Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1667 ..

Detail Stage

Debate resumed.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Community Safety and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) (4.52): Mr Speaker, I move:

Page 2, lines 35-39, clause 5, subclause (2), omit the subclause.

Very briefly, the scrutiny of Bills committee or the Justice and Community Safety Committee, as it is now called, recommended that we reconsider subclause 5(2) of the Bill. The Bill essentially provides for what is described in the report as a veto power - that might be going too far. It was described as a power to hold up or block certain changes to the formula for administering or for imposing the levy if the insurance companies concerned did not express agreement with that course of action. I am, in the present circumstances, very willing to see removed from the Bill any particular options or prerogatives granted to the insurance companies. I am, therefore, taking up the suggestion of the committee and moving for the omission of the clause.

MR QUINLAN (4.53): Mr Speaker, we do not oppose the amendment to the Bill. It gave considerable clout to the insurance industry after the initial levy was applied, which was probably better than nothing given the lack of consultation before the Bill was struck. It has been recommended that it be removed from the Bill by the scrutiny of Bills committee so we must, I think, bow to that opinion. We have no objection to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Proposed new clause 7A

MR KAINE (4.54): Mr Speaker, I have prepared an amendment which I have not had an opportunity to circulate. If I can read it now and then ask the Clerk to circulate it, I would appreciate it. I wish to move an amendment to add a new section 7A to the Bill. My amendment flows from a question that I asked the Minister earlier which he did not answer. It had to do with the fact that my information is that residential units administered by a body corporate immediately become susceptible to a levy at the business rate when, in fact, they are not business entities. I would like to legislate against that. I move:

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: Page 4, line 10:

"7A. In assessing the levies in accordance with clauses 6 and 7, the total amount assessable (AP in the formula) shall account for premiums to be paid by bodies corporate under the Unit Titles Act at the rate applicable to residential property, not that applicable to commercial property, in respect of all units that are owner-occupied.".

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .