Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 23 August 2011) . . Page.. 3693 ..
much more unlikely that ACAT would accept and agree to such an order being made without having heard representations from the tenant. So I do not accept Mr Rattenbury’s argument that the government’s concern is unwarranted and the government will not be supporting that amendment.
I turn to the other amendments. Amendment 4 and amendment 5 deal with the issue which is proposed by amendments 1 and 2 relating to persons other than authorised persons making a listing. I have already outlined the issues of concern there. The same applies in relation to amendment 6. In relation to amendment 7, which provides for an example, the example I think is a belts and braces approach. I thank Mr Rattenbury for taking the suggestion of my officials and correcting the error in the example so that it is an accurate example. I am not fussed about whether or not we have an example; so the government has no objection to amendment 7, except that we believe the explanation is unnecessary. Amendment 8 deals with the listing authorities of persons, as do amendment 9 and amendment 10.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support the amendments proposed by Mr Rattenbury, except amendment 7, on which I would suggest perhaps that we are agnostic. For the reasons I have outlined, the government asks members to reject these proposals.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.53): I move:
That the question be divided
I have moved this motion on the basis that if members are agreeable we could do amendment No 7 by itself, amendment No 3 by itself and then the remainder as a group, if that is an acceptable way to proceed.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment 3 negatived.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendments 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 negatived.
Remainder of bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Motion (by Mr Corbell) proposed:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.