Page 3454 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: Or do not register them.
MR STEVENSON: Some are not registered because people have had their registration cancelled through an injustice.. A similar situation applies to drivers licences. There are unlicensed drivers all over the ACT because of the non-payment of fines. There are some highly indignant people because of an injustice in that area. That is something that should never have happened. When that legislation was debated, I mentioned that there were a number of scenarios that we could look at that would result in people having their licence and registration cancelled through an injustice. That was not looked at. Then it happened. Then we made some changes. It should never have been done in the first place.
Mr Lamont mentioned earlier that one person in a hundred would be enough. You are right. But how many are falsely making claims? Is it one in a hundred, or is it more than that? On your principle, one in a hundred would be enough.
Mr Lamont: There is a procedure to take that into account.
MR STEVENSON: Okay; but it has not been mentioned, and it is vital. Did you mention recovery?
Mr Lamont: The issue was covered in the issues that - - -
MR STEVENSON: No; I did not say that. I said that it may have been covered in another way. But recovery is not mentioned. You talk about justice. The point you miss is that Mr De Domenico's amendment covers that more fairly than what you have.
MR LAMONT (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Housing and Community Services, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (9.47): Madam Speaker, very briefly, I reject Mr Stevenson's argument in relation to that issue. The questions of fraud and fraudulent claims are dealt with under a range of provisions in our legislative armoury in the ACT. The question that Mr De Domenico raises is: Is there a principle that applies for 12 months which is different from the principle that applies after 12 months? The answer is simply, "Yes". I have not resiled from that position. The reason why it is the position is that I have needed to maintain the provision beyond the year, and to give up the provision, if you like, up to the year. On the one hand, all I am saying is that the Barbaro principle, as you wish to put it, will apply for claims that are over a year old. In essence, yes. But I needed to maintain that in order to gain reasonable agreement to scrub it in the period up to 12 months, Mr De Domenico.
I have also said that, in one year from the implementation of the legislation, we will review how the termination arrangements have acted. Not only will we do that; we will also look at the continuing obligations that have accrued under the old Act, to see how it is operating in regard to claims that are over 12 months old and that have extended for a period of longer than a year. Quite frankly, if it is one person that we are talking about, then so be it. I would have presumed, if I use Mr De Domenico's logic, that, if we are talking about only one claim that has exceeded the period of 12 months, then the amount
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .