Page 1867 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 19 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, the rest of the Bill is unexceptional. I think in some cases it makes needed reforms, particularly to allow trustee companies operating in the ACT to invest their funds in a common fund and thereby maximise the return that they get for moneys put to the application of investment. That will provide a stronger basis for good returns, and I hope that it will provide better benefits for those for whom funds are being invested. I commend this Bill, but I hope that the Attorney keeps under review the matters that I have raised and considers in particular, if that is possible, what rate of fees is being charged by trustee companies.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (5.34), in reply: It is a pleasure to see the Opposition back in the chamber.
Mr Wood: Not a pleasure.
MR CONNOLLY: It is perhaps not a pleasure, Mr Wood suggests; but, anyway, they are back. Both Mr Humphries and Ms Szuty raised a concern that this legislation could have an adverse social justice effect, and that was certainly something that we had closely in mind when we were preparing this. We came down with the view to which Ms Szuty also came, namely, that this was, on balance, fair. So, I would refute Mr Humphries's suggestion that it is going to have an adverse social justice effect. It is true that in some cases some people may pay more; but in most cases most families will pay less. The problem with the simple percentage charge was that it was anti-competitive; there was a basic scale fee rate across the town. We hope that there will be some price competition when charges are made on a fee for service basis.
But, essentially, it made no difference whether it was an extraordinarily simple will, with all property going to one beneficiary, or a complex will, with parcelling up of the property to diverse beneficiaries who may be difficult to track down. So, there was no real fairness there. A task that a trustee company could perform in a couple of hours would be charged the same as a task that would take weeks or even months to pursue, and that seemed an inequitable basis of charging. We are convinced that this new fee system will be fairer. I take Mr Humphries's and Ms Szuty's point that we need to watch this carefully, and we will do that; but it is my confident expectation that this will lead not only to some competitive pricing which will benefit consumers but also to an overall lower level of fees, which again will benefit consumers. As Ms Szuty indicated, the Public Trustee is always available as a final resort.
Mr Humphries had circulated some amendments. He discussed them with me in a previous sitting. I must advise the Assembly that when we discussed them, looking at them quickly, I was prepared to say to Mr Humphries that I thought I saw some merit in what he was proposing. When we looked at them more carefully and with the benefit of advisers who are closely versed in this area of law, which is a fairly obscure area and one which I am happy to confess was not my area of practice - and I think it was the same with Mr Humphries - I think we were both convinced that it was unnecessary to proceed with those amendments which had looked as though they might have added to the Bill. I am pleased that they are not going to be pursued by the Opposition. I generally thank members for their support.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .