Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1881 ..

Mr Humphries: That is not true. It is a statutory scheme.

MR HARGREAVES: He does not have to reject the application.

I was concerned when I heard the Treasurer say that the commissioner's prime job was to protect the territory's revenue. This scheme is not about serious crime. It is about giving people a loan to set up a home in the first instance. This scheme is about giving a leg-up to people who otherwise would not get one. We do not need to treat this matter as though it is a heroin investigation. There are plenty of provisions within this bill which enable people to get that leg-up without assuming that they are guilty before we clearly know it. It goes to the presumption of innocence before being proven guilty; this provision has the reverse effect.

Mr Speaker, in the debate on the road transport legislation we had the hoary old line that if we did not do something the Commonwealth would get angry and keep money from us. I have to say that that did not stop us amending the legislation to reflect the amendments that Mr Rugendyke moved because the legislation was just plain silly. We ran the risk of the Commonwealth getting angry with us there because it was national scheme legislation. We have the same thing here. Why should we blindly follow something that the Commonwealth has said if you have not proven to us after a considerable period that the scrutiny of bills committee was wrong?

This matter has been the subject of an agreement for months, I would assume. We have had the scrutiny of bills committee point to an issue concerning the burden of proof and you have given the scrutiny of bills committee a response that was not particularly acceptable to the committee, yet you still come back and say that the burden of proof has to be with the applicants because they are presumed to be guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. I am sorry, I reject that.

I would also reject any argument that the Commonwealth is going to withhold money over an issue involving protection of the fundamental right of being presumed innocent. I do not believe that. I would have more faith in the ability of our Attorney-General and Treasurer to argue the case on the basis of basic human rights. I do not believe that they would pull the dough off us, Mr Speaker.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (9.40): Mr Speaker, it is just ridiculous to make the point that we are meant to read scrutiny of bills committee reports and assume every possible amendment that the opposition might make on the basis of those reports. We talk about cooperation in this place. Mr Corbell made comments last night about cooperation. These amendments were tabled an hour ago. Is Mr Hargreaves saying that at 20 to nine a bevy of public servants should be on hand because members of the Labor Party cannot get themselves organised? You have had the scrutiny of bills committee's report for as long as we have had it and you had the opportunity to get your amendments ready far earlier and give us an opportunity to make reasonable decisions on these things. It is ridiculous for you to make those comments and it is ridiculous that we should have to accept them.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .