Page 2220 - Week 08 - Thursday, 10 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and the citizen, and make it clear that the citizen in the ACT can sue and bring legal actions against the Crown in the same way as any other citizen. So the matter of principle that Mr Humphries raises is quite right. The question is whether certain notices which are lodged with the Registrar of Titles for registration of caveats or interests in land should be required to be witnessed.
As Mr Humphries indicated, section 48 of the Real Property Act requires that instruments presented for registration at the land titles office be witnessed to ensure that they are not fraudulent, or that they are not being given under duress. As he said at the time, there are certain exceptions to that already in relation to certain government documents. The purpose of the witnessing is to ensure that a citizen is not being put under duress or that a citizen's signature is not being forged. If you can forge one signature, you can forge two signatures; but it makes it much easier to prove that a signature was forged if there is a requirement for a witness.
That requirement, I am advised, does not apply to government documents, and that makes sense to me. The exemptions under that section 48 apply to certain government documents already. A whole range of government notices are not required to be witnessed. An example of that is ministerial notices in the Gazette. So the Government will not be supporting this amendment. The practical effect of putting the amendment in would be to marginally increase the bureaucratic steps necessary to achieve a registration and, perhaps, marginally increase the verbiage in ACT law. The consequences of that would not be drastic, but the Government is not convinced that this is a good case.
On a number of occasions in the past Mr Humphries has made suggestions which the Government has supported, but this is not one of them. Where the Opposition puts forward proposals which we think, on balance, will improve legislation, we are happy to embrace them. Where the Opposition puts proposals which we think would detract from legislation, we will vigorously oppose them. Where there are proposals which we think do not add but do not have a serious deleterious consequence, we will say that, and this is one of those proposals.
Amendment negatived.
Bill, as a whole, agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
LAW OFFICER BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 13 August 1992, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .