Page 3397 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 24 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These amendments pick up a recommendation of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to make it clear that clause 50 - that is, the broad power to make orders - should not be retrospective. Interestingly, the Commonwealth provision that this is modelled on does make it clear that it should be retrospective, as do most other States. We have made it a practice in this Assembly to be very careful about retrospectivity.
Mr De Domenico: Except for the Workers' Compensation Supplementation Fund (Amendment) Bill.
MR CONNOLLY: Sometimes we will differ. In relation to this, we thought that the committee's recommendation was a fair one, and we support the changes suggested by the committee. I make it clear to Mr Stevenson that I am not being inconsistent here. We are picking up an amendment because we accept that there ought to be a policy difference, that is, retrospectivity or not. We are not simply playing with words.
MR DE DOMENICO (10.27): Madam Speaker, the Opposition will be supporting the amendments moved by Mr Connolly. We hope that from now on retrospectivity in any shape or form will not be part of legislation in the ACT. It is a pity Mr Connolly was not here when we debated the Workers' Compensation Supplementation Fund (Amendment) Bill, which does bring in the concept of retrospectivity, notwithstanding the recommendations made by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.
MR STEVENSON (10.28): I also support the amendments. Mr Connolly was good enough to say that there is no inconsistency here; that because we have a policy in this Assembly, most of the time it is perfectly okay not to do something that was done by the Commonwealth. I think the same principle should apply to all aspects of the legislation. If we are going to approve legislation, we should look at each particular situation and work out what is best for people in Canberra, with little concern for what people do in other parliaments or assemblies. It is unfortunate that not one of the many amendments I proposed over the three weeks or so that we have been debating this Bill was passed. Some were very important, and I have no doubt that in the future the unintended consequences will come home to roost.
We need to draw up and approve legislation that is written in simple English. If it takes us longer to do that, we should spend the time. Mr Humphries makes the point, and it is a relevant one, that it can often require more words for a particular clause to be simply understood. That is true. However, if you look at the examples of the Victorian Law Reform Commission, where they have taken Bills and rewritten them so that they can be understood by people in the street, you find that some clauses are longer but, overall, you save a great deal of space. Even if you do not save the space, at least if it is longer you can understand what is meant. That is what we should be doing.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .