, could be given retrospective effect. If the Government's advice is correct, almost none of the determinations of fees and charges under ACT Acts would be examined by this committee. This would mean that about 25 per cent of all delegated legislation - based on last year's figures - would not be examined by this committee in relation to issues of rights, liberties and the other terms of reference, because they are administrative, not legislative, in nature. As members would be aware, this committee has pointed out numerous problems in determinations of fees over the years, and this would go unchecked if the Government's view were upheld.

I state again that it is the committee's emphatic view that retrospectivity that prejudicially affects citizens should be restricted to Acts that have been debated in parliament. In another circumstance, soon to be debated, I know that this is the Government's - certainly the Attorney-General's - firm view, but not at the moment in respect of Determination No. 227. The Government, in respect of this determination, should acknowledge the principle about retrospective burdens long held by parliaments and seek another means to resolve the problem presented by this determination.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

MR WHITECROSS: My question is to Mr Kaine in his capacity as Minister for Urban Services.

Mrs Carnell: I am really disappointed.

MR WHITECROSS: You cannot have everything. Minister, in the recent ACTEW price determination report handed down by Mr Baxter, Mr Baxter noted:

The determination allows ACTEW to cover its operating costs, fund its capital works, meet its debt servicing obligations and satisfy the Government's dividend expectations while still increasing its net cash holdings.

Minister, was the pricing commissioner made aware of the Government's intention to squeeze $173m out of ACTEW before he determined the price increases? Did he have the opportunity to consider the additional debt servicing obligations that would be imposed on ACTEW as a result of the organisation being looted by Mrs Carnell?

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