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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1873 ..

MR QUINLAN: Yes, I know, but are we heading for the lowest common denominator? Part of the structure of this place is the scrutiny of bills committee. I am not a lawyer, but those of us who have spent some time reading the scrutiny of bills committee's reports Nos 6 and 8 on this legislation and Mr Humphries' response to at least No 6 would have to conclude that we rely on expertise. There is not a lot of plain English in that wad of paper.

With that in mind, I would love to be adjourning debate on this bill one more time. However, I do appreciate that the bill needs to be up and running by 1 July, so I announce my intention to move a few amendments to the bill to reduce the powers and burden of proof provisions of this bill in line, I think, with the spirit of what has come through in the scrutiny of bills committee's reports.

Let me say quite openly that I am prepared to hear that what I want to do with the bill will not achieve or needs to be changed to achieve what I want to achieve. All I have done is take the minimalist approach and cut out a couple of words here and there and a clause here and there which may need to be replaced later for the administration to work properly. But what I want to do is to make sure that there is no overkill in the bill. I am quite happy for the government to bring another bill forward in June or later to reinstate a couple of the administrative conditions in a lesser form.

At this stage all I will say is that the opposition supports the bill in principle, but I do wish to make some changes to it to incorporate at least or to recognise the findings of the scrutiny of bills committee which, given that I have not read Mr Humphries' second reply, remain on foot before this Assembly at this time.

MR SPEAKER: I seek clarification, Mr Quinlan. You have foreshadowed a couple of amendments. You are seeking to omit paragraphs (a) and (b) from clause 25. Is that paragraphs 1(a) and (b) or 3(a) and (b)?

MR QUINLAN: With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, it is paragraphs 1(a) and (b). Is it appropriate to move that amendment now?

MR SPEAKER: No, it is not. The bill is still in the in-principle stage. I just wanted to clarify it for the benefit of Assembly members so that they know what they are doing.

MR TUCKER (9.10): The Greens support this bill as it offsets the effect of the GST on the acquisition of that first home. The number of concerns raised by the scrutiny of bills committee is alarming. These GST-related bills are always presumed to reflect provisions in other states and the presumption appears to be that there is not a lot of choice in the matter, once again.

In this instance, the loose approach to some of the principles of administrative law, such as burden of proof, makes you wonder whether a more careful approach is not warranted. I will be looking at the amendments from both sides of the Assembly in dealing with these issues and I will support those amendments which redress the balance in favour of defendants.

The real problems with this bill is that it does not serve the interests of the community, particularly those in the community who are disadvantaged. In this instance, the issue is

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