Page 3295 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the present case the reimbursement of the Territory for the expense of funding the position of Manager of the Supplementation Fund is made retrospective to the 1990-1991 financial year. The explanatory memorandum states that:
"The retrospective application is necessary to meet the obligations that have been anticipated in the budget process".
Mr Deputy Speaker, that explanation, to me, is not satisfactory. It still has not been explained to me why - - -
Mr Berry: Hey!
MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Berry, just listen. I am still not convinced. Mr Berry says that it is a machinery matter Bill. If it is a machinery matter Bill, why can we not take out any aspect that relates to retrospectivity? I know that we are talking about only roughly $26,000; but that is not the point, Mr Minister. I am concerned about the fact that we have retrospectivity provisions in this Bill. It could be used as a precedent. I know that you will say, "No, we will not do it again", and that sort of thing. In principle, the Liberal Party will stand up every time and oppose any Bill that has any retrospectivity. For that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have moved the amendment.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (4.17): What this boils down to is an argument about retrospectivity rather than the issues involved. You cannot look at legislation, whether it is retrospective or not, without having a look at the issues that are involved. This, quite clearly, provides for the Government to have access to some funding which goes back to June 1991. As mentioned by Mr De Domenico, it amounts to $26,000 for services which have been provided to the board.
It is fair enough, in my view, for the Government to take this approach because the services were provided. We are seeking to recover the cost of those services; no more than that. It is very clear in the legislation that that is what we set out to do. If you look at proposed new section 8A - - -
Mr De Domenico: We agree with you; that is what it sets out to do. We do not think it should, though.
MR BERRY: Mr De Domenico always sings the praises of the private sector. That is fair enough because the private sector does many things well. They do most things well. One thing they nearly always do is not forget a debt. If there is one owing, they set out to secure it. That, largely, is what the Government is setting out to do here. There is an opportunity for us, through this legislation, to recover by way of some retrospectivity in the legislation the cost of services which were provided to the board.
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee did express a view about retrospectivity. They would be concerned about any retrospectivity that prejudiced anybody as a result of that retrospective legislation. This does not do that.
Mr Kaine: If you are taking somebody's money it must prejudice somebody.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .