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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3503 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

3A. This Act does not apply, and shall be taken never to have applied, to an appointment under subsection 3(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1989 which was made prior to the commencement of the Statutory Appointments (Amendment) Act 1997.".

These amendments correct the problem that Mr Humphries was trying to correct, and from now on the Statutory Appointments Act will apply to the appointment of JPs. In other words, the appointment of JPs will go to the Legal Affairs Committee, the committee currently chaired by Mr Osborne, and then will be subject to disallowance in the Assembly.

Mr Humphries, in the in-principle stage, raised the concern that we would need to monitor this and see how many people say that they do not want to be put through the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee. The scrutiny of parliamentary committees so far has not caused anybody any anguish. Indeed, this was the same concern that was raised when the legislation went through. At that stage, as I recall, Mr Humphries -certainly in private, if not publicly - was saying that we were going to have to monitor this very carefully, although he was a supporter of the legislation. I think that is correct, Mr Speaker. We should monitor all our processes very carefully and, if we can improve them then we ought to do it. This process is part and parcel of this Assembly but, I believe, not any other parliament in Australia. However, only yesterday I gave a copy of the Statutory Appointments Act to a member of the South Australian Parliament who was very interested in the process, and it may well be that we see this sort of legislation copied in other places.

Mr Speaker, these amendments are a sensible way to overcome the concern that Mr Humphries has about whether JPs appointed over the past few years were appointed validly. They resolve that problem and ensure that in future appointments will be made consistent with this legislation.

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (11.12): Mr Speaker, I would like to respond to a few of the comments that Mr Humphries made in relation to Labor's position on this Bill. The Minister seemed a little confused about the Government's position in the past. He did raise the issue of the health fees imbroglio when the Government said that it could fix things administratively retrospectively. Now Mr Humphries seems to be saying that, whilst he said in his speech - and I will quote it correctly so I am not challenged - that it "may be capable of being remedied administratively", he has legal advice that says that it cannot be. The Government has had two positions in relation to dealing with issues retrospectively.

Mr Humphries: I did not say that. They are different Bills.

MR BERRY: Now Mr Humphries says that they are different Bills. One certainly was about millions of dollars and this is about the administrative actions of certain JPs. At one point Mr Moore was prepared to accept the words of the Minister in his speech that it was capable of being remedied administratively - - -

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