Page 1470 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
commitments from the Labor Party, and I hope that Mrs Dunne will recognise that what the Attorney-General has committed the government to today a few minutes ago is, in fact, a positive in terms of community engagement and the ongoing reform of the act.
In conclusion, I would just like to restate that this is very important legislation. It will govern how a considerable number of people in our community live together. We recognise that, like other legislation, it is not perfect, but we are convinced that it is an improvement on the legislation that went before it.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.18), in reply: It is usually at this time of a debate that members stand in their place and thank members for their support. It is unfortunate that, on behalf of the Canberra community and the people who own and occupy 30,000 unit title dwellings in Canberra, I cannot thank the crossbench and the government for supporting this measured and quite small delay in the introduction of what is, as Ms Le Couteur rightly says, important and vital legislation, but legislation which unfairly impacts upon people in the ACT.
It is interesting that the minister can stand there, without his law degree, and say, “Mrs Dunne does not understand anything about the unit titles legislation.” Mrs Dunne has been dealing with the unit titles legislation as a member and as a staffer in this place, for 12 years, and I have dealt with constituent concerns, particularly over the last six to eight months. I think that I have a fairly good understanding of the unit titles legislation. It is certainly not the in-depth knowledge that some of the officers that I have dealt with over the years have, and that it is knowledge that I defer to. But it is not knowledge and advice that I will simply take on board because an officer who has dealt with this matter for a long time says that this is the way it should be.
I need to compliment the departmental officials on the service that they have provided to the community and to members of the Assembly over a long period of time on this, particularly since this matter has come within the purview of the Attorney-General’s Department. The officials who attended the recent public meeting were an exemplar of how officials should behave at a public meeting. They were clear and cogent. They did not dissemble, and they were sort of up-front with people. It was a great thing to see, but the thing that I would have preferred to see in addition to that was the minister there hearing what these people had to say.
It was interesting the number of times in the course of the minister’s comments that he said “constituents” or “unit title owners” had “told my officers”. No-one had told Simon Corbell, because he is not out there listening; he is not out there talking to the people. He issued a statement today, but the assurances in that statement, I have been assured by members of the community—not just the owners but a wide range of people—are not sufficient to allay their concerns.
We made a commitment as a result of attending a meeting. Yes, Mr Corbell might like to joke about that, but this was serious consultation and I made commitments. The community asked the attendees at the meeting, “Why is it not the case that we cannot delay the introduction of this legislation?” That is what they asked for. It was not just
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .