Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 342 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

explained what she wanted to do and explained why she was doing this, we could have explained to her why these amendments were not a good idea, why they would create a significant problem for the commission. I urge members not to accept the amendments, because without these provisions there will be a significant disability on the part of the commission to investigate matters for which it had not budgeted but which it believed could be paid for by a particular party coming through the door that was prepared to pay for them, if that was in the public interest.

MS TUCKER (11.51): I would like to respond to Mr Humphries' comments. I stick by the amendments that I have put here. I am concerned to hear his response. The arguments seem to be about resources. Does this mean that we are moving in the direction of user pays for all the other complaints mechanisms that exist? We have already had discussions about that with the Commissioner for the Environment. It is an issue of resources. That is what is being put here. To me, if in the environment of competition policy we have a commitment to ensuring that the public interest will always be discussed and that there will be input from a broad variety of people in the community, then we have to facilitate in every way possible their ability to do that.

As people are well aware, this has been a hot topic in this place for a long time. I went through the history of it in my speech. The public interest debate needs to be facilitated. I do not accept Mr Humphries' comments that it is going to make it more difficult for the commission because they will not be able to budget for particular complaints and the system will not be able to cope with them. This is an issue of how committed the ACT Government is to ensuring the public interest debate is facilitated. That is what these amendments are about.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (11.53): I have a brief response to what Ms Tucker said. The Government expects that the vast majority of inquiries conducted by the new commission will be paid for by the commission, funded by the taxpayer through an appropriation each year. That is how the vast majority of its inquiries will be conducted.

But it should not be limited on having other inquiries, if it believes they are appropriate, if there are parties in the community prepared to fund them. By having this clause we do not move inquiries into user pays. The vast majority of the inquiries of the commission will still be publicly funded inquiries, but the commission may wish to conduct other inquiries which it cannot manage without some supplementation to its budget. This is the mechanism for making it happen.

Question put:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .