Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think this is the third time that we are back talking about the ACC bill as part of the committee stage. So just to recap from last night, if I may, very briefly, so when we are looking at clause 6—now, clause 6 is the crux of the bill and one of the reasons that the Greens are not supporting this bill is because of the retrospective nature, particularly as seen in subclause 18.
I know that previously the Minister has very kindly gone through some of the background and talked about the fact that this whole process in terms of the retrospectivity—and the reason that this is coming through as part of the legislation has been agreed upon by ACC and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment but not necessarily had obviously the time to consult with businesses. I wanted to check with the Minister whether from a legality perspective the retrospectivity has been tested against the presumption against retrospectivity as one of the legal presumptions. And the reason I mention this is again, like in terms of any form of presumption we’re looking at from a legal perspective, you know there needs to be some sort of checks and balances and some sort of accountability and some sort of scope in which case it’s not going to create a butterfly effect, so to speak, when we are introducing a particular bill into the House or that potentially has a follow-on effect in terms of both case law but also in terms of some of the other legal elements.
So I guess my question to the Minister is: from a legality perspective, has this been tested in the context of the presumption against retrospectivity and has there been any work done in terms of checking through case law on the broader implications this will have on other potential bills in the future that will be introduced that potentially will introduce a retrospective element, or the historical context and precedence that was set as part of this retrospectivity? Yes, we have previously explored the operational and the business—and I also understand even like colleagues from across the House talking about the potential burden on ACC if the retrospectivity was non-introduced and the kind of legal implication it may have for ACC. But yes, we talked about the operation bit, but I wanted to ask from a legality perspective whether this is something that the Minister has considered or has been given advice on. So, yeah, so that would be my question. Thank you.
Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Well, thank you very much, Mr Chair. To respond to my colleague, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, who’s leading the charge in this epic hourly debate of the ACC bill, as he knows, because it’s been traversed many times before, retrospectivity guidelines go through the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines and this bill meets their threshold.
