Alex White (Labour)

The Labour Party will not oppose this Bill. What strikes me initially — the Minister can correct me if I am wrong — is that this is the second time in recent months the Minister has come to this House with legislation that retrospectively validates the legality of particular matters within the remit of the Department of Health and Children. If I am not mistaken, this House dealt previously with legislation relating to health institutions. I am sure the Minister will recall the legislation to which I refer. That legislation sought to validate retrospectively the existence or legality of a range of different institutions and hospitals under the remit of the Department of Health and Children. I did not then, nor do I now, question the merits of doing this. This is the second occasion on which we are being asked to pass legislation retrospectively validating something about which a question has arisen. To be asked to introduce or agree to legislation validating something retrospectively must give us some pause. Legislation, in principle, should always be prospective. If we change a law or introduce a new law we should decide how the law needs to be changed and what kind of regime we want to have in the future.

It goes against the notion of legislating that we are asked to validate something that has already happened. It should only be done in the rarest circumstances. The Minister will probably agree with the proposition that it undermines the fundamental role of legislators if all they are asked to do is give the thumbs up to something after it has happened.

Senator Corrigan asked about future orders and I am sure the Minister will respond. I am interested to hear the change in regime the Minister proposes to introduce to ensure any frailties or questions of the orders or forms are validated retrospectively. What will be done to ensure no issue of that nature arises in the future?

I ask the Minister to address the issue of deeming something to be valid retrospectively. She has been advised by the Attorney General that he is satisfied and she, by extension, is also satisfied that there is no constitutional question on this matter. We are never told the advice of the Attorney General in detail, but I would like more from the Minister than to be told that the Attorney General is satisfied that it is constitutional. As legislators we are entitled, as is the wider community, to more than a thumbs up from the Attorney General that this is all right. How can it be constitutional to deem something illegal as valid retrospectively? Retrospectivity, whether something can be validated and deemed valid after it has occurred, has arisen in a number of cases, including the CC case. I ask the Minister for more detail on the basis upon which she has been advised there is no constitutional question on retrospective validation on a matter such as this.