{"id":150569,"date":"2016-07-04T15:29:10","date_gmt":"2016-07-04T05:29:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/?p=150569"},"modified":"2020-10-10T15:39:02","modified_gmt":"2020-10-10T05:39:02","slug":"reverse-onus-of-proof-scrapped","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/2016\/07\/04\/reverse-onus-of-proof-scrapped\/","title":{"rendered":"Reverse Onus Of Proof Scrapped"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

July 4, 2016<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Queensland Law Society has praised a recommendation to scrap reverse onus of proof provisions from proposed new Queensland tree clearing laws as “a win for common sense and the rule of law”.<\/p>\n

Law Society president Bill Potts said it was refreshing that the Parliament\u2019s Agriculture and Environment Committee unanimously recommended removing a provision under which landholders were to be considered guilty of illegally clearing land until they could prove themselves innocent.<\/p>\n

However, he said the changes do not go far enough.<\/p>\n

“It is great to see these unfair provisions – which are a recipe for injustice – get the boot, and pleasing that the government is listening,” Mr Potts said.<\/p>\n

“But the job isn’t done yet. If the act proceeds in its current form, a person could be charged for something done by mistake rather than deliberate law-breaking and that\u2019s not fair.<\/p>\n

“Other aspects of the proposed legislation are retrospective, which breaches fundamental legislative principles.”<\/p>\n

Mr Potts said the defence of mistake of fact should be maintained to ensure that the rights of Queenslanders were protected.<\/p>\n

“The stakes are high with these prosecutions and the fines can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, so we have to make sure we get the legislation right,” he said.<\/p>\n

Mr Potts said the Society had opposed the change to the onus of proof in its submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry because the idea did not accord with natural justice.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The provision would have meant the holder of any land on which trees were illegally cleared would be held responsible until they could prove it was done by someone else.<\/p>\n

“This is a victory for common sense, for farmers, rural landholders and for democracy,” Mr Potts said.<\/p>\n

“To reverse the onus of proof would have been a departure from well-established rule of law principles. The presumption of innocence is a foundation principle of our justice system.”<\/p>\n

The committee, in its report, said: “In light of the significant concerns raised about the proposal to reverse the onus of proof in relation to vegetation clearing offences and the potentially significant fundamental legislative principles issues raised by the amendment, the committee recommends [the proposal to] reverse the onus of proof in relation to vegetation clearing offences, be omitted.”<\/p>\n

Mr Potts also paid tribute to AgForce and the Queensland Farmer\u2019s Federation for the hard work they had done to protect the interests and the rights of their members.<\/p>\n

* * *<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\"\"<\/a>
Member for Nanango Deb Frecklington<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Member for Nanango Deb Frecklington, who has campaigned vigorously against the proposed new vegetation management laws ever since they were announced, today welcomed the decision to axe reverse onus of proof.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“As highlighted by the Queensland Law Society, the Labor Government\u2019s plan to reverse the onus of proof on landholders is totally unfair,” Mrs Frecklintgton said.<\/p>\n

“I welcome the Agriculture and Environment Committee\u2019s finding that the clause in the proposed legislation be rejected.”<\/p>\n

Mrs Frecklington said that even so, she did not believe the Committee’s recommendations went far enough to protect the property rights of landholders and their right to farm.<\/p>\n

“While the Agriculture and Environment Committee found that reversing the onus of proof was unfair because farmers would have deemed guilty until they proved their innocence, the Committee made no similar recommendation to dump mistake of fact, despite acknowledging there were many inaccuracies in government vegetation maps,” Mrs Frecklington said.<\/p>\n

“The report does not recommend allowing mistake of fact as a defence for landholders who make decisions based on inaccurate mapping and advice from the Department.<\/p>\n

“This is a fundamental flaw with Labor\u2019s legislation and flies in the face of the admission by the Government that there are many inaccuracies in their vegetation maps.<\/p>\n

“The LNP maintains that Labor\u2019s proposed vegetation laws are fundamentally flawed and should be rejected by the Parliament.”<\/p>\n