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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2047 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: That has never been the Government's position. I think Mr Whitecross should go back and examine what was actually said on those previous occasions. I am a former member of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation and I value the work the committee does. I think it is important that we take that work seriously, but it is also important that we do not elevate the advice that comes from the committee to too high a level. In the course of the debate about the amendments put forward by Mr Berry in his Bill, the suggestion has been made that effectively advice by the legal adviser to the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills is to be preferred to advice received from the ACT Government Solicitor. I, for one, think it would be most unfortunate if ever advice were to be contested in that way, if members were asked to prefer the advice of one individual or one government adviser to that of another. That would be an unfortunate state of affairs.

Mr Whitecross: You were just getting advice to cover Mrs Carnell's back because she made a fool of herself.

MR HUMPHRIES: I hope it is not appropriate to interpret that interjection as saying that the advice obtained by the Government has been advice obtained to serve a particular purpose, namely, to - - -

Mr Berry: No, no, no.

MR HUMPHRIES: The sarcasm inherent in Mr Berry's comments just then unfortunately leads me to believe that once again he is casting aspersions on the integrity of government officers. It is becoming a bit of a habit in this place, particularly by those opposite. That is very unfortunate. I would say without a shadow of a doubt that every government lawyer who has ever given any government advice in this Territory has done so impartially and in terms of the effect of the law, not in terms of what advice the government desired to achieve a certain result. It troubles me that those opposite should cast aspersions on those who offer advice to the Government. The very same people, no doubt, would offer them advice in the same terms, and they would expect them to offer that advice impartially as well. I would say to those opposite that it is not appropriate to cast those sorts of aspersions on government officers.

Mr Whitecross: You have cast them on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.

MR HUMPHRIES: Not at all. The Government said - - -

Mr Whitecross: I think you have.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, that is not true. I should take up that interjection from Mr Whitecross. The Government was not saying that it believed Professor Whalan had given advice that was framed in such a way as to please the members or support the objectives of the members of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. That is not what the Government is saying or was saying at that stage.

Mr Whitecross: That is not what I am saying either.

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