Page 370 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have a fundamental disagreement with the five years, and we have debated that already. What is being proposed by Mr Cornwell's amendment, if in fact we get past the in-principle stage, is that the discretion which is currently exercised by the Minister become an absolute bureaucratic discretion appealable through organs such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendment will place into the legislation a mechanism that will in itself be extremely cumbersome, time consuming and costly for our ACT Housing Trust to administer.
Mr Humphries: The trust has to agree now.
MR LAMONT: No, it does not. The discretion exercised at the moment is not appealable, in my understanding.
Mr Humphries: It is not referred to here either.
MR LAMONT: Yes, it will be.
Mr Humphries: Why?
MR LAMONT: My understanding is that it will in fact become a statutory provision and therefore will be appealable.
Mr Connolly: Who knows? We have seen it for 30 seconds.
MR LAMONT: With the 30-second notification that has been given, our view is that it is more than likely that that will be the case. We do not believe that the foreshadowed amendment answers any question or goes any way towards enhancing the Bill. In fact, the reason why I have sought leave to speak at the in-principle stage is to ensure that members are aware of these concerns and understand that these issues need addressing.
There has been some suggestion that this debate may now be further adjourned. That does not need to happen. It does not need to be adjourned. The proposed amendment adds nothing to the Bill. It puts a greater obligation on the Housing Trust. It does not change the purpose of Mr Cornwell's Bill - that is, to change the time period from eight years to five years. In fact, it just places further encumbrances on how that discretion is currently exercised - and I think appropriately exercised. I suggest that members vote against agreeing to the Bill in principle.
MR STEVENSON: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to speak briefly again.
Leave granted.
MR STEVENSON: The reason I proposed that the matter be sent to a committee was - - -
Mr Connolly: You will be willing to serve on this committee, Mr Stevenson?
MR STEVENSON: I do not really want to go into all the details of that again. Mention it again, and I will be happy to do so. One more word and I will; make no mistake.
Mr Connolly: You will be willing to serve on this committee, will you, Mr Stevenson?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .