Posts Tagged ‘amendment’

Unit title Bill passed too soon

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

ACT Greens MLA Deb Foskey voted against the Unit Titles Amendment Bill last night arguing that more time was needed to ensure that the details of the regulatory scheme has been worked through with stakeholders, unit owners in particular.

“The ACT’s unit title regime has needed an overhaul for some time, but there are too many features of this Act unresolved or unclear for it to have been passed last night” Dr Foskey said today.

“One of the misconceptions appears to be the arrangement which would require managers to be licensed as Real Estate Agents. My understanding is that, in reality, managers would be licensed as managers, but under the Real Estate Agent provisions.”

“A bit more time in the drafting of the legislation could have resolved that issue, and a number of others.”

“I was pleased to see a number key elements in this Act including changes that rule out blanket bans on pets, provisions to ensure that body corporates and tenants deal directly with each other, and better protection for owners against the interests of developers in new unit title developments.”

“I have more serious concerns, however, with ill defined plans to cover the costs of the scheme, including access to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, by imposing a levy on all unit holders, or by garnisheeing the interest earned on trust accounts.”

“As it happens, Labor pushed through its legislation last night. I trust the Greens can work with a minority Government, after this election, to do any fine tuning that proves necessary” Dr Foskey said.

Human Rights Act lite

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

ACT Greens MLA Deb Foskey today said that the ACT Government’s adherence to its own Human Rights Act seems to be flagging.

“Recent legislation indicates that commitment to human rights less important to the ACT Government than I would have expected, given it was Australia’s first jurisdiction to adopt a Human Rights Act,” said Deb Foskey.

“The Greens supported the introduction of the Human Rights Act in 2004, with the expectation that the Government would address the complex issues around balancing human rights when it drafted new legislation.”

“The Liberal Opposition has always been opposed to the Human Rights Act, and it is up to the Government to champion its own Act and develop community acceptance of it. I fear that human rights may be the loser in the face of a populist approach to law and order issues.”

“We are supposed to trust that legislation is human rights compatible on the basis that each new Bill is accompanied by a bald statement claiming that it is. Neither the public, nor MLAs are shown any analysis to indicate that the human rights implications of a Bill have been considered.”

“For instance, in too many of the Government’s Bills this week, breaches of human rights aren’t even addressed in the Explanatory Statements, which is where the government tells us we will find evidence of this thinking.”

“The Crimes Amendment Bill 2008 for example represents a dramatic restriction on the rights of an accused person to challenge the strength of the prosecution’s case before a matter goes to trial. While this may be justified in some cases, the Government makes no attempt to justify why it is moving the goalposts in this way.”

“In New Zealand, a team of people prepares an analysis of each piece of legislation, which is publicly available on the internet. Sometimes derogation from the Human Rights Act is justifiable, but it is up to the Government to present the supporting arguments to show that any derogation is proportionate to the benefits gained.”

“I fear that after the splash of adopting a human rights act, the political will and resources to enact it properly weren’t provided.”

“Human rights are important as a basis for maintaining fairness in our society, and they need much more than token attention,” said Dr Foskey.