Page 3697 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We then go to page 7 of the minister’s tabling speech where he talks about the funding. The funding is a concern because the minister is asking us to take again on trust that he will not take our money after the bill is passed. I guess we will apply the same amount of trust we took to the government’s statement that there would be no school closures. And I guess the public would be right in applying the same amount of trust they took when the minister said that excess school land would not be sold and the same amount of trust they applied to Minister Corbell’s statement that the Gungahlin Drive extension would be built on time and on budget to the budget specifications, because this government has no credibility. There is no trust left in their words.
Let us hear what the minister says. The minister says, “It is off the agenda; we are not going to take your money.” Let me read what he said in his speech:
The submissions received to date highlighted a number of aspects of the proposed funding model, including that it was not equitable and that it was to be used to fund the new ACAT.
It has been decided to implement the legislation using the funds available in the agents trust account, and to undertake further consultation with stakeholders to develop an appropriate model to fund the new consumer protection measures and dispute resolution arrangements.
It is simply a smokescreen; it is simply a tax grab. By his own admission, there is enough money in the agents trust account to fund the model as it is. On that basis, why do you need the additional money that will come from the accounts that the government would clearly like to have under their control? The only answer that one can come up with is that they want the money. And that is why this bill should be stopped today.
Unless a minister can come into this place and clearly detail what is going to occur under the act that he seeks the authority of this place to put in place, then that act should not be passed. When the government says, on the basis of its history in the last seven years, “Trust us we will get this right,” I do not think there is any trust left within the community. On so many issues, particularly in education, where they said they would not close schools and they would not sell the land, the community does not trust this government.
If we go back to the start of it, what the people who made comment in their submissions wanted was something more like the Queensland system. Why we cannot have the Queensland commission system which has a Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, with oversight by a commissioner of unit titles, is beyond me. It is a simple system. It works. It has a lot, I think, to make it attractive for units in the ACT. But, no, we have gone off with one of the most inappropriate pieces of legislation that is yet to make this place. And I think that is a shame.
This bill represents everything that is wrong with the Stanhope government and their approach to consultation, to legislation and to openness. The consultation was appallingly flawed. And you only have to look at how it was carried out. Do not take
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .