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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 765 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

amendment; but let us assume for the moment that it is now retrospective - is that the Government or, alternatively, the Attorney-General, failed in some way to bring forward legislation in the Assembly to cancel an immunity which had been acquired by certain people before that immunity was due to expire, that the Government failed to bring forward certain legislation at the appropriate time that would have extended the period in which a person could have been prosecuted and the problem would have been solved, that the Government failed to do that and, therefore, we are entitled now to act to remove retrospectively these rights that these citizens currently enjoy. We will assume, Mr Speaker, that there are citizens out there in the community who have these rights at the moment and we are proposing to remove those rights to be immune from criminal prosecution.

First of all, Mr Speaker, let me make it very clear that I deny, as Attorney-General, and the Government as a whole denies very emphatically that we failed to act in this area with respect to addressing this question. We very clearly did. Members have already had the benefit of correspondence on legislation which has been tabled in this place - extensive correspondence - between the Justice and Community Safety Committee, the shadow Attorney-General and me. That legislation has been put on the table. The Government clearly addressed its mind to these issues in a vigorous way.

Mr Speaker, the second argument here is a much more important one, and I ask members to note particularly this argument. Let us assume for the sake of this debate that I, as Attorney-General, had been negligent in my duty in not bringing forward this Bill to provide for this cancellation of immunity for these people. Let us assume that is the case for one instant. Why should an act of mine affect the way in which these people hold their rights? Why should an act of any government be used or an omission of any government be used against a person out in the community whose rights it is now proposed, by legislation, should be removed? It is not their fault that I did not introduce legislation to cancel this particular period of limitation. It is not their fault.

By enacting this legislation the Assembly does not punish me because I am quite certain, looking at the terms of this legislation, that I am not going to be subject to any prosecution under any of these pieces of legislation. By introducing this legislation and passing it, as amended, it is these individuals in the community who are being punished, people with rights that actually exist at the moment. Their rights are being removed. They are quite likely to be some white-collar workers and some blue-collar workers out there. Mr Speaker, what is the justification for that? Why should any omission or any failure of mine be a basis for punishing those people out there?

I ask members to consider another scenario. Supposing nobody had noticed that this limitation period was about to expire. Supposing we had simply not noticed it coming forward and suddenly, in July of last year, it became clear that this limitation period had cut in and prosecutions were not possible. Would there then be any greater argument for legislating now to remove those people's right to immunity from prosecution? Of course there would not. The argument would be no stronger or weaker by virtue of nobody having noticed its having expired at the expiration of that 12-month period. Why should any particular omission on my part, if that is what it was, make the case to remove those rights now any stronger? It is intrinsically unfair to take away the rights of these people

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