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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2037 ..

Debate resumed from 9 April 1997, on motion by Mr Berry:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Minister for Health and Community Care) (10.43): Mr Speaker, charges for hospital and related services were imposed under the Health Act 1993 on 1 July 1996, the day the Health Act 1993 was repealed in favour of the Health and Community Care Services Act 1996. Repeal of the Health Act made the fees that had been determined under that Act invalid. In order to rectify this, a retrospective determination was made under the Health and Community Care Services Act 1996 to validate the health fees. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised concerns about the imposition of retrospective fees under subordinate legislation. Mr Berry then moved to disallow the retrospective determination of fees. New fees have since been imposed correctly under the Health and Community Care Services Act 1996. Mr Berry has since discharged his disallowance motion and, instead, introduced a Bill to validate the fees that were collected during the time in which the invalid fees were in operation.

We do not believe, and certainly it is our legal advice, that this Bill is necessary in any way. The Assembly has already spent considerable time on this issue and does not want to waste further time. With this in mind, the Attorney-General will shortly be moving Government amendments to the Bill which deal with a related issue concerning fees collected by the ACT Ambulance Service and other related fees that fall into the same sort of category. As members will remember, on 5 December 1996 Mr Berry moved a motion of disallowance. We believe very strongly, and certainly it is our legal advice, that the actions that we have taken are right. The Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation suggests, though, that the course of action could have been better. The Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation, after receiving the advice from the Chief Solicitor, stated in their Report No. 4 of 1997:

Opinions on either side of the argument could be obtained but it would not be profitable or appropriate for the Committee to get involved in a debate as to whether the view of the Chief Solicitor or the possibility suggested by the Committee is correct. Only the courts can decide what the law actually is.

The advice I have received on this Bill is that the Bill is unnecessary, as corrective action has already been taken. Indeed, determinations 227 and 240 have been superseded and the current determination, No. 54 of 1997, has drawn no comment from the committee. Thus, bringing forward this Bill could be regarded as a waste of the Assembly's time.

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