Beattie agreed with Fitzgerald in 1992, so where's the accountability now?

Following the Fitzgerald Inquiry the Goss Government introduced the Legislative Standards Act of 1992. The legislation provided, among other things, a framework of principles to consider when framing legislation.

The then humble backbencher Peter Beattie stated:

"The principles include not adversely affecting rights and liberties or imposing obligations retrospectively. During my speech in the debate on the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill, I said that retrospective legislation should be enacted only when a benefit is passed on to someone, not a detriment. That is another important principle."

Why Beattie, a person who prides himself on being man of principle, allowed such a piece of legislation through cabinet, let alone the Parliament, is unclear. Its retrospectivity would cause an obvious detriment to victims of the scams.

However, the issue of retrospectivity was not the only principle tossed out the window.

First, consultation was limited to government agencies. Many of the people affected by the legislation first heard about it through the media.

Among the many recommendations of the Fitzgerald Inquiry was the need for a strong, active committee system that would ensure greater accountability by making the policy and administrative functions of the government more open and accountable.

The Parliament’s Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which normally reviews legislation and examines whether or not legislation is based upon fundamental principles of good government, was totally bypassed.

Finally, the standing orders of the Parliament, which provide that legislation should be debated some 13 days after a bill is introduced, were changed to make sure this Bill was debated as soon as possible and passed before the recess of Parliament until February next year.

Whatever people think about whether or not these unsuspecting investors should be compensated that is not the issue. The Parliament could have made any number of principled positions such as allowing the claims to go ahead but capping the compensation.

Instead it chose to totally disregard some of the fundamental principles of good government.

Coupled with a decision to reject recommendations by the all-party Public Accounts Committee which called for more transparency on commercial-in-confidence deals between the government and private companies, this has tarnished Beattie's image as a person who was determined to carry forward the Fitzgerald torch.