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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 1968 ..

I present an explanatory memorandum for that amendment. It simply does what we did to the previous bill. It allows a different commencement date or makes the commencement date 1 July even if gazettal occurs after 1 July.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 5.

MR QUINLAN (10.59): Mr Speaker, I seek to remove clauses 5 and 6 from this legislation. The point, as I understand it, is that we have replaced a valuation discretion by the commissioner with a formula. The provisions that do that have now been passed. However, there still can remain a level of disputation as to the area in the overall property that is apportioned to one dwelling as opposed to another. Given that there remains, as I understand it, a discretion that the commissioner holds in relation to that apportionment, then the capacity for someone to appeal should also remain.

I would anticipate, given that the valuation discretion has been replaced by a formula, that there will be a considerable reduction in the number of appeals, but I think the capacity to appeal in relation to the apportionment within the block should remain. Therefore I commend my proposal to the Assembly.

MS TUCKER (11.01): The Greens are supporting this bill in principle but we will be supporting Mr Quinlan's proposition. I believe there is the possibility that an appeal could be put if there was a view that the commissioner did get the area of land wrong. Obviously, we want to see appeal rights included wherever we think appeals may be possible. This is a fundamental aspect of good government. While the formula obviously does take away a lot of the discretion, there is still this area which possibly could be challenged, so we will be supporting Labor.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (11.02): Mr Speaker, my advice about what Mr Quinlan proposes is that the formula and the other provisions in clause 4 of the bill make quite clear what the arrangements are for the application of the valuation arrangements on a property, part of which is rented out, and it is hard to see how there is any element of discretion in those arrangements that could result in an appeal being successful anyway. By the same token, my advice is that the proposal does not have a great impact in that respect, and that the only aspect of a matter that could be appealed would be some element of discretion exercised in the judgment that is made.

Mr Quinlan: What is habitable or what is not habitable?

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