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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 764 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: The statement was actually issued under the name of the executive officer of the Bar Association, not the president of the Bar Association, that is, Ms Elizabeth Turton.

Mr Berry: Ha, ha!

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I would ask for some silence while I am making these remarks. It is a very important matter and I have to emphasise the gravity of what is being said here. I do hope that Mr Kaine is listening to this debate as he is out of the chamber. The press release reads:

The ACT Bar Association is opposed to both the Occupational Health and Safety (Amendment) Bill 1999 and the Dangerous Goods Amendment Bill 1999 introduced by Mr Wayne Berry MLA, insofar as the Bills have retrospective application.

Retrospective legislation, particularly when criminal sanctions are involved, is always unfair and unjust. Such legislation is specifically forbidden by the Constitution of the United States.

They go on to make other arguments in respect of that matter. I invite members to look at that statement by the Bar Association. Mr Speaker, I think that it is also relevant to point out, as I have done today to the scrutiny of Bills committee and its chairman, that the High Court in its decision in the case of Rodway v. R made it very clear that, where a particular piece of legislation is passed which does not expressly make its operation retrospective, it would be assumed not to be retrospective in the absence of express words in that piece of legislation. That case was decided in 1990. The court in that case said:

Where a period is limited by statute for the taking of proceedings and the period is subsequently abridged or extended by an amending statute, the amending statute should not, unless it is clearly intended, be given a retrospective operation to revive a cause of action which has become statute barred or to deprive a person of the opportunity of instituting an action which is within time. If it were given a retrospective operation, the amending legislation would operate so as to impair existing, substantive rights - either the right to be free of a claim or the right to bring a claim - and such an operation could not be said to be merely procedural.

I cite that, Mr Speaker, as authority for the proposition that we are not dealing here with a matter which is not retrospective. It is clearly retrospective in nature and no member should be in any doubt about that.

All right, we have a piece of legislation which is retrospective in nature, which is adverse to the people that it affects. Why should the Assembly do this? The reason given in Mr Berry's presentation speech - of course, his speech assumed that the Bill was retrospective and, as I have argued, it will not be retrospective until he moves his

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