Page 121 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
for the government to look at when it puts forward all its regulations. That is something that should have been settled at the time and was not. That is why we are in this position. But let us be clear. Law is not about good intentions. It is about precise words and the court has found that the enabling legislation simply did not allow this kind of regulation. It is up to the Assembly then to consider whether or not we want that kind of enabling legislation to allow those kinds of regulations. But the fact that we did not support disallowance to a particular regulation does not mean that really the intention of the Assembly was that such a law and the enabling legislation would have been different to allow it back last year when it was considered.
Mr Speaker, I think in relation to this issue, it is certainly a dangerous principle to pass retrospective legislation which takes away people’s rights. That is clearly what this does. This amendment would fix that. This amendment would mean that people can go on from here, there can be certainty, but it certainly would not derogate from the principle that retrospective legislation should be used sparingly when it is overwhelmingly in the public interest and generally when it does not affect people’s rights adversely. That is not the case here. That is why we are moving the amendment.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (6.35): Mr Speaker, I will support these amendments, but I just want to make the observation that they improve legislation that I cannot agree with in the first place. Nonetheless, we are in a situation where the government has the numbers, but I suppose potentially they will not. We will see what happens when the vote is taken.
The Greens opposed the bill initially and continue to opposite it because it draws too fine a grain to its net. It not only excludes, as the government says, commercial objectors. It says that this is the only reason for the bill. We oppose it because it excludes community objectors as well, and we believe that the community groups and individuals should have the right to appeal, to make third party appeals.
I have not heard that issue addressed by the opposition and I certainly have not heard any concern about that from the government. I actually do urge the government to support Mr Seselja’s amendment because they improve the legislation. I believe that they answer many of the concerns, especially about human rights implications of retrospective legislation, and I will be very interested to see whether the government is interested in fixing up that aspect, given its commitment to human rights.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (6.37). It is a fine amendment moved by Mr Seselja for two reasons. I think RS Gilbert summarised it in the Canberra Times on Monday rather well where he said that what the government does should be tested in the courts, and the government should not be afraid to go to court to defend its position.
If this amendment does not get up today, it simply shows that the minister is concerned about the strength of his case; he does not want to go back to court; he wants to avoid the court as he pointed out in his tabling speech. Again, you then have to question why we are rushing this through this evening. We will be supporting the amendment because it is a very wise thing to do.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (6.37): The government is not afraid of these
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .