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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1878 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Let us assume that it relates to, for example, a decision made by the commissioner not to grant somebody a first home owner grant on the basis that the commissioner believes that this person has had a previous house which might disqualify the person from eligibility under this scheme, that the commissioner has some evidence or information that this person's name appeared on a title somewhere in the past and this means that the person is disqualified from getting a first home owner grant because the person is not, in the view of the commissioner, a first home owner.

Subclause 26(2) is designed to allow the commissioner to say to the objector, "I suspect that you are not entitled, but you say that you are entitled. I want you to produce the evidence that shows me that you are not, in fact, disqualified under this scheme from having a first home owner grant." The reason for that is that the commissioner does not actually have the information at his or her disposal to be able to make an assessment of this matter because the information is in the possession of the objector.

How is the commissioner to know whether the John Smith referred to on the title deed in the Land Titles Office as owning a house is the same as the John Smith that is now making an application for a first home owner grant? The commissioner simply does not know and cannot know.

Mr Hargreaves: He should not make the decision at all, then.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, the commissioner has an obligation to protect the revenue of the territory; in fact, it is the revenue of the Commonwealth in this case.

Mr Hargreaves: Is that his prime obligation?

MR HUMPHRIES: It is an obligation on the commissioner, yes, to protect the revenue that the territory is administering in this case.

Mr Hargreaves: He should just ask for extra information, instead of rejecting the application.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is the point. You can ask for the information, but if the applicant refuses to provide it and the commissioner cannot prove the case that this John Smith is actually the same as the John Smith appearing in another document-let us face it, there are lots of John Smiths around the place-then the commissioner fails because the removal of subclause 26(2) shifts the burden onto the commissioner to prove that a particular applicant is not worthy of this grant.

You need to allow the commissioner to protect the revenue. The commissioner needs to be able to say, "I have a reasonable doubt about this matter. I want you to show me that you are actually eligible for this grant. Show me that you are not the John Smith who appears on this title deed." It should not be difficult to do that in most circumstances, but it is information that only the applicant can provide.

The second argument I advance on this matter is that it is a provision that appears quite commonly in other territory legislation where grants are provided. It is certainly provided in other pieces of legislation in the ACT. I am not sure how commonly, but it is certainly provided in other pieces of legislation and it provides a basis for forcing information

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