Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 7 Hansard (17 August) . . Page.. 2304..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
Supreme Court, who should not be subject to a superannuation surcharge because he was appointed before the surcharge tax was introduced in December 1997.
These amendments to the Supreme Court Act 1933 will remove any lingering doubts or uncertainty in relation to an ACT judge's entitlements under the Judicial Pensions Act 1968, a commonwealth law that applies in the territory and treats ACT judges the same as Federal Court judges in relation to superannuation entitlements. Federal Court and ACT judges appointed after 5 June 1997 but before 7 December 1997 were not subject to a superannuation surcharge levy. Federal Court and ACT judges appointed on or after 7 December 1997, but before 1 July 2005 when the surcharge levy was abolished, were required to pay the superannuation surcharge. However, the commonwealth has now indicated that it will not apply the surcharge levy to this group of people.
Even though the commonwealth has now taken the view that judges will not be liable to the superannuation surcharge levy, it is important that the government puts beyond doubt any future possibility that ACT judges might be subject to double taxation or discrimination between the remuneration of an ACT judge and an identical officeholder in the commonwealth judiciary. These amendments will keep the judges indemnified from any surcharge demand, on the basis that a Federal Court judge will not be subject to the surcharge levy and will indemnify resident judges against the risk of double taxation. The bill will provide certainty and independent determination of judicial remuneration and superannuation entitlements, an important plank of judicial independence. I commend the bill to the Assembly
Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak ) adjourned to the next sitting.
Subordinate law SL2006-13
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.59): I move:
That Subordinate Law SL2006-13 being the Land (Planning and Environment) Amendment Regulation 2006 (No 2) be disallowed.
The explanatory statement to this disallowance motion contains a detailed discussion of the effect of the proposed regulation without giving any justification for it. The explanatory statement also discusses why, based on case law, the government feels that the regulation will not be in breach of the Human Rights Act. Again, there is no justification for this, merely an argument why the diminution of rights is not enough to constitute a breach. Thirdly, the explanatory statement argues that the limitation on rights is justified proportional because the regulation will increase certainty, reduce delays and costs and facilitate development, especially in Civic.
Of course, developers would like to have more certainty, lower costs and reduced delays. But this is a democratic system and certainly the Labor Party's platform recognises the interests and views of the community as still being important. This means that some constraints on development are desirable to enable community interests and views to be expressed and incorporated into the planning process. The reason I moved this disallowance motion in the first place was that I was concerned that this regulation was