Chauvel Charles: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5899] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I have listened to the debate with interest on the radio and here in the House today. I heard Dr Mapp talk about a speeding fine. He said that if one gets a speeding fine one pays the ticket. It is interesting to consider that analogy a little further because here the true analogy is that the traffic has been driving on the road since 1989 thinking that it knew what the rules were. Everybody on the road thought he or she knew the rules. Then suddenly the people charged with enforcing and interpreting the rules came out with a new interpretation. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but the last speaker objected stridently to the noise in the Chamber. We are getting a barrage of noise from members on the Opposition side including noise from people who are not sitting in their own seats and the member who just spoke is himself one of those who are being very noisy right now. I wonder whether you could pull him back to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The noise level and the interjection level were certainly too high during the last few minutes of that speech. I just ask members to be considerate of and respectful to the person who is speaking. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: So we found that the drivers of all the vehicles on the road except for the Progressive one were unable to say that they had complied with the rules. 
In that situation the analogy that Dr Mapp has used is actually quite a useful one. What does one do when the enforcement agency changes the rules that everybody thought they understood and all but the Progressive party did not manage to comply with those rules according to the new and novel interpretation of them? Of course one goes back to the rule-making body and gets some clarification. One makes sure that protection is provided for the staff of the Parliamentary Service and of Ministerial Services and for MPs who in good faith have been following since 1989 the rules as they understood them. One provides some protection for those people so that they are not liable having acted in good faith and having tried to interpret the rules that everyone except the Progressives got wrong at the last election. 
In light of the novel interpretation of the rules of course we need to have validating legislation. Of course we need to say that people who followed what they understood to have been the rules since 1989 will not incur civil liability. That is the way to go. Otherwise we would create an untenable situation for the people who have acted in that way since 1989. They cannot and should not be blamed for having obeyed traffic rules that were suddenly changed on them. That would result in chaos and it would be stupid. The bill takes account of the reality that the laws were changed while people were driving and that that put at risk everything the drivers are doing now. Let us face it not only is the bill necessary to validate what has been done since 1989 but also it is needed to make sure there is clarity as to what we and our staff should be doing now. We should not put them in the gun and at risk through the novel interpretation of the rules. 
The bill validates the actions taken in good faith by MPs and their staff. It is the appropriate way to go. It gives 14 months for there to be a proper an open and a transparent consultation as to what the rules should be going forward. It means that no one ought to be in this position at the next election. Instead there ought to be a proper and well-understood set of laws for people to follow. That will be a very good thing. 
The traditional objection to retrospective legislation just does not apply here. The traditional objection to retrospective legislation is of course that it has the ability to impose penalties on people who did not know that what they were doing at the time was wrong. That is why retrospective legislation is objectionable in principle. But this legislation does exactly the opposite of that. This legislation provides that people will not be liable for following what were thought to be the rules at the time by everybody except the Progressives. It saves people from liability. It is an appropriate exercise. This is one of the rare occasions when it is appropriate to legislate retrospectively because instead of trying to impose a liability the bill removes one for the avoidance of doubt. And it provides for a period going forward in which we can actually get the rules right so that this sort of situation does not arise again. 
This is very good legislation and I commend it.