Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 80 ..

Debate resumed.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, it is for those reasons that I will be opposing the amendment. I must say, in conclusion, that I think it would be helpful to me, as a member of the Assembly, to have had the committee look into and present all the issues around whether or not a member in Mr De Domenico's circumstances should be provided with funding or not. I must say that I am still open-minded about the issue, although I know that other members have already made their decision on that. All I would argue is that, as far as I am concerned, it would be helpful for me if the committee, in its deliberations on the full range of issues, also applied its mind to that specific issue.

MR KAINE (5.02): Mr Speaker, this is an interesting debate and it perhaps foreshadows what might or might not happen in the committee when it is considered by them. I can only imagine that the Leader of the Opposition has put forward this amendment on the basis that she does not want the committee to do anything that would be retrospective. I would just note, as a longstanding member of this Assembly, that the Assembly has rarely, if ever, enacted legislation that has been retrospective, and I think she is anticipating something that may or may not happen downstream.

First of all, if this motion from Mr Humphries is successful, the matter will go to the committee. The committee, as all committees of this Assembly have done, will look at the matter assiduously and will report by the due date of 30 June 1996. That will be in connection with guidelines for the provision of assistance to members in legal proceedings. That report will then be considered by this Assembly. The recommendations, if any, will be considered by the Assembly, and out of that will come some action that this Assembly requires to be taken.

As I said at the beginning, it would be rare for the committee to look at the retrospectivity of legislation. I think it would be rare for this Assembly to do it either, so I do not know what the outcome of this will be. I think the Leader of the Opposition is anticipating something that may or may not occur; but I suggest that it may be unnecessary anyway, given the normal processes that we have adopted in the past. I tend to agree with Mr Moore. I do not know that the committee ought necessarily be circumscribed in the matters that it can look at in such an inquiry. It may well be that there really is only one case currently extant, and it may well be that the committee would want to look at the circumstances that pertain to that; but I do not want to anticipate what the committee might look at. At the moment, the committee is not a full committee. A member has yet to be appointed to make up the three members. That person, presumably, will become the chair.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .