Page 5175 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991

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

---

Question put:

That the proposed new clause (Mr Stevenson's) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 1  NOES, 16 

Mr Stevenson Mr Berry

 Mr Collaery
 Mr Connolly
 Mr Duby
 Ms Follett
 Mrs Grassby
 Mr Humphries
 Mr Jensen
 Mr Kaine
 Dr Kinloch
 Ms Maher
 Mr Moore
 Mrs Nolan
 Mr Prowse
 Mr Stefaniak
 Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 45 to 54 taken together

MR STEVENSON (10.08), by leave: I move:

Clause 48 -

Page 22, subparagraph (1)(a), line 34, omit all the words after "be", substitute "effectively unable to carry out the work that is the object of the position concerned; or".

Page 23, subclause (2), line 5, omit "essential to", substitute "the object of".

Clause 49, page 23, line 17, omit all words after the word "be", substitute "effectively unable to carry out the work that is the object of the position concerned.".

Basically, why I move the amendments is to carry the clause a little further, to talk about the person being effectively unable to carry out the work that is the object of the position concerned. Otherwise, you can have a situation where someone might be required to hire someone who really cannot do the job; unfortunate though it may be, they do not have the capacity to do the job correctly. It may be that they take a lot longer. There are other possibilities. That is why I think it would be reasonable to put in that they are effectively unable to carry out the work that is the object of the position. The proposed amendment to clause 49 is, of course, similar.

---

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