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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1876 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

that we be able to deliver that scheme in a uniform way. We do not have the luxury of greatly changing this bill and I urge members to be careful about what changes are made.

I am not exactly sure what the Commonwealth will insist upon on of what is being brought forward in our bill. I do not know which amendment would be the one that would make the Commonwealth say, "Sorry, this is not the scheme we have agreed to fund. Go back and do it again." Mr Speaker, we would put ourselves at serious risk of leaving ACT home builders and home purchasers without access to a first home owners scheme on 1 July if that were to be the case.

Mr Quinlan: We are supporting it. What is the problem?

MR HUMPHRIES: I do not think that there is a problem, but there are a couple of amendments which I am not sure about at this stage. Because of the timeframe we have for dealing with them, I just do not know what the attitude of the Commonwealth will be to them. I just indicate to members that they should be a little bit careful about this process.

I thank members for supporting the bill as a whole. I hope that it will come through fairly unscathed and we will be able to proceed with implementing this important scheme for ACT home owners and home builders from 1 July.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Clauses 1 to 24, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 25.

MR QUINLAN (9.20): I move:

This amendment relates to the scrutiny of bills committee's reports and its consultant's recommendations. Effectively, there is a concern that, by limiting appeals virtually to two grounds, some people's rights may well be impinged upon. I note that the government has conceded that and has listed in its proposed amendment a considerable number of elements of a decision that might be appealed against, which only goes to confirm the reservations of the scrutiny of bills committee in the first place.

Again, without a lot of knowledge about the processes, I cannot be sure that that list is exhaustive. I propose that we just allow people to appeal against the decision in any way. If we find that that is too broad in administrative practice, then the government can come back with some better structure. At this stage, that is the only way I can see that we can

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