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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3198 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

amendments to the Magistrates Court Act which provided for an extension of the period after which a coroner has brought down a finding in which prosecutions arising out of those coronial findings can be brought.

In fact, the government amended the Magistrates Court Act late in 1999 to provide a comprehensive coverage of legislation in relation to the limitation on proceedings. At that stage we provided that, generally speaking, there was in respect of coronial matters a period of one year following a finding in which there could be the bringing of prosecutions.

What Mr Berry is apparently doing with these bills is extending limitation periods from one year to three years in respect particularly-or only-of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1989 and the Dangerous Goods Act 1975. I assume it is the situation that prosecutions that might be brought under other legislation-and of course there is a myriad of items of legislation in the ACT that provide for prosecutions to be brought-are not being extended. It is just the Dangerous Goods Act and just the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Now, I do not know why it is just those two bills. At a political level I would say, if I was very cynical, that Mr Berry is pursuing the matter of the Royal Canberra Hospital implosion and wishes to provide a capacity for some people to be prosecuted in respect of that particular matter-people who have not yet been prosecuted and who apparently might be prosecuted with an extension beyond 4 November this year, when that 12-month period in respect of Mr Madden's findings from last year expires.

But the question needs to be answered why this extension should occur in respect of those two acts and none of the other acts in the ACT under which people might commit crimes. If it is good enough in respect of those two acts, why is it not good enough in respect of other acts? I think the fact that there is a political scalp to be obtained somewhere down the line is not sufficient reason to provide what would have to be called distortion in the ACT's laws. Perhaps Mr Berry has an answer to that question, and I would be interested in hearing it.

The government has put on record before its views about this legislation. I think they are well on the record and I do not propose to repeat them today. But I have to say that this is potentially further uncertainty to the status of the law in the ACT. Any person who is potentially to be prosecuted for some offence under those acts, whether in relation to the Royal Canberra Hospital or for other reasons, would have had until today the right to expect their liability would end at the end of that 12-month period-to the extent that it might still be there.

What Mr Berry's bill would do is extend that period to three years. I will give the example of a person for whom a 12-month period in respect of such matters has already expired. I do not know whether such a case exists, but let us imagine there was a person who was referred to adversely in coroner's findings that were brought down, say, in August of 1998. That 12-month period in respect of that person has already expired. That person is now, as it were, a free person, free of any risk of prosecution. But Mr Berry's legislation will have the effect of making that person again liable for prosecution.

Mr Berry: No, it runs till November anyway.

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