Page 1591 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
governments failing to pass this kind of legislation. I find that kind of assertion and that kind of logic totally unpersuasive. I find it incredible that the Government would be moving to put forward this kind of Bill to protect itself, in the extreme case, against a potential loss of a little over $1m a year in revenue. That is the other argument that is put forward.
Madam Speaker, I find neither of those arguments persuasive. If Mr Connolly were to attack his police budget he could save $1m a year with no trouble at all. Mr Connolly could save 10 times that amount in the health budget with no trouble at all. Mr Wood could do the same with his education budget with no trouble at all. The Chief Minister, given her earlier statements on public radio this afternoon about this issue, could go and borrow another $1m every year without a problem. That solves the problem. These arguments that are put forward to justify this are totally unpersuasive. Madam Speaker, I find the concept of retrospective protection of public revenue abhorrent. I am sure that everybody on this side of the house finds it so. When it goes further to deny an individual citizen the right of legal recourse, when you intend to cut across the legal process and say that a case in our court system cannot continue because you have made it unlawful for that person to proceed, I find that abhorrent as well.
I put the Government on notice that the Liberal Party in opposition does not support this one-sixth of the Bill. We do support the other five-sixths. I would hope that the Independent members of this Assembly would agree with us on this issue and tell the Government bluntly and without reservation that this kind of retrospectivity, to the detriment of individual citizens, is unacceptable.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lamont) adjourned.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TRAINING FUND BILL 1994
[COGNATE BILL:
LONG SERVICE LEAVE (BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994]
Debate resumed from 14 April 1994, on motion by Mr Wood:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MADAM SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Bill 1994? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that, in debating order of the day No. 3, they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 4.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .