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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3200 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

tortuous exploration of the ingredients that brought about this event, I believe it is fair and just that the acts in question do hold people to account, as they were always intended to.

I understand the principle that the Liberal Party ministers referred to in their previous speeches-that to retrospectively make criminal some act or action is improper and unjust. But I do not believe for a moment that this is what is happening here. No-one could be found criminally guilty of an action that was not illegal at the time it was committed simply due to the passage of these bills; this is about resurrecting liability.

Furthermore, it cannot be argued that the effect of these acts is intended to expire after a year; in fact the reverse is obviously the case. But the other thing I have to point out is that the Attorney-General-rather the Chief Minister now, I should say; maybe he is still the Attorney-General; I guess he is at this point; he is everything, we have been told-has been debating these points of justice and principle. And we have heard the Attorney-General claim no interest in assuring that entitlements under the law he is responsible for introducing into this Assembly were fair and equitable, consistent with other national and international law, or applied equally and fairly to all members of the community. Of course, I am talking about the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act. The then Attorney-General wiped his hands of any responsibility regarding such fairness and equity.

He has in fact said explicitly it is not his responsibility, so how we can be expected to take him seriously on matters of law I do not know. Here the Chief Minister pretends concern at the notion that we might extend the application of these acts so that, after the coronial inquiries and consequent criminal court cases have been resolved, people who may have acted outside the law can be brought to account.

MR BERRY (1.01), in reply: Mr Speaker, this morning there was a bit of a debacle when I attempted to bring this legislation on, and the Chief Minister advised the Assembly that he had not been told that I intended to do this. I would just like to table a document.

Leave granted.

MR BERRY: I present the following paper:

It is a copy of an email that was sent to the now Chief Minister's office and it confirms that I had advised the minister's office. He might like to consider saying something in the adjournment debate about this. I think the Assembly-certainly some members of the Assembly-might have been misled by the assertion that was being made at the time. So he might respond to that later.

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