Page 2565 - Week 09 - Thursday, 8 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
At present, the trust maintains its accounts in accordance with commercial practice, but the current legislation prevents it from investing funds. This limits the extent to which the trust can retain and earn income from funds it receives from the sale of grave sites and the provision of its services. The effect of this is to limit the ability of the trust to meet the cost of providing future services to the public. The trust must therefore rely substantially on the Territory budget to meet these costs as they arise. Under the proposed new legislation, the trust will be empowered to invest its funds. This will enable it to conduct its operations in a more businesslike manner and reduce its reliance on the Territory budget.
This Bill was developed under the previous Government but has been reviewed and endorsed by the present Labor Government for introduction. I believe that the Bill is a significant piece of legislation which will reduce the level of subsidisation of the trust's activities and the burden on the ACT taxpayer. It will also result in the provision of improved services for the Canberra public. I present the explanatory memorandum for the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Duby) adjourned.
MOTOR TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (10.52): Mr Speaker, I present the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill 1991. I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
The Motor Traffic Act, dating as it does from 1936, is in some respects out of date. One of the areas in which the Motor Traffic Act is lacking is the consistent treatment of administrative decisions, including the exercise of discretions. Some decisions which have been included in the Act in more recent times already provide for appeals to the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, many decisions remain subject to appeal to the Magistrates Court or the Supreme Court, and there are many decisions which are not subject to any kind of review. Most of the decisions which are not currently subject to review should be made subject to review on their merits, because they do affect people's interests. Some decisions particularly have a very significant implication as they can affect a person's ability to earn income.
Clearly, it is not appropriate that the Motor Traffic Act remain an anomaly when all of our more recent legislation is diligent in providing persons who may be adversely affected by the exercise of administrative discretions with an appropriate avenue of appeal to the Administrative
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .