2
I have in my speech on the Second Reading of this bill explained that we had asked for the amendment to Clause 24 although it has been explained to the Ad Hoc Group on two occasions that the original Clause 24 is a codification of what is inherently necessary to a colonial legislature and that the courte are extremely unlikely to question whether the
President, Council or officer of the Council have exercised such powers lawfully.
This amendment will achieve the objective of aubjecting the exercise of the Legislative Council's house keeping and investigatory powers to the courts scrutiny. also the overriding clause under which the words "umge and practice" and the words "resolution of the Council" under Claves 15 must operate.
It is
yne of the comments made by the Bar Association and the Law Society was that the combined effect of clauses 15 and 24 resulted in, ambiguity.
It was said that clause 24, which ousts the Jurisdiction of the courts where this Council has exercised its power "lawfully", gave rise to ambiguity as to the powers given to the Council to decide on matters of privilege under
Clause 15.
In fact, a careful reading of both clauses reveals no ambiguity and no inherent inconsistency, and I'll tell the reason why. Clause 15 is concerned with rights relating to matters of evidence. The intention of this clause is to enable unusual questions, if no specific provision has been made which offers a solution, to be resolved by looking at the usage and practice of this Council both before and after the enactment of the Bill.