Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 621..
Amendment agreed to.
MS TUCKER (4.42): I move amendment No 8 circulated in my name, which I just spoke to [see schedule 2 part 1 at page 690].
MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (4.42): Mr Speaker, we agree to Ms Tucker's amendment No 8 but subject to the deletion of the words "direct or indirect". The clarification improves the bill but the additional words may have the effect of disqualifying a range of valuers-for example, someone with a superannuation entitlement would be disqualified from a number of property developments in the ACT. So we are quite happy to support the amendment but we could not support it if it contains the words "direct or indirect".
MR SPEAKER: If you wish to amend the amendment, you will need to put it in writing.
MR STEFANIAK: I think I may have to do that, Mr Speaker.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.43): I must say that I hate being presented with these things on the run. I wonder whether Ms Tucker might like to speak to her proposal and explain to me why I should not support the government in relation to the words "direct or indirect". I might just say to Ms Tucker that I genuinely would like a response. As I say, I am being forced to think about this at this moment. I would appreciate hearing from you, Ms Tucker, whether or not an indirect interest in the circumstance of this provision is not taking things just a little bit too far.
An indirect interest, for instance, could be ownership of a share in some sort of managed fund. I cannot agree that a valuer should be excluded or disqualified because he might have a managed fund share portfolio that contains a share in a company that just happens to have shares in a shopping mall or some such undertaking. It seems to me that perhaps the government has a point but I would like to hear your views on the late amendment that is to be proposed by the government.
MR KAINE (4.44): Mr Speaker, I will comment on this matter, and Ms Tucker may choose to defend herself. When I first read the amendment I had the same difficulty as the minister because it seemed to me to be a very wide definition of a possible reason to exclude somebody. It was not only indirect or direct but it applied to any commercial property ownership or commercial property management anywhere.
I took the question up with Ms Tucker and said, "I'm the person involved and I did have some minor involvement in the management of a property in Brisbane six months ago, but why would that exclude me?" I am satisfied with Ms Tucker's explanation. The point with this is that it is not an automatic exclusion. Somebody has to appeal to the court and have a person declared ineligible. By making the wording pretty broad, as Ms Tucker has done, it allows the magistrate or whoever is hearing the thing to consider what is relevant and what is not relevant and to make a judgment.