Page 3481 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Given the difficulties with the transition of the ACT from a collection of departments of state of the Commonwealth to a self-governing body politic, and given the problems of transfer of property that were identified very clearly by Justice Else-Mitchell in his report of a couple of years ago, it did seem appropriate to absolve the Territory from the requirement to be put to strict proof on the question of ownership of every individual item of property.
It is important to stress, though, in conclusion, as I stressed in introduction, that this is only a rebuttable presumption. This is not denying the citizen who may be charged with theft or damage to Commonwealth property their appropriate legal right to challenge the Territory's ownership of the property. That can still be litigated and debated in the court. It just means that, as a procedural matter, it will not be necessary for the Director of Public Prosecutions to go through the tedious process of proving that in each and every prosecution. It is a sensible measure which will save both time and money in the prosecution of offences against the ACT.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
DR KINLOCH: Would this be an appropriate time for me to make a personal explanation under standing order 46?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you claim to have been misrepresented, it would probably be a very appropriate time, Dr Kinloch.
DR KINLOCH: I refer to page 70 of the proof copy of Hansard for last night. I think there has been a misunderstanding, and I am sorry that there has been. I particularly would like Mrs Nolan to know what actually happened. I was well aware that Mrs Nolan was not going to be here this week. Indeed, we had been at a - - -
Mrs Nolan: Well, why did you use my name last week?
DR KINLOCH: If you read Hansard you will see that I did not do that. I was well aware that Mrs Nolan was not going to be here. Indeed, we had been at a committee meeting the previous week. Why I asked for the adjournment was that Mrs Nolan would not be here to vote. There had been no pairing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .