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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3363 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

did not read the Public Health Bill. That is where they have gone. That is why we have this second piece of legislation, the Public Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It deals with those sorts of things.

We did have a Scrutiny of Bills Committee report today. It was a very substantial report that raised two substantive issues. The first is that Part III, clauses 20 and 21, amend the Crimes Act. Mr Berry, vote against them. That is what the rest of us are going to do. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee identified a sensible issue. Ms McRae said to me earlier, "You have not spoken to the AIDS Action Council". In fact, I have spoken to the AIDS Action Council. They raised the same issue with me. But do not forget that in the preparation of the Bill the AIDS Action Council were consulted. There were extensive consultations. With the round table approach and the normal approach, we went through broad consultation. The trouble is that Mr Berry did not do it. He did not do it with reference to the Public Health Bill either. Now he is embarrassed, and so he should be embarrassed. Why did he not do it? He was very busy doing other things. I know Mr Whitecross, who is sitting next to him, will be smiling inside - he cannot do it outside. We know what Mr Berry was doing. He was doing things political. That may well deliver for him the chief ministry in a little while. When he is Chief Minister, he will be able to do these things and make sure everything goes through a careful process.

The second substantive issue raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is exactly the same issue that was raised with reference to the Public Health Bill. Mr Berry did not raise it as a problem with reference to the Public Health Bill. Neither did I. Why? Because I read the Government's response and I thought that, when it comes to an appeal mechanism for administrative decisions on public health, the Government, on balance, had chosen the best way to go. Keep in mind that there is always the appeals process under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. We have not removed all processes of appeal.

The second substantive comment from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee was exactly the same as the comment they had made with reference to the Public Health Bill. Did Mr Berry read it or did he not read it? He did not raise it as a problem with reference to the Public Health Bill we have just passed. Why is he raising it now? The reason is that he has not read either Bill. He has not done his homework. He has not done what an opposition is supposed to do. He has not done the scrutiny. That is what has been exposed here this evening. It is fortunate that the crossbenches have been so thorough and done the scrutiny in a coordinated way. I have been through the Public Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and I am satisfied that it is adequate and satisfactory. I am certainly happy for it to proceed.

MS TUCKER (6.23): The Greens will also be supporting this Bill. We had the same concerns about the Crimes Act as those Mr Moore has outlined. I had some concerns about the reviewability provisions of both Bills, but I did seek advice and I am happy that the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act process is sufficient as a review process in this instance. Under that Act a person can ask for reasons why a Minister has made a decision to be provided within 28 days. This is before any fee must be lodged.

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