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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1336 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

mechanisms. It is the approach recommended by the Stein inquiry into the administration of the ACT leasehold-a review, I should say, which was a result almost entirely of the lobbying of people such as Michael Moore. This bill is consistent with that approach. This bill is consistent with the approach of Stein.

For Mr Smyth to stand up in this place and say that the government had implemented the reforms of Stein is a joke, because the two key reforms of Stein were the establishment of an independent planning authority and the establishment of an independent land management authority. Those were the two key structural reforms of Stein, both of which were ignored by this government and continue to be ignored by this government. We will respond to those concerns. This bill may be defeated today, but it will not be the end of the planning debate in Canberra. The Labor Party will continue to advocate robust, independent and transparent planning mechanisms for our city. We will take these proposals to the electorate and, if elected to government, we will implement them.

Question put:

The Assembly voted -

     Ayes 6  				Noes 8

 Mr Berry  	Mr Wood  	Mrs Burke  	Mr Osborne
 Mr Corbell  			Mr Cornwell  	Mr Rugendyke
 Mr Quinlan  			Mr Hird  	Mr Smyth
 Mr Stanhope  			Mr Humphries  
 Ms Tucker  			Mr Moore  

Question so resolved in the negative. 


Electoral Amendment Bill 2000 (No 3)


Debate resumed from 6 December 2000, on motion by Ms Tucker:



That this bill be agreed to in principle.



MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.46): Mr Speaker, while Ms Tucker's bill contains several shortcomings, its central point that disclosure obligations should be imposed equally on all MLAs, not just Independent MLAs as at present, is a reasonable one. The bill, however, significantly and, in the government's view, unnecessarily changes the requirements imposed on MLAs to disclose details of their personal affairs. It would impose an obligation on all MLAs to submit an annual return to the Electoral Commissioner showing details of income, expenditure and financial interests of each MLA, and the MLA's spouse and dependent children. At present only Independent MLAs are required to submit more limited annual returns under the Electoral Act. These are similar in scope to the annual returns submitted by the registered political parties. 







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