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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 1970 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

amendment comes into effect. The scrutiny of bills committee, in a very detailed report on this bill, does give significant coverage of the extent to which there is a retrospective element to the proposed change. The scrutiny of bills committee also gives a very detailed explanation of the law in relation to double jeopardy.

The Labor Party believes that the concerns of the scrutiny of bills committee should be addressed. As I said, we have no difficulty with the increase of the fee from $30 to $50. We do have a difficulty with the government's decision to make the increase apply to those offences that occurred or allegedly occurred before 1 July, namely, the date on which the government's amendment comes into effect, where there may not, at the date of the amendment, have been a conviction. This is something that can be quite easily tidied up by simply making the government's proposal for the increased fee to apply in relation to offences committed on and after the time that the offence was committed.

As I said, the Labor Party agrees in principle with the notion of increasing the fee from $30 to $50. The Labor Party notes the discussion on this matter by the scrutiny of bills committee. The Labor Party would quite happily support the legislation if there is a minor amendment to provide that not only does the increase in fee apply from 1 July, as proposed by the Attorney, but that it also applies only to those matters in relation to which the offence to which the payment applies also occurred after 1 July.

Mr Speaker, I am in the process of drafting an amendment to that effect. I am happy to give notice of that now. I have not had an opportunity to have it circulated. It is still being written out. The mechanics are a bit beyond me at the moment. As I say, we agree with the bill in principle, but could I have some time to get the amendment circulated?

Debate (on motion by Mr Berry ) adjourned.

MR CORBELL (11.10): Mr Speaker, pursuant to order, I present the report of the Select Committee on Estimates 2000-2001 on the Appropriation Bill 2000-2001, including a dissenting report, and the Appropriation Bill 1999-2000 (No 3), together with a copy of the minutes of proceedings of the committee. I move:

Mr Speaker, this budget attempts to present the picture of a government whose focus is not solely on the bottom line, but is also interested in building the social capital of the territory. This budget attempts to portray a government which believes in accountable and transparent processes. This budget attempts to portray a government which is fiscally responsible and able to achieve positive outcomes for the territory.

Mr Speaker, a majority of the Estimates Committee has found that on all three counts this budget has been found wanting. This so-called social capital budget is nothing more than a slogan searching for substance. It is looking for the substance of a serious and genuine social capital and social justice agenda, looking for the substance of an approach which provides transparency and accountability for its decisions and programs and,

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