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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3505 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

In the case of the determination, the subordinate legislation, the Government was advised that the problem could be fixed by a further determination and proposed to do that. Mr Berry said that there was ambiguity or doubt about the matter - go back and look at your remarks, Mr Berry - and rose in this place quite agitated and said, "We must fix this by legislation at the first possible opportunity. Nothing should stop this from being fixed immediately by this device". He carried on like a two-bob watch. We fixed that problem by legislation, as he wanted. With this problem, where we had a similar issue of uncertainty, we decided to do precisely the same thing as Mr Berry recommended. We said, "Mr Berry thinks that we should fix these problems by legislation. Okay, let us not cause any fights. We will fix it by legislation". When we bring that legislation before this place, Mr Berry says, "You should have done this by administrative action. You should not be bringing legislation for this before this place".

Mr Berry: I accepted you at your word. That was a mistake.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry, if you propose to lead the ACT by that sort of standard, heaven help the people of the ACT after 21 February next year. That is all I can say.

Before I resume my seat, I think it is worth noting that the Opposition obviously wants to support the amendments. They claim that it was never intended that the Statutory Appointments Act should not apply to JPs. If that was the case, why did Mr Connolly not use the Statutory Appointments Act to appoint JPs?

Mr Berry: I do not know. Go over to the courts and ask him.

MR HUMPHRIES: Perhaps we should. I suspect that the reality is that he never imagined, as I never imagined before this point, that the Act was meant to apply to JPs. Mr Moore, who was the author of the Bill - note, Mr Whitecross, that Mr Moore was the author of the Bill, not I - obviously believes that it was intended to apply to JPs. That is now being fixed up.

But the point is worth noting that the Labor Party support the extension of this legislation, as they have supported every amendment that has come before the house. In each case they support the extension of the power to scrutinise appointments. But in 1994 they opposed this legislation with extreme vigour. They were utterly opposed to the idea of the Assembly and its committees having the power to scrutinise appointments made by governments. I have quoted before the things that Mr Connolly said at the time about how repugnant to the idea of executive government making decisions this was. I think the Labor Party ought to ask themselves whether their position is based on any consistent principle that has been worked through and followed from time to time in the same way or whether it is based on political expediency.

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