Page 1095 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine raised particular issues concerning section 13 and the conferral on Queensland of jurisdiction of certain matters. This simply is a reflection of the fact that this is a national scheme and that, rather than set up eight separate tribunals, all jurisdictions have agreed that these matters should be heard by Queensland. It is a national scheme and some State had to take responsibility for those matters. In this case it is Queensland, and other States and Territories have agreed to that.
Mr Cornwell: You certainly were not going to give it to Victoria, were you?
MS FOLLETT: I note Mr Cornwell's comment with great interest, Madam Speaker. The section 13 provision is not a cause for alarm; it is merely a reflection of the national nature of this scheme. Mr Kaine has also raised the question of section 39 of the code. In regard to this matter, Madam Speaker, what is reflected is the particular status of the ACT in relation to the self-government Act. We have limited powers over corporations and our implementation of section 39 of the code has to reflect the fact that we do not have total control over corporations law in the ACT. That is reflected.
Madam Speaker, those were the only specific issues raised in the debate. I assure members that this legislation, whilst it is complex, is for the good of the community. If members wish to be further briefed on this legislation or, indeed, on any legislation of which I have carriage, Madam Speaker, I am always amenable to a request for further briefing - always, and I mean that very sincerely. I certainly do not intend members to be mystified or uninformed on legislation that I put before this Assembly. This is complex and it is a quite large wad of legislation; but I think members can take some comfort from the fact that it is a national scheme, that we are one of the later jurisdictions to be implementing this national scheme, and that, in fact, it is a scheme that is being proposed in order to better protect the depositors in the ACT and to ensure much better standards of non-bank financial institutions in the ACT. I would urge members to support the legislation.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY) BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 17 June 1992, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .