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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3498 ..

MR MOORE (10.51): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this legislation in principle. It is an interesting piece of legislation that provides for the appropriate transfer of the University of Canberra to the ACT. My understanding is that we are all supportive of that. Only in going back over the legislation in the last few hours have we identified a problem with clause 31. That hoary old chestnut Henry VIII has come to visit us again. Clause 31 is a Henry VIII clause, a clause that gives the Executive power to change legislation that the Assembly has passed. I think this is entirely inappropriate. Clause 31 reads:

The Executive may make regulations amending the provisions of this Act ...

A clause that provides that the Executive may amend an Act we pass is known as a Henry VIII clause. Although this power is confined specifically to matters consequential upon the transfer of responsibility for the university from the Commonwealth - I do understand that it is very narrow in its application - it is an inappropriate power. Worse than that is the fact that it also applies to any other Act. The clause states:

The Executive may make regulations amending the provisions of this Act (other than this section), the University of Canberra Act 1989 or any other Act in relation to any matter ...

Mr Speaker, I will be circulating an amendment to omit the clause and replace it with a standard clause providing that the Executive may make regulations for the purposes of this Act. The standard clause means that regulations must be made consistent with the Act. Those regulations would then be subject to the Subordinate Laws Act. This is an issue I am surprised the Scrutiny of Bills Committee did not pick up. It has been the practice of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to identify for us issues such as the Henry VIII clause. I am pleased that my office picked this up so that I can draw it to your attention. I believe that the rest of the Bill is positive. If people want a little more time to look at my amendment, I am happy for this debate to be adjourned to a later hour today if that is the best way to deal with it. I think it is an issue that is worth dealing with.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (10.55), in reply: I thank members for their comments and their support for the Bill. Officers of the Attorney-General's Department are currently looking at the matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and the Government will be supporting Mr Moore's amendment, which we accept is probably a more appropriate form of words than that in the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Clause 1

Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned.

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