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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3195 ..

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (11.18): Is it not a pity that, in the first place, when it was first raised, we did not have the humble approach that Mr Humphries has taken in relation to this matter. Last December I offered the Government the opportunity to come forward in this place with legislation to repair the situation which had been created by the bungle which had been discovered by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee pointed out that this matter ought to be sorted out by way of legislation, but the Chief Minister strenuously resisted this course. I think she may have even described it as a media stunt or some sort of a publicity stunt in relation to the matter. This is a very serious issue. This is about whether or not the Executive can make retrospective decisions in relation to revenue. It is a very serious issue and one that ought not be treated lightly.

The Government stands shamed for the way that it has resisted the recommendations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee throughout the period as we come to the situation we now find ourselves in. I welcome Mr Humphries's contribution to the debate because he has adopted the stance which ought to have been adopted in the first place. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee does not look at Government legislation and other legislation for the fun of it; it does so because it is an important instrument of this Assembly to ensure that legislation, particularly subordinate legislation, is properly made out and is a proper expression of legislation which has been introduced in this place.

Clearly, this was not the case in relation to the health fees matter which I brought before this place as a result of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee approach to it. There was a clash of legal opinions, in the first place, about this issue. On the one side, the Government was saying that its legal opinion was right; and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee were saying that their view was right. There is no question about it: If a committee of this Assembly says something in relation to matters in the Assembly it ought to be given proper respect. If that had been done from the outset we would not have been involved in this lengthy debate about an issue which ought to have been resolved very clearly.

Mr Humphries quite properly draws attention to a matter. I am sure that the records were scoured with a magnifying glass to see whether the Labor Party had in the past done anything of this order. After that investigation he has discovered that the Minister for Urban Services in a Labor government did something of a similar nature. I am glad he discovered it. If we had discovered it, we would have fixed it straightaway and there would have been no difficulty with the problem. I notice that when he has been scouring through the information he has come up with a couple of other important issues, including the Ambulance Service fees determination. There are a few people out there who would love to have known this earlier. They might not have paid the $15 road rescue fee for the period, and then we would have been in a hell of a spot trying to get it back again. Let there be no doubt about our position in relation to this matter. Whilst we have questioned the Ambulance Service fee in the past, it has been a budget matter which has been determined and implemented by the Government, upsetting many people in the community. Nevertheless, it has been implemented, and the amendment to my legislation to deal with the Ambulance Service fee will be supported.

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