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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 2974 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

have, as they say, my bum exposed on these issues. I feel very uncomfortable about ratcheting it down, and I think that is what we are doing here. I do not know why.

One's suspicions are again excited, I think, when you see a piece of legislation introduced into this place last week and we want to resolve it this week. The declaration of interests is an issue which constituents would be concerned about. I think that is too hasty in any event. Leave aside the debate about the issues of principle here. It is just too hasty to deal with that sort of legislation. It is impossible to comprehend a set of circumstances in relation to this legislation where constituents would be that happy about seeing it pass so quickly.

I was not here for the earlier part of the debate, but I have heard it said that the reason we need to pass it now is that it would apply to the next declaration which is due somewhere towards October, or something like that, and therefore people would not have to report by then. That struck me as a bit of retrospective legislation. What we are doing is retrospectively wiping out the requirement to declare. We all know about the sensitivities on retrospective legislation, and there are good grounds. Even if we decide to pass legislation like this, I think it would be impossible for us to pass it in a retrospective way because it takes away an obligation.

Mr Humphries frowns. For example, say somebody has something which has to be reported under the law that now applies and the occurrence which gave rise to this matter that had to be reported happened three months ago and might turn up in the declaration which is due later this year-my accuracy on dates here might be a bit off-we are taking away the obligation to report something that happened some time ago. So it is retrospective in effect, in that sense. I am a little troubled about that because the ordinary person in the street would say, "Well, what is it that they do not want to declare?" I think that would be a fair question for somebody to ask, "What is it that they do not want to declare?"

For my part, I do not care if it is retrospective. Even if we are going to ratchet it up for all of us, we should keep in mind that retrospective issue because it is a question that comes up for legislators all the time. In respect to the amendment which has been put by the Attorney-General, even if we accept that there is an argument to ratchet the declarations down, there is certainly not an argument to do it retrospectively. So, Mr Speaker, I think we are rushing this and we are deserving of strong criticism for rushing something which impinges on the issue which raises the ire of voters and the community generally more than anything else, and that is the hint of possible corruption.

You just cannot be too careful about these sorts of things. If we proceed down the path which is proposed today I think we will have been unduly hasty. We are inviting criticism of this place, all of us, and politicians generally, which we should not be inviting. It looks as though we are in a hurry. To put it in its roughest interpretation, it could be said that we are in a hell of a rush to hide something. I just think that is a dumb move for politicians. It is something that we cannot afford to do.

I heard someone interject, "Why don't we adjourn it until October?" Well, I would be happy enough with that. If people want to leave it on the table for a while, I think that would be a smart idea. It would be a lot smarter than rushing it through today. There are amendments on the table suggesting that we should ratchet it up. I think that is a smart

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