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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1112 ..

MRS DUNNE (5.18): The Liberal opposition will be supporting this amendment. I thank the minister and officials for taking up the recommendations of the scrutiny of bills committee. I would like to go back to the reasons why we are debating this matter this week. It is simply because issues had been raised with me, and others, about retrospectivity. When I sought a briefing on retrospectivity what I heard did not assuage my concerns, so I wrote to the scrutiny of bills committee.

It turns out that I did not get the most thorough brief I could have, and my concerns about retrospectivity have been assuaged by the scrutiny of bills committee. I thank the committee for its fairly prompt turnaround on that issue. It is worth noting that, although there are some guideposts to retrospectivity, it was not picked up the first time through. The adviser of the scrutiny of bills committee had difficulty picking it up the second time through but, when he did pick it up, as well as assuaging my concerns about that specific issue, he picked up some other issues. So I think it was a worthwhile exercise.

It is an indication that members here do not lightly delay bills. We delay bills because we have concerns that need to be addressed. It is a lesson for the future that we have a more effective dialogue than we did on this occasion. Rather than using the letter of the standing orders to attempt to force your will, it would be much better in an Assembly—where there is no majority and where there are no other checks and balances except what the opposition and the crossbenches might raise—to have more dialogue. Then we would not have the unseemly divisions that we had last week and earlier this week.

I thank the scrutiny of bills committee for taking the time to go back over this issue and I applaud its members for their thoroughness. I thank the minister for taking up the issues raised by the scrutiny of bills committee. The concerns that were raised with me initially about retrospectivity have been assuaged, but it would have been remiss of me not to explore that matter. I foreshadow that, although I have circulated an amendment in relation to clause 146, I will not be moving it. It was an oversight that it was not taken out earlier.

MS DUNDAS (5.21): This amendment goes to the ability of past actions to attract a rectification order despite the fact that work was completed before the commencement of this act. As we have heard, Tuesday’s scrutiny of bills committee report goes into some detail and explains that this bill is not an example of retrospectivity. The Democrats are always very suspicious of retrospective legislation and generally disagree with its imposition. However, we have been assured that this bill does not make retrospective law, as no action can be taken against a person unless the person has contravened the existing law. Thus, while the demerit scheme is a new way of reporting past contraventions, it does not impose any new penalties. This amendment is just a simple flag for a fuller meaning of “contravention” in clause 146.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 35A.

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