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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 6 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1525 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

We were well aware of the amount of community concern about a building proposal on the site, if there was a change of land use. But, for the most part, the committee did not consider that because we considered that the fundamental issue we had to address was whether the land use was justified. The committee recommends that the land use on the site currently occupied by the Hungarian-Australian Club not be changed because the land use cannot be justified.

Associated issues that arose during the inquiry relate to what might be called concessional leases. There is a great deal of anxiety in the community that leases are issued, at various stages, for less than market value. The lease in question currently occupied by the Hungarian-Australian Club is a lease of long standing and first issued in 1961. There was a great deal of anxiety in the community. There was a sense that, without any malice, there was something slightly underhand, or maybe someone was rorting the system.

The committee is of the view that this is not really what is happening, but there is a great deal of uncertainty about how pre-land act leases of this sort are dealt with in the land act. We have recommended that the government undertake a review of the operation of pre self-government leases that only lightly fit within the land act.

Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell ) adjourned to the next sitting.

Legislation Amendment Bill 2002

Detail stage

Clauses 1 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 7A.

MS DUNDAS (10.51): I move amendment No 1 which has been circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1591].

Mr Speaker, I am going to discuss amendments Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name because they are related. Both amendments need to be accepted by the Assembly. One without the other would mean a very messy and unworkable piece of legislation. These amendments are minor in nature, but will ensure ministerial responsibility for regulations and disallowable instruments that occur within the minister's portfolio areas.

These amendments are very similar to those put forward by the then shadow Attorney-General, Mr Stanhope, in February 2001. The amendments would have the effect, when the executive makes regulations and subordinate laws by the signature of two ministers, of ensuring that one of the two ministers signing the regulation is the minister holding the portfolio. This puts the onus on the portfolio minister to take responsibility for all aspects of their portfolio.

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