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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3197 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I am sure, with all members of this place. But the Government remains in the position where it has two sets of advice - one from Professor Whalan; the other from its own advisers. In the interests of reaching a resolution, we have supported this Bill and added other amendments to it so that there is a raft of other things which are addressed in this way. But this Government and previous governments have addressed problems of this kind through amending regulations rather than through legislation.

Although governments from both sides of politics have, on occasions, rectified problems like this through legislation, they have also done it through regulation. With this view, we might be saying that in future all amendments must be done by legislation, not by regulation. If that is the case, there will be very many Bills before this house, because there are situations like this which arise fairly frequently.

Mr Berry: Not exactly the same, though.

MR HUMPHRIES: Perhaps not quite like this. I would like Mr Berry, perhaps, to define the circumstances where legislation is required rather than regulation. Perhaps he could do that by further rising on this matter and indicating. Certainly, similar matters have been met by regulation as well. I have the feeling that, if Mr Berry had been in my shoes and the Government Solicitor had said, "You can fix this by regulation", he would have preferred to do that, rather than do it by legislation. He points out that the eagle eye of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has uncovered many mistakes. Well, it did not uncover some of the mistakes that are referred to in these Government amendments. They have had to be brought forward because the Government discovered them. Although it is a very valuable tool in finding these problems, it is not the only tool the Government has at its disposal to discover mistakes in legislation.

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (11.29): I am disappointed that Mr Humphries is not chastened as a result of this. He was humbled but not chastened. It is true that there were two advisings put, there was a competition between the two and somebody had to make a decision about them. The Assembly has made the decision and I think that should be regarded as the order of the day so far as dealing with this issue in the future is concerned.

Mr Humphries: What are the circumstances where we should do it by legislation?

MR BERRY: I am not sure. (Quorum formed) I do not know what instances Mr Humphries might have had in his head in relation to another course of action, but the point that I make is that there has been a view adopted by the Assembly and that ought to be the view that prevails from here on in. If there are other circumstances to which this course does not apply, then it would not hurt if you asked people or perhaps even asked the Scrutiny of Bills Committee how they feel about it.

Mr Moore said this is a minor piece of legislation. Certainly, in size it is; but, when it comes to the issues at large, I think it could have been of greater magnitude had people out there decided not to pay their health fees and charges, for example. I think we would have been in a far more difficult predicament because, if people had refused to pay their

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