Page 664 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Nothing will change that. Indeed, it would be a foolhardy Minister who did not follow that course of action. It is quite clear that the Minister needs the advice of industry organisations on this matter, but that will be sought and will be acted upon.
I would like to add, Madam Speaker, that we are dealing with two major bodies here. One is the Real Estate Institute of the ACT and the other is the Australian Federation of Travel Agents in the ACT. At the moment both of those bodies have a very significant coverage of the industry in the ACT, but that may not always be the case. At the moment, I believe, the Real Estate Institute has some 80 per cent coverage of the industry, and the Federation of Travel Agents in the ACT has approximately 70 per cent coverage of travel agents in the ACT. So, they do not have a 100 per cent coverage; they do not speak for the entire industry. I repeat that that degree of coverage may not always be the case. I think it would be extremely undesirable for the Government to be obliged to act upon the advice of one of these organisations if they were ever to lose the control of their industries that they currently have.
To specify in the legislation such a tight set of criteria as Mr De Domenico proposes is not acceptable to the Government. I suspect, Madam Speaker, that it is an arrangement that might have been more appropriate prior to self-government. You can well imagine that a Minister who did not live in the ACT would need such advice, much more so than those of us who come from the ACT, who work here and who have contact with these organisations in the course of our working lives.
So, Madam Speaker, as I said, we oppose the amendments that were moved by Mr De Domenico, although I give a commitment that, in relation to these appointments, we will continue to consult with both the Real Estate Institute and the Federation of Travel Agents. We always have done that, and we will continue to do so.
MR CORNWELL (3.53): I listened carefully to what the Chief Minister had to say on this matter. It certainly does not, however, satisfy my concerns about aspects of this Bill. Whilst the explanation may - and I stress the word "may" - be plausible in terms of appointing people to this board, I remain very concerned about proposed new paragraph 71Q(2)(b), which states that the balance of the moneys in the interest account shall be applied by the board towards:
... the provision of financial assistance (whether by way of grant or loan) or of other assistance under a program established for the purpose of enabling or assisting persons to acquire or rent dwellings in which they intend to reside.
Which persons? What dwellings? By way of grant or by way of loan? Many years ago a restaurant was set up in Lyneham. That is Tilleys; it is still in existence. A grant, not a loan, was made to this restaurant. So, a group of people who wished to open the restaurant were provided with money that they did not have to repay, and are in competition with other, bona fide restaurateurs in that area. I do not regard that as satisfactory, and I am naturally very concerned to read in this Agents (Amendment) Bill that the Minister can, by grant or by loan, provide financial assistance to enable people to acquire or to rent dwellings in which they intend to reside.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .