Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 13 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 5171 ..
That the amendment be agreed to.
A division being called and the bells being rung—
MADAM SPEAKER: While we are waiting, I thank the Deputy Speaker for bringing along the House of Representatives Practice, but I refer to the Assembly code of practice, at 18.41. It may be of interest, Mr Steel, that apparently our dress code for members is somewhat different from House of Representatives Practice. I am not encouraging gentlemen to take their coats off—let us be very clear—but 18.41 gives you some leeway. I will be watching the gentlemen's dress code at the beginning of next year.
The Assembly voted—
Ayes 6 : Miss C Burch, Mr Wall, Mr Coe, Mrs Dunne, Ms Lee, Mr Parton
Noes 9 : Mr Barr, Ms Le Couteur, Ms J Burch, Mr Rattenbury, Ms Cheyne, Mr Steel, Ms Fitzharris, Ms Stephen-Smith, Mr Gentleman
Clause 184 agreed to.
Clauses 185 to 192, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 193 agreed to.
Clauses 194 to 203, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (8.24): I move amendment No 47 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 5204]. In speaking now, I will also speak to amendment 48. This is related to what I just mentioned—the exoneration guidelines. I think the term "exoneration" is not appropriate as it commonly implies or suggests innocence. The commission does not make findings of guilt or innocence; therefore I do not think it is the appropriate term to use. It also implies that exoneration occurs when it may not actually be the case.
For example, the commission is not bound by the rules of evidence. If there is a simple technical deficiency in evidence, it may mean that the prosecution is not pursued, despite the fact that the corrupt conduct did still occur. So you cannot say definitively that the person is innocent because they are not making such a finding.