Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 10 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 3608..
Planning—unit owner corporations
MR MULCAHY: My question is to the Minister for Planning and relates to the Unit Titles Amendment Bill. Minister, you have removed from the first draft of the Unit Titles Amendment Bill the provision it mandated that unit owner corporations put money into trust funds the interest of which would go to the ACT government. My understanding was that this component of the bill was to fund the new ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Minister, can you advise whether the government has now resolved to introduce a user-pays charge on unit owner corporations?
Mrs Dunne: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think that this is on the blue for debate today and that it therefore pre-empts debate.
MR SPEAKER: Repeat that, please, Mrs Dunne.
Mrs Dunne: This question relates to the unit title legislation, which is on the blue for debate today. I think that pre-empts debate.
Ms MacDonald: It has to be on the notice paper.
Mr Seselja: It is on the notice paper.
MR SPEAKER: The Clerk reminds me that we took that standing order out in the review of the standing orders.
Mrs Dunne: Okay.
Mr Corbell: On the point of order, though, Mr Speaker, Mr Mulcahy is asking the minister to announce executive policy, and that is contrary to the standing orders.
MR SPEAKER: You cannot ask a minister to announce executive policy.
MR MULCAHY: I have not asked him to announce policy. I asked if a decision had been taken in the past, and I asked it in the past tense—as to whether the government had resolved this matter.
Mr Corbell: Has the government resolved to—isn't that an announcement?
MR SPEAKER: Mr Corbell, he has not asked for the announcement of a new policy; he has asked for a clarification of the government's position on it.
MR BARR: I thank Mr Mulcahy for the question and I note his interest in this matter. I know that he has convened a number of meetings with stakeholders and has adopted a constructive approach to negotiating with the government in relation to this legislation.
It stands in marked contrast to the falsehoods that have been perpetrated by the Leader of the Opposition, who refuses to recognise the removal of the particular provisions