Page 3031 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011

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

Ayes 10

Noes 7

Ms Bresnan

Ms Hunter

Mr Barr

Mr Hargreaves

Mr Coe

Ms Le Couteur

Dr Bourke

Ms Porter

Mr Doszpot

Mr Rattenbury

Ms Burch

Mrs Dunne

Mr Seselja

Mr Corbell

Mr Hanson

Mr Smyth

Ms Gallagher

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.19): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 3178].

This amendment would ensure that the act commences on the day after its notification. The bill will commence on notification and this would amend the Greens proposal to have the new arrangements start on 1 September 2011. There are a number of reasons we have done that and the clauses work together. But in very simple terms, we wanted to make sure all contracts are honoured.

Our amendments will ensure that all contracts are honoured. Anyone who signed up to the scheme prior to 31 May will have those contracts honoured. We believe that is fundamental. We believe that people who act in good faith should not retrospectively have their contractual rights taken away from them. That is very important.

Those mums and dads who took advantage of the scheme before 31 May should get access to that rate and people taking up the scheme after that will get access to a lower rate. We believe that is a fair approach, we believe that is the right approach and that that is the best way to keep faith with the community. I commend the amendments.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.20): The Greens will be supporting this amendment from Mr Seselja. I think when we drafted the legislation we had the same intent. It is fair to say, though, that in thinking through it, Mr Seselja has made the improvement we had in mind.

I think that our approach would have done more or less the same thing but certainly there was a possibility that some people would not have their systems installed by 1 September. Whilst that may seem unlikely based on the evidence we have, I think that Mr Seselja’s approach does ensure that that case may not arise. We will be happy to support the amendment as suggested.

Amendment agreed to.

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