Page 3296 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: It does not prejudice any claims by any individuals for compensation out of the supplementation fund. It is nonsense to argue the principle of opposing retrospectivity on any score unless you have a look at the issues. Mr De Domenico says one minute that he is only arguing about retrospectivity. I hear him mumble across the other side that he is now not happy with the approach that we have taken to recover some of the cost for the services that we have provided. He has to make up his mind, or he might even have to change his mind. Some would say that if they had a mind like his they would change it too. This is simply to recover some thousands of dollars for services provided. Not all retrospective legislation is bad, and this legislation is appropriate in the circumstances.
MR DE DOMENICO (4.21): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to repeat what I said before. People should take into account what - - -
Mr Moore: It is difficult when people are interjecting, isn't it?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: There will be one less very shortly, Mr Moore.
MR DE DOMENICO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Berry talked about getting back a debt. Mr Berry then talked about - - -
Mr Berry: Do not twist it, though.
MR DE DOMENICO: That is what you said. You said, "What we are trying to do is get back a debt that is owing to us". Mr Berry talks about going back to 1991. Mr Berry should realise that this fund has been operating since 1980. You cannot use the analogy of getting back a debt. You are not doing that. You are not doing that at all.
Mr Lamont: Does he want to go back to 1980?
MR DE DOMENICO: No, I do not want to go back at all, Mr Lamont. I am quite prepared for Mr Berry to amend the legislation to say that it begins tomorrow or next week, but the Liberal Party will not accept the connotation that any piece of legislation is going to be retrospective. This fund has provided a service to the people of the ACT, to the work force of the ACT, because government legislation put it there. That is fine. The Government provides numerous services to the people of the ACT at a cost that is not fully recoverable.
If Mr Berry's analogy is going to be taken into account, does that mean that all the pieces of legislation relating to the provision of government services are going to be made retrospective? That is the only point that the Liberal Party will not support - the fact of retrospectivity. For those reasons I urge my colleagues on the cross benches to look very carefully at what has been said by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and to listen very carefully to the argument we bring forward. Please just think of the retrospectivity aspect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .