Page 3206 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 20 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is the irony of this, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we had not had these massive changes to regulations, I have no doubt that more clubs would be further along the line to diversification. As a consequence of the change that is going on, they cannot find the time and the resources to do it. Further to this, the minister refuses to consult with, work with or even meet with local clubs, barring a select few, to work through the various issues in his approach to policy. Everyone knows what is going on here. We all know what is going on. It is continually pointed out by our good friend Mr Stanhope, one of the great Labor leaders of this town, who continues to point out that we have this angry thing going on; we have revenge that is being wreaked upon ClubsACT and all those who are associated with it.
That is not the way that people in the ACT expect governments to behave. Those within the industry who must deal with this minister’s wilful blindness are fed up. They are absolutely fed up with being ignored. It is no surprise that they have nothing positive to say about the minister. Ridiculously, I find myself sticking up for him on occasions when sitting around talking to club executives, but it is difficult. I would heartily welcome a change of method from the minister. However, like many in the industry, I will not be holding my breath waiting for a more commonsense approach.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Public Trustee and Guardian—1.19
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.08): Madam Deputy Speaker, I know the office of the public trustee does not get a lot of focus in the budget and often does not have any words said about it, but I thought I would say something this year. As members may be aware, the estimates committee did make a recommendation, 120, on the subject. The committee recommended:
… that the ACT Government make it the clear responsibility of the Public Trustee and Guardian to administer the affairs if someone dies intestate with no obvious relatives and fund the Public Trustee and Guardian to do this as a community service obligation.
The government’s response was unhelpful. It said:
The Government encourages all citizens to have a valid will in place to ensure that their estate will be administered … The PTG currently only administers estates intestate in circumstances where they are appointed by a court or requested to by the next of kin. These services are provided on a fee for service basis. The Government will consider options to expand the reach of these services.
That is all very well, but it did not deal with the reason that I realised there is an issue here. I was approached by a landlord who had a tenant die in their property. They thought the public trustee would be responsible in this circumstance. The public trustee said, “No, not us.” It has taken four months, as I understand it, and the matter is still not resolved. ACAT found that the public trustee’s office should be responsible. I imagine many landlords just chuck everything out, take it all down to the tip or something. This landlord is trying to do the right thing and find the next of kin. None of this seems at all easy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video