Page 959 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries has presented and what I believe the Government will present if Mr Humphries's amendment is not passed - I believe that the amendments foreshadowed by the Government meet my requirements as far as this matter is concerned.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (5.17): Madam Speaker, I would like to put the formal position. The Government will be opposing Mr Humphries's amendments in this instance. The apparent effect of Mr Humphries's amendments is to remove the commissioner's discretion to supply extracts of the roll to persons who require the extracts for approved purposes. However, the amendments do appear to involve a reversal of the onus of proof in that the commissioner can refuse access only where he or she has reason to believe that the extract would not be used for an approved purpose. The existing proposed new sections, Madam Speaker, require the commissioner to be satisfied that the person requires the extract for an approved purpose - putting it in the positive sense; that is, the applicant is required to satisfy the commissioner that the extract is to be properly used.
As Mr Moore and Ms Szuty have alerted members, the Government has some amendments which I will move if Mr Humphries's amendment is not supported by the Assembly. My foreshadowed amendments have the effect of making it mandatory for the commissioner to supply those extracts where the commissioner is satisfied that the applicant will use that extract for an approved purpose. I believe that those foreshadowed amendments may, in fact, meet Mr Humphries's purpose. It is certainly a neater and legally more correct way of achieving that purpose.
MR STEVENSON (5.19): Speaking briefly on the specific point that the Chief Minister mentions, this relates to the onus of proof. The amendments, as suggested by the Labor Party, would require the onus of proof obviously to be on the person to give due reason as to why they should have it. The other suggestion is that the commissioner should have due reason to say that they should not have it. One would think that the weight should be on the right of people to have it, unless a reason could be shown as to why they should not.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.20): Madam Speaker, I realise that the proposed amendments are lost, but I want to make a couple of comments. Mr Stevenson does put the position quite succinctly; that is the case. I believe that it is appropriate that the commissioner have some reason why it should be refused. The Chief Minister might correct me if I am wrong in this, but I understand that there is considerably freer access to the Commonwealth electoral roll than is the case with this provision.
Mr Moore is worried about someone sending him material. They will continue to be able to send material to him by means of the Commonwealth electoral roll if they wish to do so. It seems to me rather foolish to put that restriction on here.
Mr Moore: Except that they are looking at this moment of time - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .