Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1886 ..
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.57): I am concerned about the attitude that is being adopted in relation to this piece of legislation. There is some pressure for it to be passed; we are all aware of that. In effect, as Mr Quinlan has indicated, the Labor Party is generally supportive of this bill. Mr Quinlan has indicated that our preferred position, to meet the needs of the government, to meet the needs of first home owners and to meet the needs that have been pressed upon us by the imminent arrival of the GST, is to pass this piece of legislation, but there are certain aspects of it that do cause us significant concern, just as they caused the scrutiny of bills committee significant concern.
The proposal that Mr Quinlan offered to overcome the difficulty that we have with this matter, but nevertheless to meet the government's basic requirements and to ensure that first home owners are not disadvantaged, is that two or three of the clauses be excised with a view to their being revisited at some time in the near future when further consideration can be given to how the legislation might be improved. It seems to me a sensible and logical approach to this difficult issue, a position that we have arrived at because of the haste and the speed with which the legislation has been prepared.
It is worth noting what the scrutiny of bills committee has said in relation to this clause. The opening sentence of the scrutiny of bills committee's comments in relation to clause 43 is that the committee does not appreciate why the privilege against self-incrimination should be more restricted in taxation and other revenue legislation. The Attorney's response to that and the Attorney's response to the Labor Party's concern is to suggest that, if we are worried about it in relation to this bill, then equally we should be considering the sister provision in every other piece of taxation legislation. That is simply absurd. We are dealing here with a particular bill which has been pressed upon us because of the imminent arrival of the GST and the need to protect first home owners after 1 July. To suggest that we should tonight, because of our concerns about this bill, address similar provisions in all other pieces of legislation is arrant nonsense, is superficial and shallow and is the sort of comment that really does not reflect the extent to which the Labor Party is prepared to compromise and seek to be helpful in relation to this bill.
Issues such as the right not to incriminate oneself are fundamental principles of the operation of law. They are fundamental principles and they should not be rammed through in these sorts of circumstances. Whether at the end of the day it could be accepted that provisions in relation to privilege against self-incrimination are relevant or reasonable in relation to taxation legislation is one thing, but we should not be ramming through this parliament provisions in relation to this sort of significant issue in these circumstances. It just should not be done. There is no reason for this provision not to be excised tonight and for the matter to be revisited at the government's and perhaps the Assembly's leisure. We have been put under pressure here tonight in relation to this bill and these provisions because of the rapidly arriving GST date but that is no reason, because the government has been tardy in introducing the legislation, to ram it through and in so doing to subvert these fundamental principles of the criminal justice system.
MR HUMPHRIES
(Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (10.01): Mr Speaker, I just want to draw one more matter to members' attention tonight. We have actually had this debate before. The self-incrimination provisions are the same as the provisions that appear in the Taxation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .