Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 3755 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
This amendment relates to the paragraph in the Bill that states that an agreement may contain a provision allowing the agreement to be varied other than by agreement between the parties. The word "may" worries me as it gives the impression that some agreements may contain this provision and some may not, which just creates uncertainty and scope for unequal treatment between lessees. I think it is best for all parties that the Bill make clear that the LMA will provide for its variation other than by agreement between the parties, otherwise the situation could arise where it would not be possible to reach an agreement because of an ongoing dispute between the lessee and the officials. There has to be a mechanism in place to resolve these disputes in the negotiation of new LMAs.
MR CORBELL (5.18): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will be supporting this amendment. Clearly, the ambiguity in the current wording is not satisfactory. All rural lessees should be treated equally in this regard and there should be a clear understanding that all leases could be varied other than by agreement between the two parties. The current wording simply creates an ambiguity there which we do not believe is appropriate. That is why we will be supporting Ms Tucker's amendment.
MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.19): Mr Speaker, the Government will oppose the amendment. The LMA pro forma provides that a review of the agreement can be instigated by either party. The dispute mechanism is in the agreement and the Government's latest amendment will allow for appeal rights to the AAT. It can remain as made; it does not have to be amended.
Amendment negatived.
MS TUCKER (5.20): I move:
Page 4, line 6, proposed clause 186C, add the following subclause:
"(5) A form approved for paragraph (2) (a) is a disallowable instrument for section 10 of the Subordinate Laws Act 1989.".
This amendment provides for the agreement pro forma to be a disallowable instrument. That is a standard accountability mechanism which will give the Assembly the chance to have input on the form of LMAs. Obviously, MLAs cannot be involved in the negotiation of individual LMAs, but I think that MLAs should have at least the chance to examine the standard form that will be used for the LMAs to ensure that it adequately covers all issues relating to the environmental management of rural leases.
MR CORBELL
(5.21): Once again, Mr Speaker, the Government should not be afraid of these types of documents being disallowable instruments. Indeed, members in considering this Bill will have received a copy of the pro forma to see exactly what is in it. As Ms Tucker quite correctly points out, individual MLAs should not be involved in any way in the negotiation between the department and the rural leaseholder in relation to their land management agreement. However, the pro forma does set out certain terms and conditions and the general layout of how an LMA will be structured and it is simply not appropriate that the Assembly not have the opportunity just to say, "We do not believe that that is an appropriate way generally to structure the LMA. You need to be looking at
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .