Page 3764 - Week 12 - Thursday, 21 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To continue from where I digressed, in rural industry our farmers need to compete on a national market, whether they are selling their wool or the meat they have produced or whatever, and it seemed to me to be equitable to retain the franchise there. That was the thinking. Madam Speaker, I would like to draw attention to my amendment No. 6 as circulated. It contains a typographical error. It refers to "lines 9 to 10". It should read "lines 8 to 9".
Amendments agreed to.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.54): Madam Speaker, I move:
Clause 12, page 3, line 34, proposed new section 36L, omit subparagraph (c).
This is a small amendment, but it makes an important point. The Bill provides for a number of circumstances in which a person must return their certificate of exemption. One is where their certificate is revoked under section 36D of the Act, that is, I think, where the circumstances giving rise to their entitlement to an exemption have changed. We are talking here, do not forget, about pensioners basically, age pensioners and other people - - -
Ms Follett: No, unemployed people.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes; be patient, Chief Minister. I was going to say "other people entitled to obtain a health benefits card". If their entitlement to that card ceases they have to return the certificate. That is fine. If it ceases to be in force under section 36DA it has to be returned as well. I beg your pardon; I will go back on that. Under section 36D, if it is revoked by the commissioner it has to be returned; that is fine. If it ceases to be in force because they cease to be the holder of one of those two sorts of cards it has to be returned. That is fine also. But the provision that has been put forward by the Government is that if the card actually lapses on 31 October this person must return their lapsed exemption certificate, even though it has expired - on its face it shows that it is no longer a valid certificate - or pay the penalty of a $500 fine.
It seems to me that this is a rather harsh way of dealing with the return of a piece of paper. When my driver's licence expires I do not have to return it to the ACT Government. When any other sort of permit that I hold expires I do not have to return it to the ACT Government, to the best of my knowledge. Why are we saying that it is essential for these age pensioners or unemployed people to have to return a defunct certificate? Let us face it, Madam Speaker; in the vast majority of cases people are not going to think to do that. They are going to assume that because the certificate has expired no-one has any interest in it any more. Those people are going to be liable to a maximum $500 fine because they have made that decision, because they have omitted to send their certificate back to the ACT Government. I point out that they can avoid this penalty if they have a reasonable excuse. I would suggest that ignorance of the law is certainly not a reasonable excuse, and having forgotten or not realised that they were obliged to return the certificate is also not a reasonable excuse.
I can see a reason, in the other two cases, why they should return the certificate. In those cases they have a certificate which on its face shows that they are still entitled to an exemption. In those circumstances, certainly, it should be the case that there should be a return of that certificate. It might be abused.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .