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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1880 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I have one other point to make. It is true that in the early years the money will be Commonwealth money; it will be money that the Commonwealth provides and it will specify the conditions of the scheme because it is actually topping up our payments to meet the costs of this scheme. In the outyears, in the long run when the ACT begins to get net gains from the GST, which will be about 2003-04 onwards, the money will be our money because the Commonwealth subsidy will have cut out and it will be our money that will be going into this scheme. When that happens, fine; we can make all sorts of concessions to applicants. We can let people make applications without having to prove their applications and all sorts of things. It will be fine when that takes place. But for the moment we can only apply the scheme on the conditions laid down by the Commonwealth.

I suggest to those members who are concerned about this matter that we pass the legislation tonight without this amendment in it and then ascertain from the Commonwealth whether there is an objection to the removal of subclause 26(2) from the legislation. If the Commonwealth says that we are still eligible for the money, I undertake to bring back an amendment to the Assembly or let Mr Quinlan bring back an amendment removing that provision. That is the safer course of action, Mr Speaker, because in that way the scheme would start on 1 July. It is most unlikely that there will be many objectors before 1 July who would be caught by that provision anyway, so it will be clear at that stage. We will be able to proceed. We will know what is going on. It is easier to build that protection back in than to run the risk of losing the scheme on the basis of a condition which the Commonwealth will not accept. So I ask members not to support the amendment.

MR HARGREAVES (9.35): I think that the government has had plenty of time to figure that out. The scrutiny of bills committee's original report, which pointed out this problem, has been out for some time. The government could have checked it out plenty of times before now, but has not done so. In fact, it has not addressed the concerns of the scrutiny of bills committee anyway.

I take issue with the minister on some of the things that he said. He said that the commissioner might have some evidence to suggest that an application should be refused. If he has only got some evidence to suggest that an application ought to be refused, perhaps he ought to find some proof that the application should be rejected. Subclause 26(1) says:

That should be enough. There should be no need to say that the burden of proof ought to be on the applicant. There is plenty of room to move in there; there is no necessity for this provision. If the commissioner does not have enough information, if he has only a little bit of information, how on earth can he actually reject something? He can just say, "Heck, I do not think that that should go through." The commissioner can just as easily say under subclause 26(1), "You have not stated fully and in detail what it is. Go back and do it again. Go back and give me more information before I approve it." In other words, he does not have to reject it. He can just say, "I am not going to approve it until you do provide me with that detail."

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