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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4433 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The Government has one other alternative. That is the alternative suggested by Mr Berry and reiterated by Ms Follett - to bring legislation in to clarify the issue. I come back to the legal advice. We can always get legal advice and nobody is likely to contest it. But, if there are two pieces of contrary legal advice, then perhaps the Government and the Assembly as a whole have a responsibility to clarify the situation and say, "Let us forget about all the legal advice. Let us get legislation in and deal with this, so that there is no doubt about the situation for anybody". The Opposition have said that they would support such legislation. Indeed, I make a commitment that I would also support the legislation, although my support is a bit redundant. If the Government brings it in and the Opposition supports it, then it already has the numbers. That is probably the most appropriate way to go, particularly considering that there is a message from this Assembly that nobody is going to get away without paying the bill.

What Mr Berry did is inappropriate and an affront to the Assembly committee. I do not take the same view as Ms Follett. I think it was, in at least one sense, an affront to the committee not to let the normal process operate. However, it has now been done, the time bomb is under way and I think the best way to deal with this situation is for the debate to be adjourned and for the Government to respond very quickly. We are talking about 15 sitting days. There are only three sitting days left this year, and there are another half-a-dozen in February, which takes the number to nine; so the Government has right through until the sitting in April to find this information and get it to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee so that the committee can deal with it. That is enough time. Alternatively, the Government could bring legislation on even next week. There is a commitment from the Labor Party that they will support it and deal with it very quickly, provided they have enough time to look at it. I think that would be a satisfactory solution. Indeed, if an adjournment motion were put, I would be prepared to support that. Failing an adjournment motion, I would be forced to vote against Mr Berry's motion, in order to allow the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to do its work.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.20): Mr Speaker, I do not disagree with much that Mr Moore has said. I just want to add a few points to what he has had to say. I do not think retrospectivity is the issue before the Assembly today. The members of the Assembly - - -

Ms Follett: Yes, it is.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, it is not. Mr Berry is urging us to abandon the course of action the Government is taking in relying on a retrospective determination. Instead, he suggests that we should have retrospective legislation. The issue is not retrospectivity. It is whether we do it by regulation or by legislation.

Mr Whitecross: That is right.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Whitecross acknowledges that that is the issue. The Government's position is this: To be frank, we do not really care whether it is done by determination or by legislation. If it proves to be necessary to do so next week, we will not have any problem in bringing forward legislation in this place.

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