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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2038 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

However, while we do not believe that the Bill is necessary, we also do not believe that the Bill does any harm; so, to save the Assembly's time we will not be opposing the legislation. In saying this, I hope that the Assembly will take a similarly mature approach to the Government's amendments that will shortly be moved by the Attorney-General. I think it is always appropriate that the Government support Bills that do not do any harm or that do some good, regardless of who introduces them into this place, and the Government will be very happy to support Mr Berry's piece of legislation.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (10.47): I just want to emphasise the point made already by the Chief Minister, namely, that in the work of government there are a large number of items of subordinate legislation in any given year that deal with a range of areas of government operation from health to education, to motor vehicle registration, to the licensing of businesses to operate in particular fields, to the granting of capacities for people to do certain acts with public land - a vast array of government acts and activities.

It has been the practice, in recent years at least, for those activities to be conducted in a decentralised way such that different agencies of government are responsible for preparing and forwarding for execution those items of subordinate legislation. It is inevitable, whichever system is used, that on occasions mistakes will be made. The issue being raised today is how those mistakes are fixed. I believe that it is appropriate to fix them using the most efficacious means available. I accept the argument put by the Labor Party that in general it is better to impose a retrospective burden, if that has to be done, by legislation rather than by regulation and for that reason can support legislation which retrospectively deals with a problem.

I emphasise the argument put by the Chief Minister that the legal capacity to fix these problems by regulation has not been seriously challenged. Indeed, the fees that are being validated in this exercise, on the argument put forcefully to the Government by our legal advisers, have already been corrected. We have only, from a surfeit of caution perhaps, to ensure that that occurs by virtue of legislation as well. It does raise the question of what we do in the future, however. Whether social matters can be dealt with in the future in this way or not depends on what policy the Assembly chooses to adopt. Mr Speaker, a correcting Bill annually - or maybe a Bill less frequently than that, but certainly a regular correcting Bill - will be necessary. Much as I would like it, I do not think any government can guarantee that mistakes will not be made. If when they are made they impose burdens which have to be retrospectively reinforced, and the policy of the Assembly is to do that by legislation, then a Bill of that kind will be necessary on a regular basis.

MR MOORE (10.51): Mr Speaker, I think the idea that we put these regulations beyond doubt is a positive move. If there is some question lying over them, that question can be resolved in the courts. Probably it never would be; but there is always that possibility, and it seems to me that this is an appropriate opportunity to put these things beyond doubt. I have had some interest in reading through the amendments to this legislation that have been flagged by the Attorney-General. They seek to ensure that not just the matter raised by Mr Berry in this legislation but also a series of other things are put beyond doubt. None of them seem particularly controversial to me. The fees have been paid and are being paid. Probably it is very sensible that we put the validity of those beyond doubt.

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