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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 6 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1529 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Nobody expects governments to be accountable under the conscience rules that apply to, say, abortion and some other issues. That is the whole point. However, if an executive take a decision to regulate through subordinate legislation, then the government-the cabinet, the executive-must accept full responsibility for those actions. That is at the heart of this.

So I do not accept, Mr Stefaniak, the basis of the concerns you express-that some members of cabinet might not feel all that comfortable about certain executive action and, therefore, may want to be exempted from having to take the hard decision and live by it and defend it. That is the point. As a member of cabinet, you live by and defend the collective decisions of cabinet. You stand or fall by them, because that is what is required of you. You are required to accept that responsibility, and you are required to defend it.

Proposed new clause 7A agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 18, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 19.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for Women) (11.06): I move amendment No 1, circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 1593], and present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.

Mr Speaker, this amendment proposes the omission of chapter 14 of the amending bill. By way of background, I think members are aware of this issue. The issue was debated last week and agreed to in principle. Mr Stefaniak raised concerns that had been discussed at some length in the scrutiny of bills committee report No 9, I think it was, in relation to the impact or possible effect of proposed amendments in relation to what extraneous material might be used as an aid to interpretation by a court.

There was quite detailed discussion on this issue last Thursday. I will not go through it all again, other than to say that Mr Stefaniak pointed to some detail concerns expressed by the scrutiny of bills committee. Mr Stefaniak also referred to late interest expressed by the Bar Association in relation to the effect or efficacy of the proposals expressed in section 142 of the amending bill.

At that time, I undertook to await advice from the Bar Association. That has been received, and I have referred it to my department. Mr Stefaniak has a copy of that legislation, as do other members of the Assembly. The Bar Association has raised a number of issues and concerns about the operation of aspects of chapter 14-in particular, the operation of section 142, but also other parts of that chapter.

As a result of those concerns, because these issues are complex and extremely technical, and as a consequence of the desire of the government to see this substantial and important bill passed today, I am proposing to remove entirely the so-called offending provisions-those provisions that have raised concern-to allow more detailed negotiations and discussions with Mr Stefaniak, the Bar Association and others who may have an interest in this issue.

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