Page 297 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 31 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
WOMEN - PRIORITY IN EMPLOYMENT
DR KINLOCH: My question is addressed to the Minister for teaching, undertaking, gardening, golf, education, rugby, athletics, nasturtiums, organic compost, nags and gymnastics.
Mr Whalan: What is the acronym?
DR KINLOCH: Work it out! In the case of both the ACT Schools Office and the ACT Institute of TAFE all senior officers are men. What actions are being taken to ensure that women, who are such a large proportion of the teaching and administrative resources in both institutions, will in future be given priority in appointments to major decision making positions?
MR WHALAN: The Government has a general policy in this particular area, and we are setting in place mechanisms which will ensure that the objectives which Dr Kinloch clearly espouses will in fact be met. I can assure him that I will be making a ministerial statement on that issue as it relates to all components of my department at the next session of the Assembly.
SHARE TRANSFERS
MR KAINE: I would like to direct a question to the Chief Minister and Treasurer. Chief Minister, in May of this year - and I know you are going to say this is before your time, but I am going to give you some details and ask you for a comment - the Collector of ACT Revenue put out an information circular which said that a determination had been made by the Minister which changed the method of assessment of duty on the transfer of private company shares and units in private unit trust schemes where that company or trust owns an interest in land in the ACT.
My information is that there was a change made on 5 May by the Minister. That change was made to the levying of a tax with no publicity whatsoever, no public consultation, and that the change that was made in effect goes way beyond any legislation affecting land holding companies anywhere else in Australia. For example, in other places in Australia where there is a transfer of shares related to value of land a levy is imposed only where the transaction exceeds $1m. This affects even a transfer involving $1. It appears on the face of it to be quite draconian. It has been done without publicity and consultation. First of all, are you aware of this? Secondly, if you are not, will you undertake to have this reviewed? If you find it to be as unacceptable as I do, will you move to have this information circular rescinded and give further consideration to the matter after public consultation before any such change is made?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .