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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4426 ..

MR BERRY: Okay, I withdraw that. The determinations which are made outside this chamber, Mr Speaker, do not enable members in this chamber to properly debate the issue of retrospectivity. For any parliament, retrospectivity is a serious issue. It is particularly serious if that retrospectivity is to apply to people who may not have paid bills at this point. It is particularly significant when it comes to the possible requirement of the Government to repay improperly collected fees.

Mr Speaker, these issues are important retrospective matters which ought to be debated in public. I know why the Government would be embarrassed and nervous about this. Mrs Carnell has been caught muddling again. That is what has clearly happened here. Two determinations have been brought into question by an expert committee, the first one because it was improperly determined and the second one because it was retrospective and at odds with relevant provisions of the Subordinate Laws Act. Those are the issues.

It comes back to whether or not members wish to allow determinations which are retrospective - that is, determinations by a Minister patching up a mistake in a retrospective way. If members want to allow Ministers the right to impose payments on people retrospectively, that is their choice. What Mrs Carnell proposes to do retrospectively is to make lawful what was unlawful. That is the serious issue at hand. Most honourable parliamentarians baulk at retrospective measures. They baulk at retrospective legislation, Mr Speaker. They certainly shy off retrospective determinations of the order of those which have been carried out by the Minister in this case. The Minister in this case was involved in a comedy of errors.

First of all, we had determinations made which were invalid. People make mistakes - one accepts that - but once you make the mistake it is better to fix it up properly than to try to patch it up in a hurried way and in a way which risks millions of dollars. The Labor Party would support a Bill to patch up these retrospective mistakes, if you like. We would support a Bill if the Government brought it forward, but we will not support a Minister being able to retrospectively remedy mistakes which have been identified by expert committees. You would understand that, Mr Kaine.

Mr Speaker, I am sure that the Government will say, "No, it is all right to do these retrospective things because we are the Government". It is not all right for people to take these retrospective actions. It is quite wrong. The fact is that these particular decisions have been drawn into question by an expert committee of this Assembly which is advised by experts. It is serious enough to warrant a disallowance of this determination. The Government ought to respond by introducing a Bill immediately to repair the damage. The damage has been done. It has been identified. The proper thing to do is to have a full and open debate in this place about retrospectivity. In these circumstances I, for one, will agree with that, and so will the Labor Party. It has to be fixed. There are millions of dollars' worth of revenue at stake. We saw millions of dollars' worth of revenue lost in the health budget last year. We do not want to see any more.

MR SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MR BERRY: We would support such a Bill. I urge members to support this motion.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.

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