Page 1236 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
He went on to say that regulations “will, as a general rule, be submitted for consideration by the Legislative Assembly through further consequential amendments bills”. This may be so, but such an approach asks the Assembly to be a mere rubber stamp and not to perform its fundamental function of making laws for the good governance of the territory.
While I am cautious about this process, I do acknowledge that the process is set up in order to transfer powers to the commonwealth over a relatively short period—13 months if the government adheres to the timetable set out in the attorney’s presentation speech. Were this to be an ongoing power given in an ongoing act of this Assembly, I would be even more cautious about allowing the executive such a power.
For this bill, I do not object to the proposed approach, especially as it is to enable the government to respond quickly and effectively to any developments that may arise in the transition process. Nonetheless, I will monitor the progress and I call upon the attorney to ensure that the Assembly is kept fully informed of that progress. In particular, I call upon the attorney to ensure that any regulations the executive makes are presented to the Assembly in the form of consequential amendment bills without delay.
Another matter commented upon by the scrutiny committee was the power given to the New South Wales registrar-general to refuse to exercise a registration function. The registrar may do this during the so-called pre-PPS transition period. This is in order to allow registration of personal property securities on the commonwealth register in readiness for the registration commencement date.
The committee noted that the provision “does not state any grounds that condition an exercise of the power”. I am told, through a briefing, that the pre-PPS period is one month. On balance, therefore, I do not consider this to be a particularly troublesome provision. But, once again, we will have to monitor its progress.
Finally, let me say this: in a briefing I received on this bill last week—I thank the attorney for arranging the briefing and the officials who attended—I asked how the transition of these functions to the commonwealth will impact on the territory’s financing and staff. Whilst only some of these questions have been answered so far, I do not anticipate any significant impact. Indeed, there may be a cost saving in that the ACT-New South Wales encumbered vehicles registration arrangements ultimately will lapse.
Some would argue that this reform is de-federalisation by stealth; that it is somehow one of the small steps for man in a giant leap towards the centralisation of state-based powers. There is an open debate as to whether this is desirable or not. In the case of the bill before us today, centralising the register of encumbered personal property will create efficiencies and more certainty. This will be so particularly for consumers who want to ensure that the goods they buy are free from encumbrances.
How often have we seen and heard the sad stories and tales of unwary individuals, proud of their new car purchase, left with the trauma of their newly acquired asset being seized by a collection agency because the previous owner had defaulted on a loan for which the car was security. One single national online register will make for easier cross-jurisdictional transactions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video