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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2020 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I certainly do not think that the effect would be that the original decision would disappear. That would have to be expressly stated in the act. I would argue that the Assembly should support Mr Kaine's amendment to clause 30 but not the one to clause 82.

MR RUGENDYKE (11.56): I, too, have been lobbied by members of the industry in the same way that other members have. I have listened carefully to what their concerns are regarding clauses 25 and 82. In relation to clause 25, the information that these complainants have been given has, I think, satisfied their concern regarding the 15 years-that there is a provision in clause 29 that enables the minister, by determination, to do what Mr Kaine's clause 30 amendment does. On that one I take advice from the Treasurer that the amendment by Mr Kaine to clause 30 is-

Mr Kaine: Why don't you take advice from me? It's my amendment.

MR RUGENDYKE: I also take advice from Mr Kaine. But hearing the explanation of the Treasurer gives me comfort that Mr Kaine's amendment is appropriate. So I do take advice from Mr Kaine as well.

With regard to clause 82, my advice to the people who complained to me late yesterday was that the legislation as proposed is appropriate: a decision should remain valid in this situation and, therefore, not be revoked. I said to those people that I thought it appropriate to pass the legislation as proposed to see if it works or if it does not. They mentioned that there is a large incentive for the commission to act within the 28 days: they would be embarrassed severely by a rap on the knuckles from the AAT if it got that far. I said that it may well be appropriate to pass it as it is and see if a problem is created, and I think it is appropriate that that view remains. I think that Mr Kaine's amendment No 2 is unnecessary; however, I will support Mr Kaine's amendment No 1.

Ordered that the amendments be considered separately.

MS TUCKER (12.00): Talking to the first amendment, on the period of time-15 years-I am concerned that we would make that decision today. I do not know why it was 15 years originally, and no-one has explained that to me, so I am not comfortable with making it 15 years again. I understand Mr Kaine's argument that it seems rather open but, as Mr Humphries said, one would have thought it was the commission's responsibility to come up with some rationale for a period of time that seems to be appropriate. Then we could have that debate, and it could be put into the legislation. But I am not comfortable today with just whacking it back to 15 years.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 negatived.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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