Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 777 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
The world will fall. We will have criminals all around the place rushing in to ask us to amend every limitation period in every statute that exists". That was the scenario painted by you, Attorney. The scrutiny of Bills committee goes on to say that the point is debatable, and these points always are. It is debatable here, and that is what we are doing. There certainly are two views on this matter. The scrutiny of Bills committee left the way open. They say on page 5:
While the point is debatable, and while the Committee does not offer a legal opinion on the point, it may be that this is how a court would interpret the proposed new subsection 33(4) of the Act.
If that interpretation was adopted, then there would (if the common law approach was accepted) be little ground for an objection to the Bill on the ground that it would have a retrospective operation.
I think, Mr Speaker, I have made the point that most, if not all, of what the Attorney said about the devil we would unleash on the ACT community if we accept this operation is put to rest by the scrutiny of Bills committee. The scrutiny of Bills committee's report did a couple of things. First, it left open the pathway for the acceptability of this legislation. The scrutiny of Bills committee in its extensive report, one of the most extensive and detailed reports it has done on a piece of legislation that I have seen in the last year, left open the way for this legislation, these Bills, to be acted on, debated and passed by this Assembly. The scrutiny of Bills committee did not find any fundamental flaws in the proposals put forward here by Mr Berry. The scrutiny of Bills committee, a committee which does vital work and which has a legal adviser of incredibly high standing and diligence, has not in its report to this Assembly put up any barriers to the passage of this legislation.
If the arguments being propounded by the Attorney were to be accepted, then one would expect that the scrutiny of Bills committee would have set the hurdles, would have said, "These are the hurdles that you must jump", and the scrutiny of Bills committee has not done that. The principle of retrospectivity is an incredibly serious principle.
One of the other things which the scrutiny of Bills committee does very clearly and starkly - and it is worth making the point, even though I said I would not harp on it - is indicate that, if the Attorney had acted before 13 July last year, the arguments that he has sought to propound here would have been quite unnecessary. We cannot get away from the fact that if the Attorney had done what we on this side thought he was going to do and expected him to do - - -
Mr Humphries: Why did you think that?
MR STANHOPE
: Because we had every right to expect that you would fix an obvious problem. We had every right to expect that and we believed that you would do that. It was our belief that you would act on this matter because it was a matter of such seriousness. I am still staggered that you did nothing, that you sat on your hands. As Mr Berry has said, you, Attorney, are faced with that terrible conundrum that faces people in public life sometimes. Either you have to concede that you were incompetent
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .