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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2009 ..

That said, the government obviously will closely scrutinise this report and will respond to it as soon as possible. I should flag to members that the government is embarking on a new process in relation to Karralika. Now that the committee has reported, I will be making an announcement soon on what that process will be. I look forward to that process allowing us to proceed with very valuable facilities for drug rehabilitation in the ACT.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak) adjourned to the next sitting.

Health—Standing Committee

Statement by chair

MS TUCKER: I seek leave to make a statement regarding a new inquiry.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: The Standing Committee on Health has resolved to conduct an inquiry into and report on the availability of specialist health care services—dental, counselling, podiatry, et cetera—to people in residential aged care. I realise that we are coming to the end of the term of this Assembly, but the committee is interested in doing so and thinks that it could be a useful analysis of the availability of these services to people in residential aged care. Obviously, a reasonably tight timeframe will be imposed on us to do this work, but we are confident that we can and that it will be useful.

Postponement of orders of the day

Ordered that orders of the day Nos 1 and 2, executive business, relating to the Electoral Amendment Bill 2003 and the Appropriation Bill 2003-2004 (No 3), be postponed until a later hour this day.

Road Transport (General) Amendment Bill 2003

Debate resumed from 11 December 2003, on motion by Mr Wood:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MRS DUNNE (6.23): The opposition is agreeing to this bill.

MS DUNDAS (6.23): Mr Speaker, the Democrats will be supporting this bill, although we believe that it creates a further anomaly in the law. It tightens a loophole in the issuing of infringement notices and makes it easier for the Road Transport Authority to collect revenue. However, it shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant. We have a fundamental tenet underpinning our common law system in relation to being innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the enforcement agencies to prove someone’s guilt, but we seem to be reversing the onus of proof in this instance.

Given the relatively easy nature of proving that an offence has been committed and the disproportionate difficulty in proving who committed the offence, I do accept the notion that vehicle owners have to accept the responsibility in terms of the defences laid out in

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