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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4298 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Speaker, these retrospective provisions are unjust and uncalled for. They must be removed. Tonight we have seen a deal done between the Liberals and Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke which is at the expense of people's lives in the ACT community.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.03 am): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party supports this amendment. I support very much Ms Tucker's attempt to introduce a new Part 6 to cover transitional provisions and in effect to eliminate the retrospectivity inherent in the Government's approach to this matter.

I am aware of the Attorney's argument. He believes that because he announced this scheme some fair while ago the new rule should apply from thence onward. It is because of the Attorney's actions in relation to that that we had this burgeoning of claims over this last year. The fact that the scheme has blown out in the way it has is a direct response to the Attorney's actions. It seems to me to be incredibly unfair that people who have suffered injury as a result of a crime since the Attorney made his announcement should be disadvantaged as against their fellow citizens. I see no justification for it at all. It is just a simple question of fairness once again.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (4.05 am): Mr Speaker, I have made the case already in the debate tonight for these provisions to apply from the date the Government announced it wanted to apply them. It was a measure that was built into our budget, not for this financial year but for last financial year. It was a measure which was put in place in a similar way to many government measures by other governments, including Labor governments - that is, to announce provisions to operate from a particular day, and to address later the legislation which underpins the operation of that particular announcement or scheme.

That is not, I concede, the most desirable way to implement new schemes because there is always the chance that people rush through the gate to get in before it closes. That certainly has happened here. Mr Speaker, I think it is reasonable to draw up the drawbridge on this at some reasonable point. I simply have to regard many of the extraordinary number of claims as opportunistic in the present circumstances and unwarranted. There are some extremely - - -

Mr Stanhope: You have told us before that the police are rorting the scheme. Now you are saying they are opportunistic.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is right. They are opportunistic and they are rorting. Unfortunately, it would be improper for me to give details of those sorts of cases, but I am happy to give members details of those sorts of cases in private. I cannot disclose them because they are before the courts at the moment. There are a few cases which would make your hair curl, Mr Stanhope, absolutely make your hair curl. I am happy to talk to you about those a little bit later if you would like to know about them.

Mr Speaker, I remind members, after hearing about how incredibly unfair it is to remove people's rights retrospectively, that only a few months ago the Assembly did just that with respect to the hospital implosion inquiry.

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