Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1882 ..
MR QUINLAN (9.41): Mr Speaker, to close the debate on the amendment-
Mr Humphries: There is no closure of debate on an amendment.
MR QUINLAN: Okay. As I stated earlier, for whatever circumstance, I find myself with a wad of advice from the scrutiny of bills committee's expert consultant and, quite obviously, conflicting advice from the Attorney-General, some of which I just have not read because it arrived while I was on my feet in this debate.
Mr Humphries: It was given to your staffer earlier this evening.
MR QUINLAN: Anyway, earlier tonight.
Mr Humphries: It was ready only today.
MR QUINLAN: We just do not do things instantly.
Mr Humphries: Yes, I know. It is nobody's fault. It has just come in late.
MR SPEAKER: Can we get on with the business of the house, instead of chatting, please.
MR QUINLAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just read some of the scrutiny of bills committee's report, which is the thing that I have to rely on until I am certain, and the Assembly is certain also, and the issue is resolved. The report states:
Clause 26 contains some unusual provisions. Under subclause 26(1), the applicant must state the grounds for objection to the commissioner "fully and in detail", and under subclause 26(2): "The burden of showing that the objections should be upheld lies with the applicant".
The result may be that the commissioner may only review a decision on the application in terms of the statement of the grounds for objection provided by the applicant. If this is so, this is inconsistent with a principle generally applied on a "merits" review.
There are a couple of paragraphs that go on further than that. From my limited scope in terms of the law, that is the advice on foot from the objective independent consultant that scrutinises the bills. So, until proven otherwise, one has to say to oneself that maybe the smart thing to do would be to take this provision out of the bill and if, in fact, it so emasculates the act in action, fix it.
Mr Humphries has stated that he rather thinks that we should check with the Commonwealth. By all means, do so. But why do we not take it out, consult the Commonwealth, see whether it has to be in it, or something else like it or something half-way to it, and then drop it in there in June, but that would not preclude you from administering the bill that we will pass tonight. As I said when I first rose in this place, my objective in relation to this bill is not to hold up its progress but to recognise the findings of the scrutiny of bills committee and its consultant, which, as far as I am concerned, are still on foot and still before this Assembly. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .