Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 3772 ..
(c) by omitting subsection (6) and substituting the following subsection:
"(6) A notice under subsection (1), (2), (3), (4) or (4A) or paragraph 69 (1) (b) or 73 (1) (b) must be in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Practice in force under subsection 25B (1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989.".
This is the last of my amendments. It allows for appeal to the AAT. It is appropriate that that appeal mechanism be there.
MR CORBELL (5.45): The Labor Party will be supporting this amendment. We welcome this change of heart by the Government in relation to appeal rights. This has been an issue of significant concern for a number of rural leaseholders. Clearly they should have the opportunity to go to the AAT should there be a disagreement in relation to a negotiation over an LMA. The use of the AAT is a far better mechanism than leaseholders going to a higher court and endeavouring to argue denial of natural justice because they have not had a provision that allows them to appeal to a lower body such as the AAT. There has been a welcome change of heart, and the Labor Party will be supporting the amendment.
MS TUCKER (5.46): The Greens will also be supporting this amendment. We support the concept of appealability in this legislation.
Proposed new clause agreed to.
Clause 12
MS TUCKER (5.47): I move:
Page 7, line 10-
Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:
12 Schedule 5
Schedule 5 is amended by adding at the end the following item:
"12 | Managing land held under a rural lease other than in accordance with the land management agreement that applies to it, whether because of the agreement or because of subsection 186CF(1) | 100 penalty units". |
This amendment increases the penalty units for managing land other than in accordance with an LMA from the Government's proposed 50 penalty units to 100. I think this high penalty is much more appropriate relative to the scale of other penalties in this Schedule. The penalty for causing soil erosion or damaging vegetation near a watercourse is 100 penalty units. The penalty for conducting work affecting the heritage significance of a place on the Heritage Register is double this, at 200 units. I therefore think that the Government's proposed 50 penalty units is too low and does need to be increased to 100.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .